Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Creation/Evolution
 Ken Ham: not even a very good liar.
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 9

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 07/26/2010 :  15:55:42  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
As we are all aware, the Smithsonian National Museum has opened a Human Origins exhibit and has neglected to mention anything about "God Doin' It." As might be expected this omission did not sit well with the hacks in Petersburg, KY, who have their own museum of sorts, and are now whining about the Smithsonian teaching *gasp* atheism!
The National Museum of Natural History, funded by donations and tax money, recently opened its new exhibition on human origins. The NMNH in Washington D.C. is one of the famed Smithsonian Museums.

To build this exhibition, called the Hall of Human Origins, the Smithsonian spent almost as much money as we did to build the entire 70,000 square-foot, high-tech Creation Museum near Cincinnati!

The purpose of this exhibit on the origin of man is not only to indoctrinate children and adults in evolution, but also atheism!

This is stupid even for Ham. I will happily wager that the A-word cannot be found anywhere in the Hall of Human Origins. All anyone will find in there is fossils, accurate text and illustrations representing the geologic record in the order of that record. That ain't atheism; it's science. They don't do no science in up there in Petersburg, KY.

Down toward the end of the article, we find this:
One of the methods used to impose an atheistic religion on children is deception. For instance, in the educator guide for grades 5–12 that was designed to help reinforce the evolutionary teachings of the Smithsonian’s human origins exhibit, there is a list of so-called “Misconceptions About Evolution.” Under one of them, it states: “humans were definitely not the last organism to evolve. Numerous other species have evolved since the onset of human evolution.”

The word evolution is not defined. In the first instance, evolution is being used in the molecules-to-man sense, with eventually ape-like creatures evolving into humans.

What I get from this load of amusing dreck is that they are running out of arguments and so resort to accusations of "atheism." I don't know what they hope to accomplish beyond preaching to the choir, who will feel that their darkest fears are vindicated. But I suppose that's all it takes to keep the donations rolling in.

Link




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!


Edited by - filthy on 07/26/2010 16:01:46

Hawks
SFN Regular

Canada
1383 Posts

Posted - 07/26/2010 :  16:42:39   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Hawks's Homepage Send Hawks a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Perhaps there should always be a disclaimer in scientific writings and exhibits. Something along the lines of:

"Poof" is an alternative to the theories presented here. Please substitute poof for anything you like.

METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden!
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 07/27/2010 :  01:54:12   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
As an atheist myself, I appreciate Ken Ham's lies in equating science with atheism.

If Ham wants to make people choose between accepting his Garden of Eden/Noah's Ark bunk, or well over a century of growing science (re-branded by him as "atheism"), then more power to him. Science=Atheism? Sounds good to me. Thanks for the freebie, Ken!

But Ham must really piss off the accomodationists. I wonder, will they complain about his harsh tone?

Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 07/27/2010 :  05:17:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by filthy


As we are all aware, the Smithsonian National Museum has opened a Human Origins exhibit and has neglected to mention anything about "God Doin' It."






Here is the problem my filthy friend. In this country the majority subscribe to a divine creator as the origin of all life as opposed to those in the minority, who don't. Both sides pay taxes. Our side no more wants tax money to be used to fund a museum display which is promoting an atheistic world view on the origin of man then the anti-theist wants tax money used to promote a theist world view on said origins. I mean the anti-theists people have a coronary if a manger scene is displayed at a courthouse over Christmas but yet they don't see a problem using tax money to fund a museum scene depicting an atheistic world view on the origin man???? If the atheist people want to have a display in the public realm promoting their beliefs then let them fund it privately just as the Ken Ham people have done. Again, when you consider how ballistic the atheists get just when a town puts up a Merry Christmas sign I am a little surprised you are having trouble wrapping your mind around this one.

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Edited by - Bill scott on 07/27/2010 05:19:10
Go to Top of Page

Ebone4rock
SFN Regular

USA
894 Posts

Posted - 07/27/2010 :  05:31:33   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Ebone4rock a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Bill scott

Originally posted by filthy


As we are all aware, the Smithsonian National Museum has opened a Human Origins exhibit and has neglected to mention anything about "God Doin' It."






Here is the problem my filthy friend. In this country the majority subscribe to a divine creator as the origin of all life as opposed to those in the minority, who don't. Both sides pay taxes. Our side no more wants tax money to be used to fund a museum display which is promoting an atheistic world view on the origin of man then the anti-theist wants tax money used to promote a theist world view on said origins. I mean the anti-theists people have a coronary if a manger scene is displayed at a courthouse over Christmas but yet they don't see a problem using tax money to fund a museum scene depicting an atheistic world view on the origin man???? If the atheist people want to have a display in the public realm promoting their beliefs then let them fund it privately just as the Ken Ham people have done. Again, when you consider how ballistic the atheists get just when a town puts up a Merry Christmas sign I am a little surprised you are having trouble wrapping your mind around this one.


The problem with this logic is that just because the majority of the people believe something that does not necessarily make it true. The Smithsonian is a Science museum, not a creation museum. Politics, religion, and science do not mix. You can't change scientific fact just because it upsets some people.

Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring
Edited by - Ebone4rock on 07/27/2010 05:36:35
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 07/27/2010 :  06:13:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Ebone4rock

Originally posted by Bill scott

Originally posted by filthy


As we are all aware, the Smithsonian National Museum has opened a Human Origins exhibit and has neglected to mention anything about "God Doin' It."






Here is the problem my filthy friend. In this country the majority subscribe to a divine creator as the origin of all life as opposed to those in the minority, who don't. Both sides pay taxes. Our side no more wants tax money to be used to fund a museum display which is promoting an atheistic world view on the origin of man then the anti-theist wants tax money used to promote a theist world view on said origins. I mean the anti-theists people have a coronary if a manger scene is displayed at a courthouse over Christmas but yet they don't see a problem using tax money to fund a museum scene depicting an atheistic world view on the origin man???? If the atheist people want to have a display in the public realm promoting their beliefs then let them fund it privately just as the Ken Ham people have done. Again, when you consider how ballistic the atheists get just when a town puts up a Merry Christmas sign I am a little surprised you are having trouble wrapping your mind around this one.


The problem with this logic is that just because the majority of the people believe something that does not necessarily make it true. The Smithsonian is a Science museum, not a creation museum. Politics, religion, and science do not mix. You can't change scientific fact just because it upsets some people.



Here is the deal. You and I can both put on our best apologetic game faces and debate the science of a divine first cause vs. an unknown first cause until the cows come home. In the end we will still have a country where the majority subscribe to a divine creator and a minority who does not and both sides pay into the same tax system. So there are only two ways to use this tax money fairly. You can have the government use the money to support and fund both sides of the coin. In other words the museum should say while some subscribe to the atheistic explanation for the origin of life many others subscribe to theistic origin of life and spend an equal amount of money promoting both belief systems. Or you can have the government support neither belief system and instead use the money to pay for unemployment benefits and paying down the national dept. I prefer the latter. But again the point being I no more want the federal government pushing an atheistic belief system on my children using my tax dollars to boot then you want the federal government to push a theistic belief system on your children using your tax dollars. Fair is fair. What is so hard to comprehend about that?

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 07/27/2010 :  06:26:49   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Ebone4rock




You can't change scientific fact just because it upsets some people.


I would agree. And the scientific fact is that you do not know the first cause of human life. Your belief is that the first cause is not divine in nature but you do not know this for a fact, it's simply your belief. So the museum display is not based off of science but rather a set of beliefs.

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Edited by - Bill scott on 07/27/2010 06:30:11
Go to Top of Page

Ebone4rock
SFN Regular

USA
894 Posts

Posted - 07/27/2010 :  06:31:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Ebone4rock a Private Message  Reply with Quote



What is so hard to comprehend about that?


Why it is so hard to comprehend is that no matter how hard you theists try to claim that science is a " belief system" that is equivalent to your own it simply is not.

Science is an ongoing search for physical evidence.
Religion is simply a philosophy that has nothing to do with .....anything really.
Theists need to get this through their skulls.

Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring
Go to Top of Page

Ebone4rock
SFN Regular

USA
894 Posts

Posted - 07/27/2010 :  06:44:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Ebone4rock a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Bill scott

Originally posted by Ebone4rock




You can't change scientific fact just because it upsets some people.


I would agree. And the scientific fact is that you do not know the first cause of human life. Your belief is that the first cause is not divine in nature but you do not know this for a fact, it's simply your belief. So the museum display is not based off of science but rather a set of beliefs.


Here is the major beef I have with this argument.
Just because science has not isolated that absolute first origin of life does not mean we should default to " God done it". That is just anti-intellectual. It boggles my mind that so many seemingly intelligent people default to that answer.
There is a difference between a "belief" and a decision based on actual evidence.

Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring
Go to Top of Page

BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard

3192 Posts

Posted - 07/27/2010 :  06:45:46   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send BigPapaSmurf a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Bill scott

Originally posted by Ebone4rock




You can't change scientific fact just because it upsets some people.


I would agree. And the scientific fact is that you do not know the first cause of human life. Your belief is that the first cause is not divine in nature but you do not know this for a fact, it's simply your belief. So the museum display is not based off of science but rather a set of beliefs.


You have once again shown your ability to ignore anything you don't agree with, here I'll use caps to explain this to you for the umpteenth time. EVOLUTION DOES NOT MAKE ANY CLAIMS ABOUT THE FIRST ORGANISM. IT IS ABOUT ORGANISMS CHANGING INTO OTHER ORGANISMS.

What science says about the first organism (abiogenesis)... "We don't know, but we can't wait to find out." And we are finding out, slowly.

Even if we find ourselves incapable of proving something, we will never leap to the "Musta been the God o' Abe did it" conclusion.
Edited by - BigPapaSmurf on 07/27/2010 06:47:09
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 07/27/2010 :  06:50:33   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Ebone4rock



Why it is so hard to comprehend is that no matter how hard you theists try to claim that science is a " belief system" that is equivalent to your own it simply is not.


I never said that science was a belief system. I said that you do not know that the first cause in the origin of man is completely atheistic in nature but it is your belief that it is. That makes your position on the origin of man a belief system and I don't think the federal government has any business promoting one belief system over another. This really is a simple concept and I am surprised you are struggling to grasp it.

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Ebone4rock
SFN Regular

USA
894 Posts

Posted - 07/27/2010 :  07:03:54   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Ebone4rock a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Bill scott

Originally posted by Ebone4rock



Why it is so hard to comprehend is that no matter how hard you theists try to claim that science is a " belief system" that is equivalent to your own it simply is not.


I never said that science was a belief system. I said that you do not know that the first cause in the origin of man is completely atheistic in nature but it is your belief that it is. That makes your position on the origin of man a belief system and I don't think the federal government has any business promoting one belief system over another. This really is a simple concept and I am surprised you are struggling to grasp it.


Again defaulting to " God done it" and demanding that government either treat anything opposing that beleif as equal or ignoring both sides is counter-productive to the advancement of scientific knowledge.
I am equally surprised that you cannot grasp that concept. It seems like common sense to me.

Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 07/27/2010 :  07:06:09   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Ebone4rock


Just because science has not isolated that absolute first origin of life does not mean we should default to " God done it".


Nor should we default to the position of: I don't know the origin of the first life or man but I know it is not divine in nature because the scientific fact is that you do not know this, you believe it.





That is just anti-intellectual. It boggles my mind that so many seemingly intelligent people default to that answer.


I personally did not default to my belief in a divine creator as the origin of life/man but that is for another thread. And besides thats not even the subject. The subject is should the federal government use tax dollars to fund one belief system over another? I say no.



There is a difference between a "belief" and a decision based on actual evidence.


I agree. I have taken into consideration all the evidence around me and based on that evidence it is my belief that a divine creator was the first cause. You look at the evidence and your belief is that there was not.

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13463 Posts

Posted - 07/27/2010 :  07:14:47   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Bill Scott:
In other words the museum should say while some subscribe to the atheistic explanation for the origin of life many others subscribe to theistic origin of life and spend an equal amount of money promoting both belief systems.

The problem with this logic is it assumes that science promotes any view at all with regard to religion. It doesn’t. Science is neither atheistic nor theistic. If you begin subjecting what science has learned about the natural world to a religious litmus test, there goes physics, astronomy, geology, biology, anthropology, paleontology and more.

Science is a method for obtaining knowledge that does not include a position statement on religion. That knowledge obtained using the scientific method conflicts with some religious beliefs is not a problem of science.

How you work that out is your business, Bill. But if we want our children to be scientifically literate, we will teach them what we have learned about the natural world through science. There is nothing unfair about doing that.

You have your home, your churches, and even your organizations to turn to if you think that science does not adequately describe the natural world, or is wrong because what it describes is in conflict with what you believe. All of which is constitutionally protected.

Also, since yours isn’t the only religion around, how many religious origin stories would have to accompany a scientific display to make it fair in your view? Just yours?

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 07/27/2010 :  07:16:06   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Ebone4rock



Again defaulting to " God done it" and demanding that government either treat anything opposing that beleif as equal or ignoring both sides is counter-productive to the advancement of scientific knowledge.


But your belief that the origin of man can be completely explained in a atheistic world view is not scientific knowledge but rather just that, your belief.



I am equally surprised that you cannot grasp that concept. It seems like common sense to me.


That is because you believe that your beliefs and scientific knowledge are one in the same when they are not. It is your belief that an atheistic world view best fits the evidence but you do not know that, you just believe it.

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Ebone4rock
SFN Regular

USA
894 Posts

Posted - 07/27/2010 :  07:17:11   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Ebone4rock a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Nor should we default to the position of: I don't know the origin of the first life or man but I know it is not divine in nature because the scientific fact is that you do not know this, you believe it.


Seeing as it takes a great stretch of the imagination to come to the conclusion " God done it" I do not see any reason that divine creation should be considered any more than my new theory of " Aliens grew us in test tubes" (I just made that one up...genius isn't it?)

It makes much more sense to default to " We don't know but we're trying hard to find out"


The subject is should the federal government use tax dollars to fund one belief system over another?

If you can't tell the difference between a belief system and science that is in progress then I don't know what to tell ya.

I agree. I have taken into consideration all the evidence around me and based on that evidence it is my belief that a divine creator was the first cause. You look at the evidence and your belief is that there was not.


(thats all I've got)

Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 9 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.81 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000