Freedom of speech?

"The dozens of demonstrators argued Monday that the Creation Museum's central tenets conflict with scientific evidence that the Earth is several billion years old."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276153,00.html

I guess religion isn't the thing that has its followers only wanting their
views heard and want all other points of views cut off.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
"The dozens of demonstrators argued Monday that the Creation Museum's central tenets conflict with scientific evidence that the Earth is several billion years old."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276153,00.html

I guess religion isn't the thing that has its followers only wanting their
views heard and want all other points of views cut off.
Kelly

Do you believe people have a right to protest at abortion clinics?

Originally posted by KellyJay
"The dozens of demonstrators argued Monday that the Creation Museum's central tenets conflict with scientific evidence that the Earth is several billion years old."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276153,00.html

I guess religion isn't the thing that has its followers only wanting their
views heard and want all other points of views cut off.
Kelly

Provide evidence of a 6,000 year old planet, then we'll have a debate.

Originally posted by KellyJay
"The dozens of demonstrators argued Monday that the Creation Museum's central tenets conflict with scientific evidence that the Earth is several billion years old."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276153,00.html

I guess religion isn't the thing that has its followers only wanting their
views heard and want all other points of views cut off.
Kelly

Do you think it is right or wrong to challenge a con-man?

Originally posted by KellyJay
"The dozens of demonstrators argued Monday that the Creation Museum's central tenets conflict with scientific evidence that the Earth is several billion years old."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276153,00.html

I guess religion isn't the thing that has its followers only wanting their
views heard and want all other points of views cut off.
Kelly

Why do so many people think that freedom of speech includes a right not to be criticized?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Provide evidence of a 6,000 year old planet, then we'll have a debate.

Its all the same evidence.
Kelly

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Why do so many people think that freedom of speech includes a right not to be criticized?

Criticizing is one thing wanting to shut down or shut up someone
else is another.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Its all the same evidence.
Kelly

No it isn't. Don't be stupid. There is no evidence whatsoever for a 6,000 year old planet.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Criticizing is one thing wanting to shut down or shut up someone
else is another.
Kelly

So, you are saying that these people have no right to want this insult to truth and reality to close down?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Criticizing is one thing wanting to shut down or shut up someone
else is another.
Kelly

And what's wrong with wanting to shut someone down? Or up?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Criticizing is one thing wanting to shut down or shut up someone
else is another.
Kelly

And how would this apply to protesters at abortion clinics? Do you criticize them for trying to shut down the clinics? If not, then you are a hypocrite. Although that should come as no great surprise.

I tried talking about the museum by making a thread on it but no one responded and I thought no one had an interest. Oh well, I have an interest so I will put in my two cents. I am a Christian just like Kelly and was told as a Christian that evolution was wrong and is an evil doctrine. However, just like Scotty I have always had an interst and love for science, so needless to say, I was in a dilemma. However, after much soul searching and reading of scripture and reading about evolution and other Christian perspectives on the matter I found that I had been lied to. The embrace of scientific data does not necessitate the rejection of the Bible. I have read enough to know this and have tried to explain my position on other threads by introducing such books as Dr. Schroeders book on Genesis and the Big Bang. From Chrisitans on this site I have heard nothing in response which I can only assume is a quite disapproval and from atheists I have heard nothing but critism about what I have written about some of his ideas. I think the reasons for this in terms of Christian disapproval is that evolution is seen as a vehicle for explaining the progress of life devoid of the living God. However, science is merely the study of the natural universe that came from a God that is not material in nature and, therefore, not studiable scientifically. Therefore, science ONLY seeks the truth in terms of how life relates to the material world. Why is this wrong? Conversely, we have the atheists on the other side who use science as a vehicle to reject religions in general because of their fundamentalist rejection of science in general over the years. I think it would be a very frightening prospect indeed if science was no longer seen as incompatible with the Bible, for example. How scary would that be for the atheist? I think that is a large reason in why such books as Genesis and the Big Bang are attacked so vehemently in regards to atheists.

So here we stand at this museum which I think is an absolute travesty on several levels. Number one, it makes those of faith appear indifferent and irrational in terms of scientific truths that have been uncovered just like those who are atheists and who appear to be indifferent and irrational about the truths scripture reveals to the believer. Secondly, about 27 million dollars had been raised to build this museum. I realizes that many defend such spending as nothing but a vehicle for converting those who have been taught evolution and believed it. However, this is because the church has insisted that one must reject the Bible if they are to embrace evolution. Who's fault is that? Is it the fault of scientists? I wonder what they would have done back in the day of Galileo? Perhaps a museum in which the universe is seen as orbiting the earth?

Originally posted by whodey
I tried talking about the museum by making a thread on it but no one responded and I thought no one had an interest. Oh well, I have an interest so I will put in my two cents. I am a Christian just like Kelly and was told as a Christian that evolution was wrong and is an evil doctrine. However, just like Scotty I have always had an interst and love for sci ...[text shortened]... k in the day of Galileo? Perhaps a museum in which the universe is seen as orbiting the earth?

Nice post whodey, although, of course, I have a couple of thoughts.

I do not think that Christianity is incompatible with science, one can believe in God yet still believe in the whole, monstrous, edifice of science. A literal interpretation of the bible, is a different story, however...

I think if the bible reveals and "truths" then they are merely the truths of the person, they allow people a vehicle to look at themselves, which is not a bad thing.

My beef is with people overtly lying to further their political or religious position.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
A literal interpretation of the bible, is a different story, however...

Yes and no. As Dr. Schroeder states, the evaluation of data is both interprative and literal in nature. For example, if one were a scientist and looked out into the heavens and saw the sun and planets moving about but also stars in the distance that seemed to be in a "fixed" position, one would assume that those in a fixed position are not moving. Is this wrong? Well, it is in terms of the overall truth but on the surface it is "right" in that this is the most simplistic explanation and such observation is accurate in and of itself. So it is with scripture. Just because the words appear to say one thing in no way means that they are meaningless or "wrong". Why is it that the evaluation of scripture must either be simplistic and literal and devoid of an interprative nature without any further investigation as well? Science and theology are both a search for truth so why must one be a search and the other a "take it as you see it" reading? Dr. Schroeder digs deeper into the root Hebrew words used in Genesis as well as ancient Jewish scholars who were better at interpreting the original Torah in Hebrew. He uses such men as Onkelos (150 CE), Maimonides (1135-1204 CE), Nahmanides, (1194-1270 CE) and and Rashi (1040 CE). He then mixes in their finding with his own scientific theories as to how Genesis and science may cohabitate with each other. You may not agree with everything he says, but it is a facinating read and may open your mind a bit whether you be Christian or atheist.

Originally posted by whodey
Yes and no. As Dr. Schroeder states, the evaluation of data is both interprative and literal in nature. For example, if one were a scientist and looked out into the heavens and saw the sun and planets moving about but also stars in the distance that seemed to be in a "fixed" position, one would assume that those in a fixed position are not moving. Is this ...[text shortened]... t is a facinating read and may open your mind a bit whether you be Christian or atheist.

But even if we take the creation account of genesis literally, it's still woefully inadequate in several places, most notably the light - sun - land plants fiasco. The bible emphatically states that both light and plants were created before the sun. This is incorrect by about 30% the age of the sun if we include plankton and cyanobacteria, and more than 90% out is only land plants are considered.