If the internet has provided us with one thing, it's...porn.

If the internet has provided us with two things, it's a whole number of ways to interact through communities...one of the side-effects to this is that you hear about many, many things that you might have otherwise never known existed. This thread is dedicated to those stories, news articles, and discoveries so bizzare, that you have to investigate the URL and website just to make sure it's not really a joke.

This thread has been inspired by the following:

http://answersingenesis.org/museum/docs200...23dinosaurs.asp




I know creationism is in the bible, but historically it was something derived to explain the origin of the universe before the science was advanced enough to make discoveries and come up with real theories about it. We may never know how the world "began," but I think we can all pretty much agree the Earth is more than 4,500 years old, whether you believe in the bible or not.

I am simultaneously laughing at this, and being very scared at the same time....

Creationism is not, I repeat NOT, in the bible. There are sever creation myths in there, but they do not add up to any "ism" at all.

Sorry to HJ you thread so early on...

Patrik

There's a new $25MM creationism museum opening soon in Dry Ridge-KY (bowling-ball-rolling distance from Cincinnati)... Their zeal and passion impresses me. Their logic (from what I've gathered in the article), well, doesn't.

It's not that I think they should believe otherwise. They should believe what they believe. But, it's the whole pushing of "things taken on faith" as "true and absolute fact" that is the problem I have.

Oh well... I might check it out sometime if I have a coupon.
~fff

Don't even get me started about this "museum" so early in the morning.

Don't ever take that statement for granted. There are a disturbing number of people out there who seem to be smart, well-educated people who do believe the Earth is only 4500 years old. (I'm not one of them.) And it does scare me.

-------------------------------------------

Hmmm, so the dinosaurs got to go on the ark, but the unicorns got left behind? (I hear Janelle cheering, but it still makes me sad... )

Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark? Guests will discover the answer from dinosaurs who were there.

Dinosaur “kinds” loaded onto Noah’s Ark: “It’s easy to explain how we fit on the Ark. It was the size of an ocean liner and the average size of dinosaurs were the size of sheep. Even the few ‘big guys’ were most likely young adults (of average dinosaur size) when they boarded the Ark.”

I disagree--they should not believe whatever it is they believe if it is about creationism and a world that is only 6, 000 years old. These people are the people responsible for the attack on over two thousand years of intellectual development and knowledge, knowledge we will lose if these people have their way. These people promote ignorance and we should not stand for it. We can't make them believe differently, but we sure can shout them down whenever and wherever this ideology is being pushed. But of course, we won't....

I respectfully disagree. I think they should be able to believe that the world is only that old. Just as you or I might believe that it is much older.

I mean, how to we know for sure it's older? Science? Carbon dating? I have no 'absolute proof' of that either. I wasn't around back then... hell, even Keith wasn't around millions of years ago...

I don't think there's absolute proof FOR creation. But I don't think there's absolute proof AGAINST creation (or some form of it). There is even faith involved in science, like it or not. We can't know everything.

~fff - np: collective soul - blender

Oh please. I love ya, dude, but that is complete bunk, IMHO. This kind of apologist ideology is exactly why they have gained so much power recently. As if there was no evidence that the world is actually much older than that. There is far more evidence on the side of science than on the creationist side and most of that proof is not subjective. It is entirely subjective on the creationist side. This evidence not only supports that the world is much older, it absolutely refutes creationism. (Please remember that creationism and ID are not that same. ) Maybe it's a misunderstanding of science that allows you to view it as entirely subjective?

We seem to have come to a place in our culture where we allow the principle of physical liberty to also define that of intellectual liberty. It's as if all beliefs are equal when they are, in fact, not. Of course people can believe what they want, but they can also be understood to be ignorant, biased, and completely dismissed by the larger culture. My response was to whether they should believe in creationism. They shouldn't; but they will.

And I didn't say anything about faith in science so no need to be a bit snarky about it ("like it or not").

Best,
belly

Anna, can I hire you to follow me around and eloquently state my opinion for me when I need you to? I don't know what I can pay you but I can at least provide free beer.

Well....okay. If it's good beer that is.

Anna, I would never ever think about consuming crappy beer in the presence of you or Michelle.

Actually, I was .. and the friggin' dinosaurs were ALREADY LONG GONE!!

I don't disagree with you there. In fact, I agree with you.

Maybe it's your understanding of science that allows you to view it as absolutely objective. Science can't lie, but it can be misinterpreted. Who's to say what the basis or meaning of said "imperical facts" are? Who's to say that said facts are actually true? They might weigh heavy in that direction, but scientific evidence such as carbon dating doesn't equate to absolute truth for me.

Completely agreed. But I also equate much of scientific fact to be based on a belief system as well. It's better than a pie in the sky dream of a creator, IMO; but it still doesn't equate to an absolute for me.

Even if your belief system is based on "more fact," I think it's best to be more tolerant of others - even if they believe in something that you find to be ignorant or unfounded based upon your definition of truth.

That comment had nothing to do with a response to you. Faith is part of science, like it or not.

C'mon... agnostics and atheists can be friends...
~fff - np: verve - remixed 2

So, by your logic, the law of gravity might not actually be a law? I can see where you're coming from up to a point, but the way you phrase it makes it seem as if science is just as subjective as theology/faith. It's not. Science gained ground and prestige as a direct result of the subjective nature of theology. Which is why theologists have tried to attack it or dominate it ever since.

And nothing (and I do mean nothing) can provide you with absolute truth, which is where logic, reason and perception (of the senses) come in. I don't feel the need to be tolerant of potential tyrants, nor do I feel the need to play nice with them. I played nice for far too long and it got me an ear-ful of bologna and an attack on my rights and the rights of others. It's war as far as I'm concerned, speaking specifically of this particular Christian faction. <shrug>




Sure we can, but we can also discuss issues seriously and passionately, no?

PS: FTR, I do not believe, nor have I ever said, that science is absolute.

No, by my logic (perhaps not displayed on this page): gravity is a truth, because I've experienced it first hand. And not the "experienced" in a metaphysical sense like someone "hearing/feeling the word/hand of god."

True. Perhaps we're just in a semantics arguement. I think some of science is still based on faith. It's definitely not as subjective as religion or other metaphysical concepts, but science still has areas of uncertainty, even in so-called "proven-by-science" areas, IMO.

My main point.

But my problem with this statement is that logic/reason/perception are not the same for everyone and they are not provable... so I would still offer that someone's logic/reason/perception about evolution might not be better or worse than someone's logic/reason/perception about creation.

Duly noted. I would still offer up that their stance might be true. I'm not one to say.

I'm usually tolerant as well, until they start the barrage. Then rather than not playing nice with them, I tend to not play with them at all. Maybe ignoring them doesn't lead them away from their... um... ignorance. It's just usually my stance unless they get me riled up.

I still might go to that Dry Ridge "museum" sometime. It'd be good for a laugh. Or some egging.

~fff - np: verve - remixed 2

And heckle. Don't forget to heckle on your way out. Heh.

(this is Brandon. still too lazy to log in as myself.)

Phsshhhh... I don't believe the Earth is more than 400 years old. Try to pull the wool over my eyes, eh? Not gonna happen, mister!

(still Brandon.)

...

too angry to post a coherent response. if you need me, I'll be writing a letter to these people telling them how angry God and I are at them.

Poor Brandon. If I had a "God Hates Creationists" t-shirt I'd give it to you.

I dunno....I mean talking dinosaurs, right!
Talking.
Dinosaurs.


seeing giftshops filled with heroine candy dino pops,
~m

Holy crap...I want one of those.

Gotta disagree there. You can believe that the world is 30 ba-zillion years old and still believe that someone/thing created it. To reprise Patrik's thoughts, the idea of something/one creating the Universe doesn't necessarily imply as espousal of what has come to be known as creationism.

And as for "theologians" bucking against science, well, that's somewhat of an incomplete picture. Of course there have been theologians (from ALL religions) who have winced at the idea of a world defined purely by the hypotheses of science (notwithstanding that science, like theology, is an incomplete, finite system developed by fallible beings), but there have been thousands of theologians who have embraced the adavances of science and incorporated them into their ever-evolving theistic view of the Universe.

Some people who have belived (or have pretended to believe) in God(s) have been close-minded bastards who have caused lots of harm. But the plain, inescapable truth is that there are plenty of us smart, informed, culturally-relevant men and women who have found a way to live in this world and still make sense of the fact that God exists.

Right, that's actually what I said. I have no qualm with ID or its believers. Creationism is another story.



I took pains to make sure I was speaking specifically about the faction of Christians who believe in Creationism--a relatively small faction. I hope you don't feel attacked, because if the things you say here are true about you, then I have no beef with you. I think I made that pretty clear. Carry on, bro.

I have to say that I agree with Dan here, I do think it is important that creationists have the right to believe what they believe. Not because I think there is much truth in their claims, but because it is a real alternative to the mainstream worldview sold as truth today. I wouldn't say that science is based on faith, but sceince is relativized by the fact that the observer will tend to affect what is observed, thus distorting the the way things are perceived. This is a constant problem in all forms of science.

(Then there is faith based on science, which is the idea that sceince can give answers about how and why we should live our lives. That's bollocks, but another story altogether.)

The point is that in some senses our time is extremely intollerant when it comes to different ways to perceive the world. This is not in the interest of anybody. I realize that most creatinists by definition are intollerant of other worldviews, but as a society we must be tollerant, because that is the only way to progress. In consensus no new thoughts are born.

Patrik

I don't think it's creationists' beliefs that really disturb most of us, it's their ceaseless rhetorical attacks on legitimate science and their claims that the Genesis account of creation is justified by scientific evidence and should be taught alongside or instead of evolution in the schools.

Again, I feel I must stress that every responsible scientist will abandon evolution tomorrow if a better theory is proposed. It is the only theory put forth that does a good job of accounting for available evidence in the geological record as well as millions of findings from other fields like ecology and molecular genetics. There is nothing "subjective" about it. While there are aspects of how it works that are still poorly understood, no responsible biologists question its basic principles -- not because of scientific orthodoxy, but because it's the only theory we have to date that is consistent with the facts.

Right on! I've been reading but have avoided jumping in with my 2 cents worth until this reply. I'll never forget my introduction to answersingenesis.org. It was through a weekly all campus mass emailing via our work email, of course, of specific articles from the website posted by the minister who ran the CCF student group. This was put upon us without permission and continued until I emailed him demanding that my name be removed from the list. How long it continued, I have no idea - I just got my name off the list ASAP.

Keith's words brought up a long-forgtten occurrence.

Cher

The Creation Museum in Kentucky opened last month.

Against our better judgments, a good friend & I decided to go down today & check it out. We did regret spending ridiculous amounts of cash to gain admission to a museum with a philosophy that neither of us agrees with, but it was somewhat enlightening & entertaining. Alas, the dinosaurs don't talk, as promised, and I was misled into believing that there would be a man riding a dinosaur in one of the dioramas, but that turned out to be untrue. (Who knew that the Flintstones was the first reality tv show?!)

We did not take advantage of their $5 off "coupon," which would have given them permission to contact us and paid our admission fees in cash, so they couldn't get our names from our credit cards, either.

It was slick and a bit creepy. The planetarium show was almost normal with only a couple of slams at the "regular" astronomers. (Although it opened with a shot of the space station, and my first though was, "My, God looks a lot like the space station. I had no idea. )

I did take lot of pictures that you can find here, if you're so inclined.

WTF does that mean?!? The Bible never describes plants as living. I'm thinkin' that's a new t-shirt idea...

I cannot wait to hear about this at the next show. You are braver than I, dear Jeanne!

yikes. i kinda regret even going to the webpage

this is scary, (from their "about us" section")

QUOTE

Walk through the Cave of Sorrows and see the horrific effects of the Fall of man. Sounds of a sin-ravaged world echo through the room.

Yeah, that was their 17-minute special presentation "culmination" as they called it. Mostly, I suspect it was preaching to the converted. My friend, who belongs to the Church of the Brethren was somewhat offended by it and was brave enough to walk out in the middle of it. Being Catholic myself, I'm used to enduring suffering and sat through it. Luckily, they don't pass a hat at the end.

Annna, I'm going to try and work up a written web page in addition to my photos, but it might be a while until I can get it all together. I'll let you know if I do.

One of the things that annoyed me in the "Culture In Crisis" section was that two of the facts that were repeated over the loudspeakers were, "50% of teenage girls have had premarital sex" and "xx% of women have had extramarital affairs." And I, for one, wanted to hear about their male counterparts. But I didn't hear a thing... (And it would have been nice to know the source of these statistics, too.)

More times than I expect to be, I am amazed when I read in this forum what people should be allowed/not allowed to believe.

How incredibly tolerant....

And all the "making fun of people's beliefs". That's fun too... I guess.

J

i don't know what beliefs always have to do with science except to give meaning to the science (rather than replacing it).

but i think one of the major beefs with this place is the hodge podge of ideas relating to their faith thrown into a museum that's supposed to be about science.

personally, if i went there, i'd be offended by the loudspeaker stuff and the ministry attempts to save my soul (especially if i paid with the understanding that i'd get to peruse a museum that perhaps might give me a better presentation of their "science" than current texts they call scientific).

very tolerant of many christian beliefs since i fit into that club,
jm

I kinda want to go to this museum (again, for laughs and strenghtening naturalistic views), but I really don't want to pay a dime for this "trash science." Maybe I'll try to score a press pass as a journalist for the Internets.

~fff

jftr, here in kentucky, we refer to it as "just south of cincinnati" rather than acknowledge that it's actually in this state. it is the source of quite a bit of embarrassment for most of us.

and fwiw, this thing is completely, totally privately funded with zero tax dollars and/or public money going to support it.

Thank God! (pun intended!)

Honestly, the thought of the place scares me.

Dude, you have GOT to get some stronger faith...

To believe is one thing. To say the world is only about 5,000 years old and was created by a magic trick, despite thousands of books, scientists, researchers, scholars proving otherwise with actual, physical evidence...is something else.

I actually made a post in my blog about this last week after reading about someone else's visit to this "museum."

This is the picture that kind of threw me off the edge:


I love how a) humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time and the velociraptor must be a vegetarian, since she isn't EATING EVE.

This isn't mocking someone's beliefs...it's mocking $27 million spent by people who skipped their middle school science classes.

Amen!

I'm sorry, but physical evidence far outways "speculation" for me. I think I would vist Dinosaur World off of I-65 before I stop at the "Creation Museum" the next time I drive north.

Well, feelings like that unfortunately sum it up in a nutshell far too often. When religion and organized religious institutions assert themselves into the general public dialog - or even into public policy debate - they expose themselves to questioning, criticism and yes... even ridicule. Welcome to the club. Same as *any* publicly expressed thought. This is not issue of 'picking on the monks' or name calling, and this is not (last I checked) a theocracy. Religion, which is by definition an employment of faith and the supernatural (eg superstition - belief in something despite evidence to the contrary) - cannot withstand, intellectually honest questioning or scrutiny. J - your a man of the cloth (as the icon in your sig points out) so none of this can possibly be surprising to you. If statements such as "Our exhibit halls are gilded with truth" are going to be the premise of an enterprise - Im inclined to think one would welcome the opportunity to expand on the topic - and yes, defend their own complete bull$#it just as I am bound to defend my own bull$#it..... if bull$#it it is. Gads dont even get me started... who started this thread anyway...

No tax dollars for this? Thank god. (laugh... did I just say that?)

[HJ]

Sorry, John, but I agree with Belly here... to chime in on this thread, with that tact, really sounds pretty weak. This is the topic of many other threads, where I can say "water is dry" and you say, justifiably and acceptably, that "Troy is an idiot".... until I say, "I believe water is dry"... and now it's faith (belief, whatever), and cannot be questioned. Monkey poop, says I.

[/HJ]

Yes, you did just say that. And so did I in post #35

And I'll say it again... Thank God!

Thats so funny. I was raised Catholic... I hear you.


hey - look what I tripped on: (giggle) http://agnusdaily.com/clinical-study-findi...t-is-a-disease/

Monkey poop, indeed Troy. Perhaps the explanation is that our methods of "discussion" and "debate" differ Troy. Seems to me that to resort to saying things like "Troy is an idiot" gets us nowhere (regardless of the irrationality of the argument, see #2 below). Further, I've never (anywhere) claimed that anyone's statements/beliefs are above questioning (hence, debate). What I did say were two things:

1. That people have the right to believe as they wish.

2. That it seems unproductive (at least) to ridicule another's beliefs (no matter how irrational or invalid they may appear to us).

And btw Anna, my faith is in fine shape. Any observation I may make about comments in any thread here should not be mistaken for a "weakened faith condition" on my part.

Carry on,
J

Funny, indeed. I'm definitely infected, then.

You're right. We shouldn't ridicule someone's belief that the Bible teaches us that plants are not living. We should just let that belief be spread to others without objecting. It makes perfect sense.

~fff

i think what i read earlier in this thread is that some one-the-side-of-evolution peeps agree with you...right? posty, spr??? what seems to be offensive is twofold:

-suck-ass "science"
-pushing faith on others and creating social toxins that have even more material consequences depending on the situation

(please let me know what i missed if this isn't what most of ya'll have been talking 'bout?)

peace,
jm

maybe the key is just to attempt more sensitivity to the peeps involved?

i know this stuff is volatile b/c a lot is at stake when considering public education and mob rule crap.

but i wonder if everyone wouldn't feel less attacked if we could at least say, "yeah, my beliefs couldn't stretch to the outer reaches infallibly; but here's what seems to be the case for now at least:..."

for some fun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIwiPsgRrOs...ted&search=

First, I'm assuming that you're being sarcastic there... if so...

You make it seem like the only two choices are...

1. ridiculing the belief.
2. let that belief spread to others without objecting.

So ridiculing the person's belief is the only way to stop the spread of the belief......? Speaking of making "perfect sense"...

Personally, I have the notion that there are other, more productive ways to educate folks without being condescending or using outright ridicule. But to each his/her own I suppose.
J

it's funny, frustrating (to me anyway) and a bit sad that these discussions always seem to become more of a debate about who expresses the opinion and how the opinion was expressed rather than the opinion that has been expressed. i know it makes me not want to even participte in these discussions anymore.

every differing opinion is not necessarily a slam at the person and/or their beliefs. it may just be a differing opinion, nothing else.

Word. And if the original, or the subsequent, opinion being postulated makes no sense to me, I'm going to name it as such. And anyone who was on the fence about it may say, "hmmm, you know, that IS a bad postulation." And it will have been worth it then.

To Dan's point, the alternative is to what... let it fly by? True, John, it doesn't have to be ridiculed, per se (if that's what you want to call this particular thread, though I think "ridicule" is a bit strong)... but face it: does anybody here believe what this museum is putting forth, or hold it dear? And is the museum staff reading this? And if no to both, then what the hell does it matter??? It's a message board, not a pulpit, and it's not like we're on Fox News slamming the dinosaur riders.

Yet again, someone stepped over the fringe of "belief," and as usual there was an up-in-arms response.

Carry on indeed,
T