Creation Museum

[squall]

Talk about distorted reality. Check this link out. A museum of natural history based upon....creationism. What else?
http://www.creationmuseum.org/about

Grand opening today!

What do you guys think?

[Boozy]

This line on their homepage nearly killed me:

"We’ll begin the Museum experience by showing that 'facts' don’t speak for themselves"

We don't need no facts or fancy book learnin'!

They're calling themselves a museum, but there's no attempt to actually present anything of historical or scientific value. This museum is a place of worship, not a place of learning.

I have no problem with the beliefs of "Creationism". But it is a religious belief and has nothing to do with science. If your religious beliefs conflict with established and well-accepted scientific theories, I welcome you to reject or ignore those theories. But religion shouldn't take the place of science. Creationists have no strong arguments against evolution, and I wish they'd stop pretending they did.

[AFPheonix]

http://www.icr.org/

I've actually visited this place as a kid. Yeah, they attempted to brainwash me, too. Got out of the house and into college, and gee, the truth came rollin' in.

It's one of those things where, as we begin to comprehend more of the natural world, proponents of the supernatural world feel threatened as one more thing that used to be explained supernaturally now has a natural definition.

This happened to Copernicus, it happened to Pasteur, it's happening to evolutionists.
I imagine at some point creationism/intelligent design will die, only to be replaced with opponents for whatever new scientific breakthrough comes out.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Don't creationists believe the bible is fact? Hello; the bible says that life began 2000 years ago! That is the thing I find hardest to understand why people can possibly believe it. And no mention of dinosaurs, despite all the evidence that points to their existance.

Yeah, this museum is pointless.

[Ryu]

Actually it says it began 4-6 thousand years ago
And there are some possible references to dinosaurs, such as the use of the term behemoth in job if im not mistaken
There are plenty of flaws in evo facts/thinking so creationists trying to show people them is not horrible as some people suggest, most of them are just trying to show other Christians what they believe not trying to convert non believers

[AFPheonix]

And what flaws would that be, Ryu? It's an ever changing scientific field, so yeah, there's going to be some debatable hypotheses that come out, but ask anyone who actually studies any of this stuff, and they'll tell you that the underlying theory is quite sound and provable.

If Creationism or even Intelligent Design were remotely credible as alternatives, they would be getting published in peer-reviewed journals. It's quite telling to me that they are not.

[rahmota]

Exactly AFP. Science is about bringing a better refinement and understanding of the forces, actions and way thigns are in the natural universe.

Creationism and intelligent design are about stagnating and clouding the understanding of the universe behind faith and belief in the way thigns are as set forth in a "holy" book according to one particular POV. I am sure that if you ask a buddist or an ancient egyptian or even a natve american if the creation "museum" got it right they would tear it to shreds. It is just another propaganda piece and place for the christian right to try and push their dogma onthe people by tricking them and lying to them about what the real prpose of the place is.

To call such places a museum is to insult and degrade the name of all true museum dedicated to the truth and facts of the universe.

ryu said

Christians what they believe not trying to convert non believers

Sorry but I have to call BS on this one. While that may be true of many christians the ones in charge of the Kentucky Creation "museum" had been quite forward (or at least had been when they first revelaed their plans for this) As a place "to open peoples eyes to the glory of the truth of god."

[Boozy]

I feel like I should defend Ryu on one point, because I think I understand what he was trying to say.

Not all Christians are evangelical. Some just believe what they believe, will share it with those who want to hear, and not push it on people who don't. The Creation Museum is not going door to door. You come to it. So its not really an evangelical movement.

Ryu's saying that there's nothing wrong with Christians setting up a place to assert their beliefs. I'm inclined to agree with him, except their choice of the word "museum" still sticks in my craw. Why don't they more accurately call it a "church", or a "bible school". I don't like to see a religious belief being presented as a scientific belief. Because again, Creationism has nothing to do with science.

I also disagree with Ryu's assertion that there are flaws in "thinking" behind the Theory of Evolution (its elegant and logical), or the "facts" behind it (the fact behind it is natural selection, a scientifically proven process). There are gaps in the theory, and things the theory has yet to explain. But the theory itself, having been widely accepted by scientists, is based on a clear understanding on the facts we have and makes solid, accurate predictions.

[DesignFox]

That website is a joke, right?

[rahmota]

sad to say but no that is not a joke, well sort of as in it is a real business but as a museum it is a joke.

The business is located in Kentucky just west of the Greater Cincy airport. I've not been there, and will never do so, but a couple people i know have driven past the place and tell me they try to make it look like a real museum from the outside.

Boozy: Ok I will agree with the way you are saying in that they are not being the evangelical in your face come to you church nazis. ou o have the choice to decide not to go there. However they are laying a trap to catch those unwary by calling themselves a museum. And it is those people who are on the fence that they are hoping to catch and get with their propaganda by presenting their creationism/intelligent design crud as a real scientific process, compleate with dioramas, "historical" relics and "facts"

[AFPheonix]

This particular museum may not have much to do with the evangelical movement, but the Creation Institute does, and it sends people out to talk at churches and colleges and whatnot.

Dr. Chittick came to speak at our church, and the vein in my forehead is starting to pop out thinking about the blatant mistruths that he shared with us. He has misled a LOT of people who don't know any better, and who don't know how to look for what's going on in the world of science (although all they'd need to do would be to listen to Science Friday on Talk of the Nation on NPR, or pick up a copy of Scientific American, one of the few science mags that offers good information in a format readable to a layperson).

[Rubystars]

When I got into college, the Biology 2 class mostly convinced me that evolution was true. More than anything else the nested hierarchy demonstrates it's true. Different types of life sort of nest into each other.

If every individual creature was a separate creation, then they would all be different from each other and wouldn't nest into each other so neatly.

For example, dogs and foxes are more closely related than either are to cats.
(Dogs and foxes are grouped in the family Canidae, cats are Felidae)

Foxes, dogs, and cats are more closely related to each other than any of them are to cows.
(Foxes, dogs, and cats are members of the Order Carnivora, cows are Artiodactyls)

Foxes, dogs, cats, and cows are more closely related to each other than any of them are to kangaroos.
(All except kangaroos are placental mammals; kangaroos are marsupials.)

All of the above are more closely related to each other than either are to chameleons.
(All of them above are mammals, which came from a branch of Synapsid reptiles, while chameleons are a different form of reptile called a Diapsid)

Synapsids and Diapsids are more closely related to each other than either are to amphibians, etc.

The branching tree can also be really cool in some ways, because some animals are more closely related to animals that look completely different from them than animals that look very similar to them:

For example, a squirrel and a numbat look very similar, but a squirrel is more closely related to a whale than it is to a numbat.
http://thesquirrelboard.com/douglassquirrel.jpg
http://www.michaelmorcombe.com.au/numbat.jpeg
http://www.whalewatchvavau.com/images/whale-surface.jpg

Birds and Boas are both considered diapsid reptiles:
http://www.exzooberance.com/virtual%...r%20268067.jpg

http://www.benettontalk.com/boa-esmeralda.jpg

[AFPheonix]

http://forums.somethingawful.com/sho...2&pagenumber=1

There's a few threads where goons went a'visiting and took pics. In this one you have to scroll down a few posts to get to links.

It's pretty interesting how Creationism has changed since I was being indoctrinated. They now endorse something called "micro-evolution", but apparently "macro-evolution", what you'd find detailed in conventional evolution theory is still right out.
They've still totally co-opted a lot of general ideas though, which I find absolutely hilarious. That old diagram where eohippus went through several transition species and ended up as Equus would have been in the naughty lie column back in the day, now it's an explanation on how God has programmed variability into each species. And instead of us all coming from one single common ancestor, they have an "orchard" diagram showing how many common ancestors came to create the different genuses and species that we have today. (Ex- Noah took one pair of canids on the ark, and over time that pair of canids created dogs, wolves, foxes, etc.)

It's like they're having to contort all over the place to be able to answer naysayers without having to admit that they are totally talking out of their asses.

Oh, and apparently Adam and Eve were white, and totally hot.

[Rubystars]

The microevolution/macroevolution distinction bothers me so much when they use it. Small changes add up over time to big changes. If you accept microevolution as valid, you must, logically at least, accept macroevolution too.

The only way they get around it is by denying the age of the earth, which is a whole other form of suck/stupidity.

[Boozy]

Oh, and apparently Adam and Eve were white, and totally hot.

Yeah, that was a great porno flick.