quote:

---

TULSA, Okla. (AP) -- The Tulsa Zoo will add a display featuring the biblical account of creation following complaints to a city board about other displays with religious significance, including a Hindu elephant statue.

The Tulsa Park and Recreation Board voted 3-1 on Tuesday in favor of a display depicting God's creation of the world in six days and his rest on the seventh, as told in Genesis, the first book of the Bible.

The vote came after more than two hours of public comment from a standing-room-only crowd.

---

quote:

---

"I see this as a big victory," said Dan Hicks, the Tulsa resident who approached the zoo with the idea. "It's a matter of fairness. To not include the creationist view would be discrimination."

Hundreds of people signed a petition supporting the exhibit.

---

Say it loud!
We're dumb and we're proud!

Sheesh. Well this is an example that the Christo-fascists are going to take this to ridiculous extremes. Zoos are no longer safe - will every zoo have a "creation" exhibit so middle amurrikan Bible thumping rubes can be pleased that "Owah Gahd Reigns!"

The animals in the zoo must think we're nuts.

Seriously screwed up priorities here. And I wonder if they could get a full house at the Tulsa school board to support a bond issue or anything like that. But they'll get off their couches for this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
How long will it be before Dueling Banjos becomes the US national anthem?

---

quote:

---

Not saying I don't really think they are on the runaway train to stupidville (adding to the problem no?) but are they becoming proud of being called stupid, somehow they think they have found the golden path...

---

I vaguely remember a quote in a book by Phillip E. Johnson (creationist author) in which Johnson quoted Billy Graham to the effect that, 'I'd rather be wrong than (not sure here...'unchristian?)

In any case it was clear from the quote that Graham preferred ignorance, and that Johnson agreed with him.

quote:

---

Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are your's;
Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are your's;
And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.

— 1 Corinthians 3:18-23

---

These morans will use any excuse whatsoever to bleat "creationism".

So, to give equal time to the Christian creation legend, they should present it the same way, as how animals (in the case of the ark, or in the case of the creation story) have been portrayed in religious and cultural tradition. To force them to call it "scientific" is total bullshit, though.

Maybe there are really pythagoreans in disguise?

Here’s an analogy to understand this: imagine that our universe is a two-dimensional pool table, which you look down on from the third spatial dimension. When the billiard balls collide on the table, they scatter into new trajectories across the surface. But we also hear the click of sound as they impact: that’s collision energy being radiated into a third dimension above and beyond the surface...

Like math if you think on it long enough, you'll eventually "resonate to some condensate picture" of reality but until then it is vague? You know, "position and momentum." Like some Chaldni plate on a two dimensional surface, yet if you listen for the billiard sound, the metric field makes sense?

The Chandogya Upanishad (1.1.1-10) states, "The udgitha is the best of all essences, the highest, deserving the highest place, the eighth."

'Aum' can be seen as Shri Ganesh, whose figure is often represented in the shape of Aum. He is thus known as Aumkar (Shape of Aum). Shri Nataraja, or the Hindu god 'Shiva' dancing his dance of destruction, is seen in that popular representation mirroring the image of Aum. It is said to be the most perfect 'approximation' of the cosmic existence within time and space, and therefore the sound closest to Truth.

[ 30 June 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

quote:

---

GJJ wrote - Others think you can cherry pick among outcomes of science ... quantum mechanics is right when it allows you to make computers but wrong when it allows for radioactive dating. Again, it got fuzzy when I asked how that might work.

---

If it's the former then the JesusPeople are still off the mark. It may not be able to discriminate between, say, 1.1 million years and 1.2 million, but as long as it accurately says "over 6000" that should be enough to shut their pieholes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albireo:
I wonder which one of the two different Genesis creation stories, written by at least two different authors, will be depicted at the zoo?

---

I'm guessing they'll go with the one where woman gets made out of a rib of man.

quote:

---

Mr. Magoo wrote - Be clear. Do you mean that once something is over 50000 years old, carbon dating loses its accuracy? Or simply doesn't work at all?

---

I was only making a point that carbon dating is not the infallible source to date anything from antiquity. Yes to answer your question carbon dating does not work at all beyond 50000 years.

I do not belong to any organized religion or sect. I guess you could say I am an agnostic. I find these religions to be self serving and hypocritical. So I care not about their beliefs, since in my opinion they are unable to prove any of their beliefs. If they fail in proving something they expect you to accept it on faith. What utter hogwash.

What I also find to be wrong is the arrogance on the part of some people in their belief that their explanation of the origins of the solar system is based on irrefutable fact. The fact is, what some scientists profess to be fact is nothing more then conjecture and theory.

It is just a humans need to know all the answers on where we came from and how and when it all started. Also I think the answer to why the solar system came into being is an answer we all seek. It makes us all feel better when we can make some sense of how it all began. It removes some of the fear of the unknown, which helps us determine if we have a purpose.

quote:

---

Originally posted by firecaptain:

I was only making a point that carbon dating is not the infallible source to date anything from antiquity. Yes to answer your question carbon dating does not work at all beyond 50000 years.

I do not belong to any organized religion or sect. I guess you could say I am an agnostic. I find these religions to be self serving and hypocritical. So I care not about their beliefs, since in my opinion they are unable to prove any of their beliefs. If they fail in proving something they expect you to accept it on faith. What utter hogwash.

What I also find to be wrong is the arrogance on the part of some people in their belief that their explanation of the origins of the solar system is based on irrefutable fact. The fact is, what some scientists profess to be fact is nothing more then conjecture and theory.

It is just a humans need to know all the answers on where we came from and how and when it all started. Also I think the answer to why the solar system came into being is an answer we all seek. It makes us all feel better when we can make some sense of how it all began. It removes some of the fear of the unknown, which helps us determine if we have a purpose.

So I maintain that NO scientist at this point in time can prove anything about how and when the solar system began.

---

No. Or, to put it more clearly: you don't know what you are talking about and you probably don't know what "proving" actually means in a scientific context. And carbon dating is just one of the several methods involving radioactive isotopes scientists use to date things. Some of the other methods are accurate up to several billion years. And all of these methods point towards an age of 4.5 billion years for the solar system. Unless we're totally off our rocker when it comes to a lot of basic physics (I don't think so), that's as close to an "irrefutable" fact as you can get in science.

[ 30 June 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]

quote:

---

should we worship it? Did it create us?

---

Well, if it gets us tax free status, I say we should.

As the person most familiar with this giant, I'm here to say that it loves homosexuals, it thinks we should have lots of promiscuous sex, and it believes that worshipping other, non-giant Gods is blasphemy!

Yes, but we are "becoming" close

Some people like "solid Gods," material things, while others know well, that there is a "stream that flows" under this reality?

Some like to call it music, or a "quasi kind of thing?"

[ 30 June 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

quote:

---

forum observer wrote - Yes, but we are "becoming" close

---