Posted on 07/14/2007 10:33:34 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Madonna and Bon Jovi are no match for Hawaiian flies when it comes to karaoke hits at the University of Nebraska State Museum in Lincoln. In a popular exhibit activity, visitors attempt to mimic the unique courtship calls of different species of Hawaiian Drosophila, a group of 800 different flies that may have evolved from a single species.
Fly karaoke is part of "Explore Evolution," a permanent exhibit currently at Nebraska and five other museums in the Midwest and Southwest...that explores evolutionary concepts in new ways. Such an activity is a far cry from the traditional way science museums have presented evolution, which usually included charts called phylogenies depicting ancestral relationships or a static set of fossils arranged chronologically. "Explore Evolution'' has those, too—and then some, because museum curators came to realize that they needed better ways to counter growing attacks on their integrity.
...
Under pressure from these kinds of groups, the Kansas State Board of Education in 2005 approved a curriculum that allowed the public schools to include completely unfounded challenges to the theory of evolution.
In an effort to make their case to the public, creationists raised $26 million in private donations to build the 50,000-square-foot Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., which opened in late May. The institution presents the biblical history of the universe. Visitors learn that biblically, dinosaurs are best explained as creatures that roamed Earth with humans. In its first month of existence, the museum drew over 49,000 visitors, according to its Web site.
"Explore Evolution," funded by a $2.8 million grant from the National Science Foundation, is one of many recent efforts by science museums to counter such resistance to evolution...
(Excerpt) Read more at sciam.com ...
” Second law of thermodynamics says that all tends toward disorder—that entropy is constantly increasing”
Too rich. Quoting what you don’t understand from the body of science that you reject. Jesus must be thrilled.
You’re quite zealous, trying to tackle windmills on the back of an ass..... you sure you don’t belong locked up in ASH in Atascadero?
Yup read it- understood it just fine thanks- My responses were ‘what if’ responses- Thought that mighta been obvious.
[”...but you are still a superstitious oaf.” “...you may be able to learn from a 3rd grade level book.... It really isn’t that hard to read.”]
Haha! I think I touched a nerve there, eh? Now, wipe the spittle off of your monitor screen, take a deep breath, and try to understand something: I am quite well educated in the biological sciences, moderately well versed in the arts, and quite open to altering my opinions on any given subject, if the evidence is compelling enough. I don’t believe that the Earth is flat, I don’t reject the evidence of my own senses, and I consider myself fairly open-minded.
You, however, strike me as a typical zealot, lashing out with emotion when your treasured beliefs are challenged. Perhaps some insight into your own psyche would be warranted.
Also: Your mother is an oaf.
Neither did your question in post 51 : Assume for a second that the universe is "pointless" and there is no "meaning of life". Would you rather accept the truth or live in a delusion?
If there were no meaning or point to anything, what difference would it make?
If there were no meaning or point, would there be any *truth*? And what would *truth* be?
[”...you only know what you know about genomes due to people who accept evolution,..]
I think you are entirely missing the point. That being, those who made these terrific discoveries relied on a compilation of information that was centuries in the making, discoveries made by men who believed in God.
Therefore, your point, that only the believers of evolution are responsible for our current knowledge, is based on a false premise.
I am staying entirely on topic. You are simply in denial, or this obvious truth would never be necessary to point out.
If there were any objective nature to reality, we, who are within that reality and subjective beings, would not be able to determine it because we cannot get outside that reality.
As for what people are smoking? The same question could be asked about how you thought up that question in the first place.
are you saying that life is above physics...that ain’t gonna
go down very good at the biolabs....”vital force”, “elan
vital” etc....
Actually lately with physics, intuitiveness is defied by
physics....
It is a start... they may even give you crayons to color.
Doesn’t that sound like fun?
[”...take a night class at the adult school... they usually do not make you read too much or do homework.”]
Are you speaking from experience?
[It is a start... they may even give you crayons to color.]
Sorry, no dice. I’m terrible at staying in the lines.
So how is a belief or lack of belief in God, or acceptance of rejection the ToE, relevant to the discovery of genomes?
If there’s no point to the universe, there’s no point in taking a position, so it shouldn’t bother you if no one takes your bait and takes a pointless position.
Your whole philosophizing has no point. Why are you getting so worked up over nothing?
Well, that's not true, but I don't really have time to explain why. Nevertheless, whether or not the universe is pointless does not affect whether or not some things are true or false.
Finally somebody nailes it! At least you got as close as anybody thus far.
The fact of the matter is that the question posed, given the axiomatic presupposition, is itself immaterial and the answer to the question posed is irrelevent.
Pointless existance taken to its logical conclusion can only result in nihilism. Nihilism breeds contempt, and ultimately despair, in that one’s own contempt is pointless.
On the other hand, an inherent and fundemental philosophical attitude that there is meaning and direction to the universe, all the things in it, and their interactions would have a tendency to instill hope. Hope that is that things can get better, and that perhaps this is not it, i.e., all that there is.
The difference between the two would intrinsicly be that of a value judgement. However, given the axiomatic presupposition, neither position would have any value whatsoever, let alone one having greater value than the other.
You need to go back and read jim’s post 65.
He was talking about the men of science who laid the foundations of what we know of as science today.
If you say it’s not germane, then why did you bring it up that the men who discovered genomes *nearly to a man* believed in the ToE? You must have thought it important somehow.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.