Creation Museum

[greentara]

What are your thoughts on this new Museum...


http://media.npr.org/images/logo_npr_125.gif (http://www.npr.org/)
Creation Museum Ready for Debut
http://download.npr.org/anon.npr-www/chrome/icon_listen.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:launchPlayer('10493573', '1', '28-May-2007', '&topicName=Politics___Society&subtopicName=Religion&prgCode=ME&hubId=-1&thingId=10493572&tableModifier=', 'RM,RM,WM,WM');)

http://media.npr.org/news/images/2007/may/28/ham200.jpg (http://javascript<b></b>:void(0);)

Morning Edition (http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=3), May 28, 2007 · Twenty-five years ago, Ken Ham says, he felt a calling to build a museum to promote creationism.
A quarter-century and $27 million later, The Creation Museum has opened in Petersburg, Ky., just outside Cincinnati.
The displays offer the creationists' view of how the world came to be, which differs sharply from the teachings of science.
Ham, a native Australian, breaks down the differences for Steve Inskeep:
"There is a conflict if you try to add evolution to the Bible and take Genesis as literal history," he says. "For instance, the Bible teaches man was made from dust in [the book of] Genesis … whereas evolution would teach that man came from some ape-like ancestor.
"I know there are many Christians who say they believe in evolution [over] millions of years," he says. "I would say they're being inconsistent in their approach to scripture. A literal Genesis is actually the foundational history for the rest of the Bible for all doctrine.
Ham's view explains why visitors enter to see two animatronic baby dinosaurs alongside two children.
"When you have dinosaurs and people together, that makes a statement concerning one's belief about the age of the Earth and evolution," he says. "Obviously it flies in the face of what secular evolutionists will teach."
Ham says the museum – which drew protesters on Monday – does try to cover both sides of the debate.
"We actually do give both sides as people walk in," he says, explaining that a fossil exhibit has "a creation paleontologist" and "an evolutionary paleontologist" offering different interpretations of the same fossil.
He rejects the idea that science has a lock on empirical evidence.
"All scientists have presuppositions that they start with that determine how they interpret evidence," he says, adding that scientists were not around to see dinosaurs walk the Earth anymore than creationists can claim to have been present to observe Adam and Eve.
He remains hopeful that the museum will attract skeptics as well as believers.
"I think a lot of people will come who don't agree with us," he says. "There are people who won't go to church, but who will go to something like this."

[sinjin]

Makes me think I should consider raising my kids in another country. Seriously.

[greentara]

Makes me think I should consider raising my kids in another country. Seriously.

Evolution has long generated bitter fights between the left and the right about whether God or science better explains the origins of life. But now a dispute has cropped up within conservative circles, not over science, but over political ideology: Does Darwinian theory undermine conservative notions of religion and morality or does it actually support conservative philosophy?

I have noticed that when the subject of home schooling comes up it’s usually in a conservative Fundamentalist Christian home. Will the bible be the only resource book? How will children get a degree without the basic knowledge of science ~ history etc? How is carbon dating explained in creation theory? Will we fall further behind in the world race in the field of science?


This CreationMuseum should help people realize that we are in a war against religion and ignorance, and if we lose it will be a return to the dark ages.

I grew up in a Christian home and evolution was never questioned by my faimly, why now?:confused:

[timkona]

It's not a museum. Unless their displays are considered art.

Religion is such a joke.

[sinjin]

Evolution has long generated bitter fights between the left and the right about whether God or science better explains the origins of life. But now a dispute has cropped up within conservative circles, not over science, but over political ideology: Does Darwinian theory undermine conservative notions of religion and morality or does it actually support conservative philosophy?

I have noticed that when the subject of home schooling comes up it’s usually in a conservative Fundamentalist Christian home. Will the bible be the only resource book? How will children get a degree without the basic knowledge of science ~ history etc? How is carbon dating explained in creation theory? Will we fall further behind in the world race in the field of science?


This CreationMuseum should help people realize that we are in a war against religion and ignorance, and if we lose it will be a return to the dark ages.

I grew up in a Christian home and evolution was never questioned by my faimly, why now?:confused: I would guess that your "Christian" home was not of the fundamental variety. Catholics have long embraced evolution as the method God employed. That can't be squared with an Earth only 6000 years old as many Creationists believe.

Saw this last night on cable:

http://www.flockofdodos.com/

Worth watching IMO.

[greentara]

It's not a museum. Unless their displays are considered art.

Religion is such a joke.

From what I've seen their exhibits are quite artistic Tim...;)

[greentara]

I would guess that your "Christian" home was not of the fundamental variety. Catholics have long embraced evolution as the method God employed. That can't be squared with an Earth only 6000 years old as many Creationists believe.

Saw this last night on cable:

http://www.flockofdodos.com/

Worth watching IMO.


Thanks for the link I haven’t heard of this film, seems like Mr. Moore has created quite a genre. Yup, very Catholic and very Portuguese, even went to Catholic school and evolution was definitely taught. :)

[Lei K]

Saw this last night on cable:

http://www.flockofdodos.com/

Worth watching IMO.

What channel?

[sinjin]

What channel?I believe it was Showtime.

[Menehune Man]

I don't want to get into any debate so I'll just say (in my opinion) that it's cool to show another viewpoint.

[Mista Bumpy]

Well, back to the drawing board.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/visual_arts/article1848419.ece

I can remember the endless debates over the length of the cubit, in order to determine how big the Ark, as described in Genesis, would have to have been to hold all the animals in creation. We questioned the nuns a lot about this one in religion class. Even children instinctively know it would have to be one HUGE boat. In fact, this debate was central to the Creationist dilemma from day one - how big would it have to be? I think the interpretation of scripture they settled on eventually was about the length of a person's arm - three feet, more or less. Now they want to stuff in all those brontosauruses, supersaurses, stegosaurus, and even tyrannosauruses. The latter, as we read, were actually vegans according to the Creationists, thereby dismissing any feeding problems during those 40 days and 40 nights.

Let 'em eat hay, dammit!

Aloha!

[greentara]

LOL :D Funny I don't remember any debate in Catholic school over the creation myth or evolution. We were taught evolution and religion.

[kamuelakea]

Funny to watch all of the "intellectuals" discount the idea of creation. You laugh off the idea of religion when you have a religion of your own, the religion of atheism or the religion of evolution.

Seems clear that micro-evolution exists. ANimals do go through changes as they adapt to their environments.

But no one on this board or any other can prove that all living things can be explained via random variation and natural selection.

If you are of the religion of evolution or the religion of atheism, you must believe that you can take an amoeba, and through billions of billions of random, mindless, pointless mistakes (genetic mutations), you can end up with a new born human baby.

The best analogy I've heard is that that is like throwing a bunch of silicone and metal and rubber in a room and expecting a supercomputer to spontaneously develop through a series of pointless, meaningless, random mistakes.

Which religion seems more "stupid" now?

[sinjin]

The one that says some unseen superbeing explains everything, although I wouldn't say stupid, just far-fetched.

Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color.

[kamuelakea]

The one that says some unseen superbeing explains everything, although I wouldn't say stupid, just far-fetched.

Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color.


Sorry. Athiesm, by scientific definition, is actually irrational. Agnosticism (you admit that you just don't know) at least is rational.

See, if you know science, you cannot prove a negative. Simple truth. So an athiest is claiming something that is impossible. You cannot prove that a god does not exist.

At least the religious can list their own "evidence" for a creator. You may say that the "evidence" is weak, but that would be just your opinion.

Funny how the loudest members of the church of atheism are often times the most "highly educated" in a Western definition of education.

Did you ever wonder why EVERY civilization known to man from ancient to modern, from open to closed, from lost to hidden, has some form of religious expression. Doesn't that seem odd? Or I guess all humans are just ignorant fools???

[sinjin]

Sorry. Athiesm, by scientific definition, is actually irrational. Agnosticism (you admit that you just don't know) at least is rational.Says you.

See, if you know science, you cannot prove a negative. Simple truth. So an athiest is claiming something that is impossible. You cannot prove that a god does not exist.Are you agnostic towards Santa Claus as well?

At least the religious can list their own "evidence" for a creator. You may say that the "evidence" is weak, but that would be just your opinion.I wouldn't call it evidence at all.

Funny how the loudest members of the church of atheism are often times the most "highly educated" in a Western definition of education.While on your side are some of the dimmest bulbs alive. Yes, funny.

Did you ever wonder why EVERY civilization known to man from ancient to modern, from open to closed, from lost to hidden, has some form of religious expression. Doesn't that seem odd? Or I guess all humans are just ignorant fools???No just superstitous and gullible. We're getting better though you refuse to join us. Believe what you like just don't try to use reason to justify it. Trying to use reason to justify faith only cheapens faith IMO.

[kamuelakea]

Makes me think I should consider raising my kids in another country. Seriously.



What country is without religion or some form of spiritual expression?

I look forward to your answer.

[kamuelakea]

Says you.


Wow, you really are ignorant.

I cannot have an intelligent discussion with you because you don't understand the most basis principles of reason.

Please review the SCIENTIFIC principles regarding the proving of a negative before you return to any discussion on the topic of athiesm.

Just warning you so you don't look so foolish.

[sinjin]

What country is without religion or some form of spiritual expression?

I look forward to your answer.I never said I would seek a country free of religious expression. Maybe one without too many politically active fundamental protestants.

[sinjin]

Wow, you really are ignorant.And you lack manners.


I cannot have an intelligent discussion with you because you don't understand the most basis principles of reason.

Please review the SCIENTIFIC principles regarding the proving of a negative before you return to any discussion on the topic of athiesm.

Just warning you so you don't look so foolish. The inability to prove a negative is the reason why the burden of proof is placed on the one making the affirmative claim. Good luck.

[kamuelakea]

Says you.

Are you agnostic towards Santa Claus as well?



No I am not agnostic toward Santa Claus. I am a believer.

Haven't you seen Miracle on 34th Street?

Santa Claus does exist. He exists in our hearts. The man in a red suit is just the physical manifestation of a real entity that really exists within the human spirit.

Similar to most religeons.

[kamuelakea]

I never said I would seek a country free of religious expression. Maybe one without too many politically active fundamental protestants.

So you hate fundamentalist protestants. You're prejudice.

How about the Middle East where they religiously chop heads off?
How about China where the governments religion of atheism denys other religious rights.
How about Japan where their head of state is considered a god?

Fundamentalist protestants can't touch these guys.

[sinjin]

So you hate fundamentalist protestants. You're prejudice.I don't hate anyone. That would be unChristian.

How about the Middle East where they religiously chop heads off?
How about China where the governments religion of atheism denys other religious rights.
How about Japan where their head of state is considered a god?How about Italy or maybe Brazil?

[sinjin]

No I am not agnostic toward Santa Claus. I am a believer.

Haven't you seen Miracle on 34th Street?

Santa Claus does exist. He exists in our hearts. The man in a red suit is just the physical manifestation of a real entity that really exists within the human spirit.

Similar to most religeons.I don't believe in spirits either.

[greentara]

Did you ever wonder why EVERY civilization known to man from ancient to modern, from open to closed, from lost to hidden, has some form of religious expression. Doesn't that seem odd? Or I guess all humans are just ignorant fools???

Answer to your question kamuelakea: Creation stories explain man’s connection to earth and divinity. By explaining the source of nature, and human’s role in nature, man can establish the foundation for human relations, agriculture, science, law, customs, art and society. That is exactly what they are "myth"...:)

[greentara]

So you hate fundamentalist protestants. You're prejudice.

How about the Middle East where they religiously chop heads off?
How about China where the governments religion of atheism denys other religious rights.
How about Japan where their head of state is considered a god?

Fundamentalist protestants can't touch these guys.


I don't think people really hate Fundamentalists I think they simply grow weary of their constant "hell fire and damnation" and their judgmental attitudes toward other religions and/or belief systems. :( A religion, like a political system that works for one culture does not work for all cultures. And yes there is definitely a connection between education and people that try to convert the world. Your statement to Sinjin “Wow, you really are ignorant” proves your ethnocentricity when it comes to other cultures and religions.

[sinjin]

Please review the SCIENTIFIC principles regarding the proving of a negative.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/negative.html
http://www.strange-loops.com/athdisprovinggod.html

[kamuelakea]

Your statement to Sinjin “Wow, you really are ignorant” proves your ethnocentricity when it comes to other cultures and religions.

Nope. It proves I understand basic reasoning principles. YOU CANNOT PROVE A NEGATIVE!.

That is not "ethnocentric". That is a PRINCIPLE OF REASONING. A "FACT".

Atheism is a legitimate RELIGION, but that's all it is. And it is worse than most religions because it is based upon the irrational principle of proving a negative.

See?

[kamuelakea]

Answer to your question kamuelakea: Creation stories explain man’s connection to earth and divinity. By explaining the source of nature, and human’s role in nature, man can establish the foundation for human relations, agriculture, science, law, customs, art and society. That is exactly what they are "myth"...:)


This is a meaningless gobbledygook sentence which says nothing and proves nothing. Its a nice set of words that provides YOU with YOUR explanation of why humans are religious. You are the enthocentric one if you assume that your sentance above explains to all people why THEY are spiritual.

It might be YOUR explanation but it still doesn't provide the ONLY answer to why every civilization ever known has "spirituality" as part of it's culture.

[greentara]

This is a meaningless gobbledygook sentence which says nothing and proves nothing. Its a nice set of words that provides YOU with YOUR explanation of why humans are religious. You are the enthocentric one if you assume that your sentance above explains to all people why THEY are spiritual.

It might be YOUR explanation but it still doesn't provide the ONLY answer to why every civilization ever known has "spirituality" as part of it's culture.

You asked about "religious expression" now you're talking about "spirituality" there is a difference...also, if you think this sentance is meaningless gobblegook I question your understanding of the English language. Seems pretty clear to most people that study anthropology. If you can clarify please do...what would be you're explanation of why people embrace religion? :confused:

[sinjin]

Atheism is a legitimate RELIGION, but that's all it is. And it is worse than most religions because it is based upon the irrational principle of proving a negative.http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/11/29/075801.php
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathm_rel_religion.htm

[greentara]

Atheism is a legitimate RELIGION, but that's all it is. And it is worse than most religions because it is based upon the irrational principle of proving a negative.

See?

Trust me I do see...how can you determine that any religion is better or worse than another, (that is if we embrase the fact the Atheism is a religion). Who are you to judge what religion is "worst". You capitalize the words YOU and YOUR when you post yet you condemn any other opinions and call people ignorant and refer to their post in derogatory terms. Not a good way to get your point across, I do respect anyone's opinion but I have yet to really hear what you're opinion is regarding creation.

[kamuelakea]

I do respect anyone's opinion but I have yet to really hear what you're opinion is regarding creation.


My opinion or faith is just that. Mine. Not critical to the discussion. This thread questions the legitimacy of a museum established by creationists. I don't necessarily see the problem.

My main point is that atheism is a religion and people from the religion of atheism are the ultimate hypocrites.

[kamuelakea]

Who said the following? Don't immediately google it. Just read it and think for a moment of the top 2 or 3 people or even types of people who would say something like the quote below.

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

[sinjin]

Who said the following? Don't immediately google it. Just read it and think for a moment of the top 2 or 3 people or even types of people who would say something like the quote below.

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."Here is the entire quotation in context:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

Too bad so many of your ilk need to resort to dishonestly in order to bolster their position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context
http://www.aquaticape.org/darwin.html

Don't tempt me to bring the full force of my ignorance to bear.

[kamuelakea]

then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

Too bad so many of your ilk need to resort to dishonestly to bolster their position.


Once again your ignorance shines through. Nothing dishonest at all. Just a simple question.

For everyone else, the person who suggests that natural selection as a means to explain the human eye is "ABSURD" was none other than Charles Darwin IN HIS "Origin of the Species".

You are correct that the sentence was taken out of context since I think the entire "Origin of the Species" would exceed the Hawaii Threads word count maximum. Your additional sentence is also accurate. But let’s look at that sentence.

First Darwin says that he admits his understanding of the human eye makes his own theory "ABSURD". Then he goes on to say (my paraphrasing) the following;

1) You cannot trust human common sense in scientific decision making.

2) And second; "that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life."

No offense to Charles Darwin but this is a circular argument. He argues that his theory of natural selection is possible, why?>........?, because of his theory of natural selection. See the problem? He justifies the "absurdity" of his theory by simply restating his theory. Basically that big complex things (like a human eye) can develop through many little changes. Thats was the "absurd" theory in the first place. How does repeating it the second sentance that you so proudly discoverd and sited make his theory any more valid.

This is analogous to saying that we can be sure that God exists because God says he exists. That is a circular argument and it is what Darwin does to try to calm his own questions regarding his own theory.

Now we are back to the amoeba becoming a human after billions upon billions of absolutely completely random pointless mindless genetic mistakes.

That is what you believe Sinjin and others. You might be right. I can't disprove it. But it sure seems like a stretch. Even Charles Darwin, the father of your theory, does a terrible job defending his own theory.

[sinjin]

Once again your ignorance shines through. Nothing dishonest at all. Just a simple question.

For everyone else, the person who suggests that natural selection as a means to explain the human eye is "ABSURD" was none other than Charles Darwin IN HIS "Origin of the Species".

You are correct that the sentence was taken out of context since I think the entire "Origin of the Species" would exceed the Hawaii Threads word count maximum. Your additional sentence is also accurate. But let’s look at that sentence.

First Darwin says that he admits his understanding of the human eye makes his own theory "ABSURD". Then he goes on to say (my paraphrasing) the following;

1) You cannot trust human common sense in scientific decision making.

2) And second; "that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life."

No offense to Charles Darwin but this is a circular argument. He argues that his theory of natural selection is possible, why?>........?, because of his theory of natural selection. See the problem? He justifies the "absurdity" of his theory by simply restating his theory. Basically that big complex things (like a human eye) can develop through many little changes. Thats was the "absurd" theory in the first place. How does repeating it the second sentance that you so proudly discoverd and sited make his theory any more valid.

Now we are back to the amoeba becoming a human after billions upon billions of absolutely completely random pointless mindless genetic mistakes.

That is what you believe Sinjin and others. You might be right. I can't disprove it. But it sure seems like a stretch. Even Charles Darwin, the father of your theory, does a terrible job defending his own theory.He was simply saying that without having evidence of gradual changes it would be hard to account for the complexity. But we do. Genetic mutations are random. It's the natural selection that is anything but. Btw evolution is a fact. Theory is as far as you get in science. A theory in science isn't a guess or hunch. It's an unfalsified hypothesis that has been tested. Evolution is as factual as science can give us.

[Glen Miyashiro]

Sigh.

I suppose it won't do much good, but I'll point out the extensive TalkOrigins Archive (http://www.talkorigins.org/), where all of these arguments have been hashed out ad nauseam.

[greentara]

My opinion or faith is just that. Mine. Not critical to the discussion. This thread questions the legitimacy of a museum established by creationists. I don't necessarily see the problem.

My main point is that atheism is a religion and people from the religion of atheism are the ultimate hypocrites.

This thread is not about the question of atheism being a religion either. Just because someone would find a "museum" dedicated to the creation myth odd does not mean that they do not have a spiritual belief system. This discussion is going no where fast, but carry on and walk good dude ~ I'm outta here....

[sinjin]

Sigh.

I suppose it won't do much good, but I'll point out the extensive TalkOrigins Archive (http://www.talkorigins.org/), where all of these arguments have been hashed out ad nauseam.You'd think I'd learn! Apologies to any I've ticked.

[kamuelakea]

Btw evolution is a fact.

There you go spouting your religion again. Assuming that your religion is fact.

That animals are capable of adapting to their environment via natural selection is "factual".

That basic molecules accidentally formed into various amoeboid life forms which then accidentally stumbled into becoming a human being is very far far far from fact.

The fact that you believe evolution as a fact in terms of the creation of mankind is just another example of your blind allegiance to your own religion.

Your faith allows you to make a huge quantum leap from short term environmental adaptation (factual evolution) to the accidental creation of the human race.

I think you and other posters on this thread are far more religious than you realize.

[Pua'i Mana'o]

And these are the matters over which my brain splits.

The best way I can explain my position: my culture holds certain values, and I was educated through a different paradigm, my major being in the natural sciences. It comes down to how I look at things:

Question: Can I hold a conversation with my hand?

The answer is no: I cannot look at my palm and fingers and tell it a story and expect it to give me its opinion. Logic and study tells me that there are no apparati on my hand to communicate with me; no vocal box to speak, no eyes with which to hold my gaze, no brain to draft its response.

The answer is yes: I can look at my palm and fingers and expect to think of a response and see it occur. Logic and study tells me that the brain in my head will twitch it on down through my limb and into my hand in entirety and make it do what I willingly wish it to do.

Throught this duality I am completely comfortable with both atheism (that which is driven and supported/disputed upon fact, physics, etc) and culture (of which religion and spirituality are elements thereof).

[Menehune Man]

Sure is a bummer how some folks can become so nasty in their conversations upon a forum when they would be much more considerate face to face.

Both sides of this issue has supporters ( many in fact), so don't try to change anyone's mind. Just try to state your ideas, etc.

Play together nicely now. :rolleyes:

[Wai`anaeCrider]

Did you ever wonder why EVERY civilization known to man from ancient to modern, from open to closed, from lost to hidden, has some form of religious expression. Doesn't that seem odd? Or I guess all humans are just ignorant fools???

The reason is there is always a group that are looking for a way to CONTROL the masses, and religion is perhaps the best way to scare people into believing what that group says is correct.;)

[Wai`anaeCrider]

As to my theory on our place in the universe:

Our solar system is really just an atom, and we live on one of the electrons traveling around that atom.

To top off my theory, "our atom" is just one of zillions that make up a pile of dog shit in some larger universe somewhere :D

[Menehune Man]

Hey, that's pretty good CRider!

Here's a quote I found that fits the situation...

"The unbelieving mind would not be convinced by any proof,
and the worshiping heart needs none."

don't know the author

[acousticlady]

As to my theory on our place in the universe:

Our solar system is really just an atom, and we live on one of the electrons traveling around that atom.

To top off my theory, "our atom" is just one of zillions that make up a pile of dog shit in some larger universe somewhere :D

That is excellent!!!

[sinjin]

That basic molecules accidentally formed into various amoeboid life forms which then accidentally stumbled into becoming a human being is very far far far from fact.Abiogenesis has not been "proven" and likely can never be given its remoteness from us. That life came about through natural processes is simply my default position. Any other proposition involving supernatural first causes falls into the category of myth as they are all equally metaphorical IMO.

Your hostility is something I never meant to arouse. Have I given you reason to dislike me personally? I'm well aware that I can be abrasive.;)

[kamuelakea]

That life came about through natural processes is simply my default position.

That is why it is your religion. Not science.

Enjoy your religion Sinjin and Greentara. You are extremely religious people even though you would probably deny it. Maybe you still don't even recognize it.

Anyway, just enjoy your church of evolution and random selection (as the source for mankind). May be irrational but as long as you don't bother anyone else, I don't care what religion you choose.

[sinjin]

That is why it is your religion. Not science.

Enjoy your religion Sinjin and Greentara. You are extremely religious people even though you would probably deny it. Maybe you still don't even recognize it.

Anyway, just enjoy your church of evolution and random selection (as the source for mankind). May be irrational but as long as you don't bother anyone else, I don't care what religion you choose.You've said all that three times now and it's still not true simply because you say so. I see it as perfectly rational not to introduce the supernatural given the absence of reliable evidence for its existence.