ydoaPs Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 I'm heading to the Creation Museum this weekend. I thought I should have some questions ready in case I see Ken Ham there. Any ideas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 How about "How can you willfully ignore 150 years of scientific evidence and still not violate the commandment to not bear false witness?" Or "You do realize we have *watched* one species evolve from another in both lab and natural settings, right?" Or, my favorite, just punch him in the balls. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted March 1, 2009 Author Share Posted March 1, 2009 I'll end with those. How about some questions that are less likely to stop a QA session or get me kicked out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the tree Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 Or "You do realize we have *watched* one species evolve from another in both lab and natural settings, right?"Examples are more powerful. It'd be good to have a few at hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 I would ask how you can get your money back, or how you can leave the museum at the end of the tour and still have a hopeful view of humanity's future. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 Ask him how he knows what dinosaurs look like. It's a more pernicious question than it appears. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted March 1, 2009 Author Share Posted March 1, 2009 I would ask how you can get your money back I'm getting in for free. Ask him how he knows what dinosaurs look like. It's a more pernicious question than it appears. He didn't witness it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Feel free to ask about the Creation story's predictions. If Noah's Ark were true, then there would be a maximum of 2 alleles per animal, 1 Y chromosome per male animal, and 1 mitochondrial DNA per female animal (actually, can be more than that if the male is genetically defective, and also sometimes some sperm mitochondria enter the egg). But if the Flood story is true, you should expect a maximum of 4 alleles for "unclean" animals and 14 alleles for "clean" animals, a maximum of 10 alleles for humans, a maximum of 1 Y chromosome and 1 mtDNA for unclean animals, 1-6 Y chromosomes and mtDNAs for clean animals. Any additional genetic variability would have had to evolve in the ~4000 years since then. Also, why would God embed retrovirus fragments throughout our lineage in the pattern expected by common ancestry? In fact, why would God embed retroviruses in our DNA at all? So, ask about retroviruses in our genes and why an intelligent designer might put them there, or about how many alleles various animals have (as if you just thought of the idea on the spot). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edtharan Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Also, why would God embed retrovirus fragments throughout our lineage in the pattern expected by common ancestry? In fact, why would God embed retroviruses in our DNA at all? The interesting thing about this is that in the bible God states that He will not lie to us. So, either the bible is wrong (and God is lying about that), or the fossil record is wrong (and He is lying about that - as He would have created it to make it appear that the Earth was not created 6,000 years ago when the bible says it was). So either one or the other is wrong and deliberately wrong, hence a lie, and that invalidates the statement by God that He will never lie to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyrisch Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 The interesting thing about this is that in the bible God states that He will not lie to us. So, either the bible is wrong (and God is lying about that), or the fossil record is wrong (and He is lying about that - as He would have created it to make it appear that the Earth was not created 6,000 years ago when the bible says it was). So either one or the other is wrong and deliberately wrong, hence a lie, and that invalidates the statement by God that He will never lie to us. Wait, are we allowed to talk about religion again? I'm so confused... Anyway, most of the hardcore Creationists have this idea called "embedded age" where God created the Earth at its inception already aged, so that it looks much, much older, but actually isn't. When asked if God is being deceitful, they will say "nope, because God tells us the real age in the Bible." So, that's not as powerful of an argument as you may think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Since they say the Grand Canyon was formed by the Great Flood, ask him why the whole world doesn't look like the Grand Canyon. So, um, why are you going there, exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted March 6, 2009 Author Share Posted March 6, 2009 So, um, why are you going there, exactly? It's on the way back to my apartment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 So he can point and laugh, of course. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticLance Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 My favourite is the vitamin C synthesis by the human body. We have the whole genetic complex that is used by other species to manufacture vitamin C, but in humans it is defective, with a single mutation stopping the process. Easy to explain in evolutionary terms (a mutation plus genetic drift at a time our ancestors were fruit eaters, and didn't really need the vitamin C manufacture.) But why would the creator have built into our bodies the entire gene complex and then deactivated it all with a mutation? Humans are now working on re-establishing the mechanism by means of gene therapy. http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi91.html Why didn't God do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 as a Creationist myself but not a strict believer in the Old testament of the bible, I`d like to know How the genetic bottle-neck that occurred Twice (Adam/Eve and Noah) was somehow bypassed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 as a Creationist myself but not a strict believer in the Old testament of the bible How does this compute? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticLance Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 Sayonara There are lots of flavours of creationist. It is really the rabid fundamentalist type that I abhor - the ones that deny all the evidence of modern biology. My father was religious - traditional Christian - but always declared that the first books of the old testament were merely parables. He believed in 'creation' but only as carried out via evolution. Possibly a bit of a tricky set of beliefs to hold simultaneously, but not at all unusual. There is no problem with a Christian believing in some form of creation, but not blindly adhering to every part of the Old Testament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 As you well know Lance, Creationist with a capital "C" has a limited set of meanings. My question to YT is intended to discover the meaning which he attaches to it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted March 8, 2009 Author Share Posted March 8, 2009 As you well know Lance, Creationist with a capital "C" has a limited set of meanings. My question to YT is intended to discover the meaning which he attaches to it. YT's capitalization does not necessarily correlate to the proper grammatical usage; He uses capitalization for emphasis as well. For example, he also capitalized the word "Twice." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticLance Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 Why do you assume YT is male? The attached icon is female. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 Why do you assume YT is male?The attached icon is female. Lance - That's probably the single dumbest thing you've ever said. It's not like YT2095 is some random noob. The "attached icon" is from BG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 So he can point and laugh, of course. And while pointing and laughing, reflect for a while on who is likelier to have a higher evolutionary fitness: your average atheist, or your extra fundamentalist Christian who is opposed to birth control? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticLance Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 iNow I am well aware of the nature of the icon. Lieutenant Starbuck from Battlestar Galactica. I am also aware that the actress playing that role is quite beautiful, and that female psychology being what it is, lots of women take beautiful women as role models. I have noticed that female participants in this, and other forums frequently adopt beautiful women as icons. So that is not a stupid observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 YT's capitalization does not necessarily correlate to the proper grammatical usage; He uses capitalization for emphasis as well. For example, he also capitalized the word "Twice." Okay then, "the word creationist as it is used and known on this site, a contextual selector which YT is very much aware of". Why do you assume YT is male?The attached icon is female. It's not an assumption. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergediNowI am well aware of the nature of the icon. Lieutenant Starbuck from Battlestar Galactica. I am also aware that the actress playing that role is quite beautiful, and that female psychology being what it is, lots of women take beautiful women as role models. I have noticed that female participants in this, and other forums frequently adopt beautiful women as icons. So that is not a stupid observation. Well no, it's not stupid per se, it's quite astute if you take it in isolation. But you do have to ignore all the other evidence, such as YT's photos of himself, and the threads where he discusses his partner and progeny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 So, by that reasoning, I should be in the middle of the smoldering ruins of Tokyo right now, battling a giant moth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts