A Field Trip To the Creation Museum 1854
Lillith writes "The anti-evolution Creation Museum opened last weekend and Ars took a field trip there and took lots of pictures. 'There were posters explaining just how coal could be formed in a few weeks as opposed to over millions of years, and how rapidly the biblical flood would cover the earth, drowning all but a handful of living creatures. The flood plays a big part in the museum's attempt to explain away what we see as millions of years of natural processes. There was also an explanation as to why, with only one progenitor family, it wasn't considered incest for Adam and Eve's children to marry each other.' (Myself, I liked the picture of the velociraptor grazing peacefully next to Eve, who is wearing some kind of dirndl, in the Garden of Eden.)" The reporter posted more photos from the museum on Flickr.
In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. (Score:5, Funny)
The world came into being when I woke up this morning. It'll end after I fall asleep tonight.
I'll create a new one while I sleep. Hell, I've been doing it for the past thirty-odd years. I'm getting pretty good at it.
I'm even creative enough that I've given it multiple back-stories.
Shit, I should write this up in a novel.
*Big*Fscking*Grin*
A Christian viewpoint (Score:5, Insightful)
Not all Christians believe the King James Version is a perfect literal translation, and therefore that earth was created in less than a literal week. Some of us are at least willing to accept that the ancient word translated "day" in Genesis has more possible translations than "a 24 hour period", and dinosaurs never walked among humans.
Another example: their model of the ark isn't just unrealistic, it's unscriptural--the Bible clearly states the ark of the flood was box-shaped. Sure, this might seem like a petty point compared to some of the more obvious and scientific blunders, but it only goes to support the point that this museum is more interested in pandering to neo-Christian tradition than explaining Bible truth.
Re:A Christian viewpoint (Score:5, Insightful)
This sort of thing is just ridiculous. There was a funny bit on the Simpsons (Ok, there's ALWAYS a funny bit on the Simpsons) when Homer, after having the crayon removed from his head, proves God can't exist. Flanders, instead of challenging his beliefs, burns it.
Sounds about right. It's funny 'cause it's true.
Cafeteria Christianity (Score:4, Interesting)
Cafeteria Christianity [wikipedia.org] is a pejorative term, used in general to describe individual Christians or Christian churches who selectively follow or believe in the doctrines of their religion, particularly what the Bible states as being the word or will of God. The use of the term suggests that the believers being so described are not as legitimate as other Christians. As cafeteria style means to pick-and-choose, as in choosing what food to purchase from a cafeteria line, the implication of the term "Cafeteria Christianity" is that the individual's professed religious belief is actually a proxy for their personal opinions rather than a genuine interpretation of or spiritual relationship with Christian doctrine or the teachings of Jesus. The selectivity implied may relate to the acceptance of Christian doctrines (such as creationism and the virgin birth of Jesus) or Biblical morality and ethical prohibitions (e.g. a rejection of homosexual acts and dietary laws) and is often associated with discussions concerning the applicability of Old Testament laws to Christians and the Sermon on the Mount.
The label "Cafeteria Christianity" has been used both to encourage more conformity with Biblical teachings and to advocate for less. When used by Conservative Christians, it is often an expression of a preference for a more literal and uniform approach to the Bible, rather than the carefree do-what-you-want theology preferred (as some see it) by Liberal Christians. The term in this sense thus expresses contempt for those viewed as lax in their Christianity.
It is also used by some Christians and skeptics to undermine the advocacy of particular Christian precepts by pointing out the supposed inconsistency of the advocate's position. The logic of such a usage is that someone who has rejected one supposed command of God has little room to argue that another such command should be followed. Thus these individuals observe that some Christians are more than willing to condemn certain behavior on Biblical grounds and yet do not themselves adhere to the Bible in its totality, i.e. a charge of hypocrisy. For an example, see An Atheist argument on Cafeteria Christianity. The counter argument is usually that, according to the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 (as well as some Paul's letters), Gentile Christians are not obliged to keep the entire Old Testament Law.
The term Cafeteria Catholic [wikipedia.org] (also à la carte Catholic or CINO = "Catholic In Name Only") is a pejorative or an insulting characterization and is used to describe people who dissent from certain teachings of the Roman Catholic Church while maintaining an identity as Catholics. These people are said to view the Church much like a "cafeteria", where one picks and chooses only those items that appeal to them. The term is typically applied to those who blatently dissent from selected Catholic moral teaching on issues such as abortion, contraception, premarital sex, and homosexuality. The term is less frequently applied to those who dissent from other Catholic moral teaching on issues such as social justice, capital punishment, or just war. Groups labeled as such include Call to Action, FutureChurch, DignityUSA, and Catholics for a Free Choice. Some of those who employ the term in their vocabulary accuse those who view the term pejoratively of believing dissent from the constant teaching of the Church to be a form of devoutness.
It should be noted that the this epithet is not created, used, or endorsed by official church teaching. However, the practice of selective adherence to the magisterium of the church has been repeatedly condemned through the teaching of the Popes:
* In a homily delivered on April 18, 2005, Pope Benedict XVI clarified the relation of dissent to faith:
Re:A Christian viewpoint (Score:5, Insightful)
Example:
Scene: A woman is talking with a man from Scotland over breakfast.
---
Woman: Would you like some catsup on your eggs?
Man: Ack, no! No true Scotsman would eat catsup on his eggs!
Woman: But my uncle is from Scotland, and he eats catsup on his eggs.
Man: Like I said. No *true* Scotsman would eat catsup on his eggs.
---
The fallacy this man is making is to change the definition from the generally accepted definition of a Scotsman (a person from Scotland) to his own, customized definition. If an individual is allowed to redefine terms at will, the very concept of language becomes useless. His definition serves as little more than an ad hominem attack against the woman's uncle.
In short, making attacks based on definitions that aren't widely accepted is counterproductive. The widely accepted definition for "Christian" covers only a few key points -- believe in God the father, belief in Jesus the son, Jesus was crusified by the Romans, died and was resurrected, etc. Almost all (not all, but "enough") people who call themselves Christian agree with these points that it can be considered generally accepted. On the other hand, my partner believes that Catholics aren't Christians because of their use of idols. Well, I know a lot of Catholics who would take issue with that. The use of idols isn't widely agreed upon as being part or not part of Christianity, and thus trying to redefinie "Christianity" to include or exclude idols falls into the No True Scotsman fallacy.
The same applies to interpreting "day" in Genesis as a literal day. In America, at least, about half of people who call themselves Christians would agree with that, and half would disagree. It's a fallacy to define Christianity based on one faction's definition. Now, if 98% of Christians agreed that it had to be literal...
The Bible never claims to be written by God (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. (Score:4, Funny)
> I'll create a new one while I sleep. Hell, I've been doing it for the past thirty-odd years. I'm getting pretty good at it.
>
> Shit, I should write this up in a novel.
Why not just wake up tomorrow in a world where you've already written it?
Some Quick Thoughts.... (Score:5, Insightful)
2) I am the only one that thinks that they put this thing in Kentucky because they think that everyone there is an inbred hill billy who won't know any better? (Not saying that everyone from Kentucky *is* an inbred hill billy but that the people who put the museum there think this)
3) Haven't we figured out by now religion and science don't mix? Copernicus, Galileo, Da Vinci, and who knows who else?
4) Umm....the book of Genesis doesn't exactly print out a recipe for world building and population. If it said something like 2 cups of flour, 1 cup of butter.....bake at 350 for 20 minutes, I might be willing to buy this. But the fact of the matter is that it doesn't. Instead it gives us a big allegorical story and makes all sorts of references about the fact that time for God doesn't pass like it does for us humans. I myself see no conflict between evolution and religion. They are answers to separate questions - Why and How.
5) Am I the only one that finds it odd that a bunch of nutballs who don't even bother to read their own holy book swear that the it is the literal word God even though it was originally written in Aramaic, translated in to Hebrew, then to Latin, then to Greek, and the back to Latin, and then to English? And that's a best case scenario for most of the books of the "Bible".
6) Am I the only one who really questions the validity of the King James version, the one that most of the swear is "true and correct"? King James had all sorts of things tucked into his translation that supported his divine right to rule. It was politically motivated and PAID FOR by a King - as in "You didn't do what I said. Off with his head!" kind of a King at that.
7) What about the places where the Bible contradicts itself? Since its the literal word of God, that makes God wrong and since God is infallible, he can't be wrong, therefore - using their own logic - God did not write the Bible OR God isn't God.
Oh, but we can ignore all of the historical facts because we have "faith".
2 cents,
QueenB.
Re:Some Quick Thoughts.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Copernicus was a Roman Catholic who was encouraged by his bishop to spread his research about heliocentrism. Galileo ran into trouble because of remarks he made about the hope - politics was the problem, not science. I don't recall Da Vinci running into any problems re: science and religion and he is recorded as wanting to die catholic with confession etc. If you take a look at two of the greatest ever scientist, Faraday and Maxwell, you'll see that they were evangelical Christians who played in active role in teaching the Bible in their local churches. Alister McGrath, the previous principle of Wycliffe College, the theological college of Oxfod University, got his first PhD in Biophysics. A large proportion of Christian students in Oxford are scientists, medics, mathematicians and engineers.
Try telling them that Christianity and science don't mix.
Wow, no sweeping generalisations or assumptions there.
Actually, the OT was written in Hebrew and the NT in Greek, with a handful of Aramaic. Translations have been made into a variety of languages over the years, but when a new translation is made, people don't take the most recent translation in another language then put it into their own; they take the most reliable Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and start over from them. seriously, read the translation notes from something like the NIV or the English Standard Version and see how absurd your allegation is. Modern translations are superior to older ones because we have more and better manuscripts available and are better at translating them.
Where do you get the idea that most people swear the KJV is the only true and correct version? There are quite a few vocal people about it, but most churches use one out of NIV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, NLT and serious scholars end to recommand translations like NASB and ESV.
Sure, if we go along with your false dichotomy that anything you think is a contradiction must be a contradiction and the explanations of those who know the Bible better, have studied it considerably more and arrive at a different conclusion are clearly wrong.
Pot. Kettle. Black. Do some research.
Sheer ignorance. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow. I'm not sure I've ever seen a more fundamentally ignorant statement on Slashdot. This translational game of telephone that you're proposing is divorced from all history. Textual transmission is nothing like what you're suggesting. Our English translations are not obtained from Latin texts; they are obtained from the original languages (Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic).
The Old Testament:
Originally written in Hebrew, except for three or four small sections written in Aramaic. The main Hebrew manuscripts we have now is called the Masoretic text, compiled by the Masoretes in the 9th & 10th centuries. It's a Hebrew manuscript, and does not come from any translational lineage. We also have the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament written before the time of Jesus.
The New Testament:
Originally written in Greek. We have that Greek. (We have many manuscripts copied at different times, some dating back to the second century.) We also have the early Latin translation called the Vulgate, but the Greek manuscripts we have did not come from the Vulgate. We have both. We also have some other early translations (e.g. into coptic/Egyptian language).
Now, there are some who think that the NT was originally in Aramaic. This is highly unlikely for much of the NT, written as letters to Greek Christians throughout the Roman empire. It may be more reasonable for the Gospels, and some of the letters written to primarily Jewish Christians. Hey, Luke's gospel account starts out with a statement that he'd sought out many witnesses as his research, and it's entirely likely that some of that was Aramaic.
So even granting Aramaic primacy for all the NT, the chain for the NT is Aramaic-->Greek. We have that Greek. For the OT, it's just Hebrew (with a little bit written in Aramaic). We have that, too. For both, we also have various later translations, but those translations are not part of the lineage that we have now. For instance, there is no Latin in the lineage of our OT manuscripts at all--that was a ridiculous error. (I.e., our Greek manuscripts are copied from earlier Greek manuscripts, back to the originals.) The English translations are from the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, with no lineage of translation except possibly Aramaic-->Greek.
Re:Sheer ignorance. (Score:4, Insightful)
I never understood why people who want to talk about the bible are often so stuck on whether it is literally, word for word, true or not. The bible is a horrible book about an insane divine entity whether it is literally true or "young girl" was mistranslated into "virgin" when written in Greek.
Take the story of Abraham. The dude's old. He has a kid. God wants to test him. So he tells him to kill his son. Burn him too. Dude doesn't like it, but eventually he agrees. Goes on to build the bonfire and all. Given his devotion, God eventually says: Dude, I was only joking, you don't have to kill him.
In the Christian faith system this is a beautiful story about loyalty. In the real world it is the story about a psychopathic megalomaniac who finds joy in tormenting other people and a weak idiot of a moron who goes along with the torture.
The correct response if God comes to you and asks you to kill your son is to spit God in the face and tell him to fuck off. If he insists, you get a gang of your best friends together and busts the knees of God. That is the correct response. God was a psychopath for demanding the sacrifice, Abraham was insane for accepting.
Being part of an organization that thinks this is a beautiful story marks you as a nut-case in my book, but that is just me.
Re:In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't smack people around for believing in god, and I don't smack them around for smoking 3 packs of cigarettes a day. I do, however, think both are without reason and terribly stupid things to do. I will probably spend the rest of my days criticizing both behaviors (my freedom, as it were), and doubt I will ever be bothered in the least about you crying into your pillow at night.
Religions promote falsehoods in that they foster environments of non-scientific thought, or more precisely, they foster lack of thought. This lack of thought is the antithesis of all human progress as we know it and we'd probably still sitting in our own shit if it prevailed. The same science that invented everything around you is the same science that shows the earth to be 4b years old, the universe to be upwards of 13+b years old, and so on. The foundations of the medicine you and your children take, the cancer treatments your mother takes, the emergency treatment given to your father when he got into an accident when he was 17, are of the science that show the bible to be wrong on many accounts.
Of course, the worst part is that now many people are starting to move from "literal" interpretations of the bible to more "story" based, or metaphorically based. This is the only thing that _could_ happen when underlying texts of a religion start failing, because had it not happened the religion would have vanished. (Sort of like the anthropic principle for religions?).
Re:In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a big difference --- the producers and consumers of Bugs Bunny, James Bond, and Star Wars don't promote those things as being real and don't attempt to substitute events depicted therein for science. It is understood that they are strictly entertainment.
Whether it's a movie or a religion that's false, neither of them are really harming you, personally... I wouldn't think.
Ask Salman Rushdie about that.
Re:In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. (Score:4, Funny)
Christians aren't persecuted, get over it (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but it IS the same science that makes cars, TVs, and all our modern conveniences that says the universe is a certain age. You are no scientist and have no understanding of science. It all hangs together in a vast web of interrelations. If one part of that web were false, it would have ripple effects on all of the rest of science. You can't just isolate the part that says the universe is X years old from the part that, say, lets us make televisions.
No one hates you for your religious views. Get over your Christian persecution complex. Christians control this country and dominate the political and social landscape. You people are not persecuted. We think your religion is stupid, and we think people shouldn't pay any attention to it. That is not the same as hating you.
Re:In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. (Score:5, Insightful)
You are free to leave the discussion, to ask that people refrain from insults (and saying "I don't believe you" IS NOT an insult, sorry), and to state your opinions.
Re:In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Name one.
Re:In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. (Score:5, Funny)
>Not all religions promote falsehoods either.
>>Name one.
Scientology!
Re:In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Kind of like in Idiocracy. [wikipedia.org] Whoever breeds the most becomes the most successful.
Faith is a poison upon mankind. (Score:4, Insightful)
It turns man against man, because of different ancient social mores and savagely ignorant beliefs about the workings of the universe.
Glad I could accomodate you, as religion has been a particular pox on my existance.
Re:Faith is a poison upon mankind. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because basic human greed won't turn man against man, amiright? I'll grant you that religion has been a smokescreen used many times to cover up human greed (whether it be for power, money, what have you), but in the absence of religion "might makes right" has stepped up to the plate on more than one occasion throughout human history.
Re:Faith is a poison upon mankind. (Score:5, Insightful)
Science COULD have the same effect on making people do seemingly illogical things. See the Milgram Experiments for reference. I would argue that if everyone ditched religion for science, it is inevitable that someone would use science in the same way to corrupt people into achieving their agenda.
Re:Faith is a poison upon mankind. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure I've already seen this happen. The scientists involved usually seem to be unconcerned with the corruption of scientific principles. I've spoken with a microbiologist who was unconcerned, and he said that it was important for the most intelligent people to make all the decisions. To this end, he reasoned that people who were easily swayed by flawed science were rightly manipulated by scientists who deliberately misrepresented their findings. His aim was to become a public policy maker.
The view that most people aren't smart enough to make the best decisions for themselves is very troubling to me. It is one that I have heard many people express to me when they felt I would be like minded. Based on my personal experiences, I have concluded that most people feel this way (including most scientists).
People should be careful not to delude themselves into thinking that religion causes this kind of mass manipulation. It is always caused by people thinking they are smart enough to make decisions for others.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And all this time we've been looking for the WMDs
Re:Faith is a poison upon mankind. (Score:5, Insightful)
Paraphrasing Contact [imdb.com]:
Palmer: Did you love your father?
Ellie: Yes.
Palmer: Prove it.
We know all sorts of things. Our knowledge is vast, but compared to the infinity of space, insignificant. If nothing else, quantum physics teaches us that there are many gray areas, where things are not as cut-and-dried as they seem. Belief and/or faith in something without scientific proof is not the death of Mankind -- belief and/or faith in something when the evidence before contradicts that belief/faith is where the madness lies.
Re:Faith is a poison upon mankind. (Score:5, Insightful)
A hypothesis is not the same thing as a belief. The difference is just as you said: when a scientist has a hypothesis, he does everything in his power to try and prove that his hypothesis is wrong (i.e he "tests it"). Compare that to when a religious person has a belief, and he does everything in his power to prevent people from proving it wrong.
but don't think believing something w/o proof is wrong in any way
It is if you refuse to reconcile your beliefs with the facts. Ask any Christian Scientist whose child died for lack of a blood transfusion.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Faith is a poison upon mankind. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Faith is a poison upon mankind. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Faith is a poison upon mankind. (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't believe this was modified "insightful" and I also can't believe I'm bothering to reply, but here goes.
These people aren't trying to disprove their theories, they're trying to find explanations that fit them. They therefore ignore all the data that supports the opposing view and weasel their way into a contorted version of reality where it's possible for these things to be the case. The science is based on (at best) invalid assumptions and (at worst) deliberate lies.
Re:Faith is a poison upon mankind. (Score:5, Insightful)
This extra condition - made with little or no real reason beyond the Word or what have you - makes a world of difference in the scientific picture. I don't have the knowledge of geology to critique an explanation of the formation of the Grand Canyon in any detail (Well, provided its in any way coherent. But lets assume it's somewhat reasonable), so I won't bother asking for citations or the like, but I would expect that the need for the Grand Canyon to be created in a short time frame featured pretty heavily in the development of the theory.
By comparison, consider that not so long ago, suggesting the world was "old" was breaking the status quo in a massive way, going against both the religious and scientific establishments. People did not do this without a reason, and it took a significant amount of evidence from many fields to build a convincing argument for the case. It begs the question - why would people do this if there was a "simpler" young earth explanation? It can't have been the vast old-earth athiest conspiracy, since such a thing presumably didn't exist before people considered the idea of an old earth in much detail.
Preconceived notions are a significant weakness if anyone is serious about the scientific method, and any theory based around them should, I feel, be viewed with at least a touch of skepticism
Re:Faith is a poison upon mankind. (Score:5, Insightful)
So they might be trying to prove their theory (anyone else think it's funny that they seem to feel the need to prove their beliefs to others using the same methods used by those they claim to hate for using methods that confuse and lead people astray from the clear truth of the Almighty?) but that doesn't shield them from comments or even ridicule from the outside. Scientists even ridicule other scientists when they come up with harebrained ideas. In the case of the young earth creationists, I have to agree with those that mock them and their attempts. These people are trying to prove a "theory" that takes more than a few liberties with the truth and is based on a premise that is demonstrably false.
Of course, I'm sure in response to evidence that the planet is older than 6,000 years they'll simply say God sucked out enough carbon-14 (whether as part of the creation process or to purposefully throw us off - by the way, why does anyone want to believe in a God that purposefully deludes us in an attempt to keep us ignorant?) to make it seem like things are much older than they are. There is the problem we evil science lovers have with these God issues. We could have a mountain of evidence and even God himself come down and tell them they're all morons, and they would still not believe and call our presentation of God a hoax (humorously, they'd probably say it was some trick of the devil trying to condemn them to Hell for believing in science). Part of the scientific process is peer review which includes others smacking you and your beliefs down when they clearly prove you are wrong. How can that process function when you can have a "God" response to every counterclaim?
Re:Faith is a poison upon mankind. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Faith is a poison upon mankind. (Score:5, Informative)
Opened in 2001, Dinosaur Adventure Land sprung from Hovind's Creation Science Evangelism ministry, which began to evolve in the late '80s. CSE sells videos and audiotapes of Hovind's lectures and his debates with evolutionary scientists, along with books on "Evolution and the New World Order." (At least one of them, Fourth Reich of the Rich, alleges a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world.)
Re:Faith is a poison upon mankind. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not a very good example, that. I'd hardly call Stalin a humanist. Anyhow, your example merely reinforces GP's point: the belief that a wide, heavy-handed enactment of communism would improve the welfare of the population of Russia is also a belief unfounded in scientific proof, empirical data or even anecdotal evidence. The fact that it doesn't have anything to do with a supernatural almighty being doesn't make it any less an unfounded belief.
Re:In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. (Score:5, Funny)
I look at it this way:
It's generally frowned upon to brand idiots. However, if you can encourage them to brand themselves, then it makes it easy for the rest of us to avoid them. In this spirit, I'd encourage anyone who visits this museum to buy the t-shirt, and wear it proudly...
Re:In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, that and in this country we value freedom of speech. Let's face it: you and I might think these folks are first class loonies, but it does absolutely no good to denigrate their belief, because they have developed a system whereby there is no challenge to their faith that they cannot nullify. No amount of inconsistency in their world view is going to sway them. That's because belief is a core function, based on the rational part of our mind. We have to "believe" that the world around us is the way it is in order to function in it. We have taken that mechanism and applied it to things we cannot see or experience and that's where the trouble lies, because we can convince ourselves that things we cannot see are more real than things right before our eyes.
Let them be. They are only fooling themselves. I think it's safe to say that they are truly a minority group, and this is their chance to have a moment in the sun. The rest of us know better and can safely ignore them, unless they intend to force us to see things their way. Then the gloves come off.
Re:In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Just to present more than one side (Score:4, Insightful)
Having said that, the scientific community is typically quite open to new ideas and concepts when they are put forth in a rational fashion. The issue comes when there is significant disproof of a concept, and yet its proponents insist on being given "fair treatment". A prime example is the current fear of "electrosensitivty", where people are convinced that Wifi/mobile phones etc are giving them headaches and so forth. The idea was actively investigated and it was found that, although many patients suffered real symptoms, they were not correlated to the presence of microwave radiation, and the idea was largely dismissed. However there is still a growing group of 'sufferers' who claim that their problems need to be investigated, that the scientific community is ignoring them, and so forth. People with an entrenched opinion tend to only see the surveys which support their cause, while work which investigates their argument but does not support it often ends up getting dismissed out of hand (often as part of a conspiracy of some sort).
Factually inacurate (Score:5, Informative)
They fail at bible accuracy, in a frikkin bible museum!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
maybe eating only grass is not good for mental health.
Re:Factually inacurate (Score:4, Informative)
Gen 3:7 - Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genes
Re:Factually inacurate (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Factually inacurate (Score:5, Interesting)
"Moreover, I saw under the sun that in the place of justice, even there was wickedness, and in the place of righteousness, even there was wickedness...I said in my heart with regard to the sons of men that God is testing them TO SHOW THEM THAT THEY ARE BUT BEASTS..."
So it's not that man was doing evil, it's that man was a beast. By eating of the tree of knowledge, they become enlightened enough to be shamed by their evidence of bestiality and wish to become clothed, thus taking on a godly aspect. And God found this a threat, because God is a jealous little bitch. (Note that the First Commandment is not "Don't murder" or "Be Nice" or anything like that; no, it's "Me, God, I'm a jealous bitch, and you better not step out!" But I digress.) The Serpent in the Garden is man's benefactor, cluing in Eve that God is a liar -- God couldn't care less if she and Adam died, rather God's concern was that they would become like him, which just wouldn't do. Genesis 3:4-5:
"But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil..."
And just to hammer the point home, the narrator has God repeat back the Serpent's words in verse 22, thus confirming the Serpent's shrewd and penetrating analysis:
"Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil..."
Anyhoo, all snickering at God's insecurities aside, the point here is that if you want to make any sense whatsoever out of Genesis, you need a firm grounding in Mesopotamian theology.
Re:Factually inacurate (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Factually inacurate (Score:5, Insightful)
It actually comes down to being about free will. The whole point of the story is to point out that humans are not fighting against good and evil, but either choosing God's path or not choosing our own path. It was suppossed to be a choice, and God does not punish us for not choosing him, its that without him we make decisions that hurt each other and ourselves. That's the actual theology of it, for any of you who are interested.
I agree that you can approach it different ways; two of those ways being thematically and literally. As a thematic interpretation, I've got no problem with that take on it (even though I don't share those beliefs)...but we're talking about a group who has claimed to interpret it literally.
As a literal read; God created the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Everlasting Life (yup, two trees, kids!), and told Adam not to eat the fruit or they would die. The snake told Eve that was BS and that God didn't want them to eat the fruit because they would become more like Him.
They ate it. God lied (having said the fruit would kill them), and the snake told the truth (they became more like God). God expelled them from the Garden of Eden (the implication in the text being that He didn't want them eating from the Tree of Everlasting Life) and cursed them to a hard life (that was their punishment).
That's what my Bible says; and I've never heard a creationist/literalist cop to that story.
So, thematically - a useful representation of why one should follow God's path. Literally - a cruel con job on two innocents by someone who owed them better.
I've gotta stop reading this thread. It's driving me nuts...
Re:Factually inacurate (Score:5, Funny)
Adam: Why not?
God: It will give you knowledge of Good and Evil.
Adam: What's evil?
God: Eating from the tree.
Adam: I don't understand.
God: Eat from the tree and you will.
Adam: Ok... wait... start over.
Nudity is not bad (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Factually inacurate (Score:5, Insightful)
So in short, Adam and Eve became self-conscious about their state of dress after eating the apple, because they were starting to understand the concept of sins and evil.
FWIW, both the museum and the story strike of flamebait. Not much good will come of this. In fact, this whole "war" between science and religion is doing horrendous things to both sides. Let science be science and let religion be religion. Don't try to make religion science and don't try to make science into religion. The former is bad because it misses the possible truths about God's universe. The latter is bad, because science can blind itself to its self-correcting design if those running the show dig their heels in too far.
Re:Factually inacurate (Score:4, Funny)
I don't think so, actually. What got them kicked out of the Garden was that they'd eaten the forbidden fruit. God was quite happy for them to prance around naked before that.
Re:Factually inacurate (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Factually inacurate (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, God rested on the seventh day and established His sabbath for mankind (Mark 2:27) [crosswalk.com].
But... "Now Open 7 days a week" [creationmuseum.org]
A great museum, but they have a blind spot on this point.
Re:Factually inacurate (Score:4, Informative)
So what about the second tree?
Gen 2:9 "And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground--trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."
Gen 2:16-17 "And the LORD God commanded the man, 'You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.'"
Ok, so we have two trees in the middle of the Garden. God tells the man, they will die as a direct result of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, one of the two trees in the middle of the garden. So far, the second tree, the tree of life, is irrelevant.
Gen 3:1-6 "Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'? The woman said to the serpent, 'We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' 'You will not surely die,' the serpent said to the woman. 'For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.' When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it."
OK, now we have A&E eating from a tree in the middle of the Garden. It's not said directly that they ate from "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil", but we do have some clues. First, the serpent tells Eve if she eats from the tree they are talking about, they will "be like God, knowing good and evil." Okay, which tree gives knowledge of good and evil? Is it the Tree of Life, or the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil?
Then God finds out what happens and flips his lid.
Gen 3:17 "To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
'Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.'"
Now God says that Adam ate from the tree which he commanded him not to. Which tree was that? In Gen 2:16, it says'you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil'. So we can conclude that Adam ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Still, so far, the tree of life is irrelevant.
Then after God clothes them and kicks them out of the Garden, he says this:
( Gen. 3:22 ) "And the LORD God said, 'The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.' "
So God says that the man became like one of them ( Hey! Who are they, anyway? ), knowing the difference between good an evil. Was it because they ate from the Tree of Life, or the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? We still might not be 100% certain at this point. But then, God clears it all up for us: "He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." So God lets us know that Adam *hasn't* eaten from the Tree of Life. Furthermore, we know that he hasn't eaten from the Tree of Life, because if he had, he would be immortal. That's quite a bit different than what God said would happen about either trees in the center of the Garden. So Adam has only eaten from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
So what's the hint about the second tree? Nobody eats from it. It's clearly not the tree God forbid Adam from eating. And, let's say for the sake of ar
Confused (Score:5, Insightful)
This just seems to validate that it's more of a biblical museum than a creation museum.
Re:Confused (Score:5, Interesting)
As such, they need a natural/unnatural dissater that affects the entire world.
Hence they calim that Noah's flood moved tons of dirt, buring lots and lots of bones much deaper than happens normally.
This is supposedly why we find animals buried with millions and millions years worth of dirt on top of them, instead of just the 40,000 thosand years of dirt that one would think.
Re:Confused (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Confused (Score:5, Interesting)
The whole point of creationism and other philosophies like them is that they are a response to, and not a discovery of, new knowledge. The bible says that the flood happened. Therefore, when investigating the 'origins of life', that HAS TO BE accounted for. No option of how history happened can exclude that information. The entire museum takes all of the information in the bible and then attempts to map that information to a model which would allow the bible to be true. The bible is the yardstick to which all other information is measured.
Science, on the other hand, is progressing by asking questions, proposing models and ideas, and advancing those models and ideas through objective testing. If the model or idea is invalidated by the testing results, they are modified. The yardstick in this case is objective reality. If an idea is good enough, we can test its validity in the world.
I personally side with science/reality. I mean, I don't have much choice. Reality will continue to be what it is regardless of what I want to believe.
Velociraptors, huh? (Score:5, Funny)
Full of Blasphemous Lies! (Score:5, Funny)
This museum was built by godless atheists who want to profit from true believers!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Genesis 7:2-3 [biblegateway.com]
Belly button (Score:5, Funny)
Imposing? (Score:5, Funny)
Doesn't sound like it was very intelligently designed
buh-da-chingIt's funny. . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Someone came on and identified themselves as a Catholic and bemoaned how society has become "me first" and this was because of people not worshipping God.
That got me thinking, if the caller was upset about the "me first" generation then he should certainly have a problem with the biggest "me first"er of them all: God.
After all, God says that there will be only one God, him (her/it/whatever), that you must follow his rules and you must give thanks to him. If that isn't self-centered, I don't know what is.
As we can see from the exhibits (it's not a museum folks), apparently anything can be twisted enough to justify a religious rather than scientific or logical reason for something.
The really depressing part is now we'll have another generation of kids having their minds polluted by nonsense of dinosaurs living with man and the Earth being only a few thousand years old. I guess being oblivious to reality is the easiest way of getting through life.
Re:It's funny. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
I am also an atheist, and while not refusing to recite the pledge, i do leave the god part out. That part by definition excludes me, and as such i feel no need to include it. I don't really care when other people continue to leave it in, since it really just serves to prove the point that much of what people do with, and believe about, religion is truly bullshit. Most believers, and to be fair some unbelievers as well, would have no idea what the original pledge was, why it was written, or when and why the "under god" bit was added.
sadly, and getting back to the main point of this article, faith in magical sky wizzards if in this day and age not so much a statement of faith as it is of ignorance. Believers that i talk to have no sense of the history of their own religion, or even of any other religions. I can think of one christian in the last year that i have talked to who had even heard of the council of Nicaea. They don't know how or why their bible was put together the way it was, or their quran, or whatever 'sacred' book they happen to believe in. And as far as science goes, most people also don't have a clue, how else to explain the penetration that intelligent design has made into our society. I was watching The View a few days ago, don't ask, and Elisabeth Hasselbeck was happily promoting ID to the millions of people watching the show, that in my mind is simply a failure of people to grasp the very concepts of science, and the scientific process. And this was after she said "Look at the constitution, god is written all over the constitution." I have no idea what their real viewership is, but it scares me that there are people out there that now think that is fact.
I don't know if it is a good thing or not that there is not a creation museum, on the one hand it keeps all the nut jobs in one place, with their own made up versions of history, science, geology, cosmology, anthropology, and biology. On the other hand, we are letting them indoctrinate their children with lies and half truths. All so they will unquestioningly believe a myth. Many will never question it, or even bother to learn about it, or any of the other myths out there. They will just go through life with irrational beliefs that etiquette says we are not to question, which helps to keep the whole thing going.
Religion played a roll in our development as a society, but then again so did slavery. It is time to let religion go as well. My only fear is that in the end that will leave a gap in peoples lives that will still be taken advantage of frauds and con men, with scams like scientology and raelienism. But those at lease we feel less of a need to grant pardons to in the free exchange of ideas. And while they may be sue happy, no one has any problem pointing out that they are bat sh*t crazy. Although really, is it any sillier than the idea that a god sent 1/3 of himself to earth, to be born of a virgin, so that he could sacrifice himself to himself to pardon all of humanity for something he was punishing them for in the first place?
Okay, ranted long enough.
wow (Score:5, Funny)
I'm a devout Christian who knows God exists (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm a devout Christian who knows God exists (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the reasons that [most] scientists (those who believe in the scientific method as the surest method to get as close as possible to truth) find certain religious people insufferable is that they attempt to assign their own meanings to words which already have plenty of meanings, thank you.
I understand that what you mean is "I believe that God exists", just as a scientist would say "I believe that quantum entanglement exists". But that's not what you're saying. And as long as you say what you don't mean, then you will be alienating those who do.
Others have said similar things to you, so this comment is somewhat redundant. But none of the other comments explain what the root problem is, and most of them are quite rude - which is fun, but not conducive to communication.
Coal could be made in a few weeks (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Coal could be made in a few weeks (Score:5, Funny)
Exclusiveness (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Exclusiveness (Score:4, Funny)
'nuff said
Re:Exclusiveness (Score:5, Informative)
How come no one can make money with Flood Geology? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why don't creationists take the $20+ million they spent on the museum, and use it to apply "Flood Geology" to finding valuable mineral deposits and such? They could open a bunch of museums with the profits, and provide solid evidence for their "theory" that would make those 'deluded geologists' take notice.
Funny how they never seem to want to actually try to apply what they say they believe...
Tourism Mecca? (Score:5, Funny)
How cool would it be if the Flat Earth Society opened a similar, though less expensive, attraction right next door. Even if somebody just put up a sign for it, it would be so poignant.
On the other side of their building, we could have a "global warming" museum..... Oh, crap. This is slashdot. I am about to get modded down into oblivion.
Problems (Score:5, Interesting)
But I have a big, big problem when it comes to the public actions of those believers. How many thousands of children and impressionable adults will never even have the chance to learn basic tenets of logic, reason and science after being indoctrinated by a "museum" like this and the cooing, gentle voice of its proponents, telling children stories about dinosaurs living next to adam and eve and jesus?
I don't know what to do. I fully believe in Voltaire's classic quotation on freedom of speech and belief. But in this instance, I find myself thoroughly unwilling to defend the "Creation Museum's" right to make up whatever crazy "facts" they want. It's the first time I find myself wanting to "think of the children" who may very well grow up into the willfully ignorant bible beaters that are founding this "museum."
And yet there I am, suddenly the intolerant monster I have never been able to stand. Yet I tremble to imagine a future dark ages in America, where real science -- the search for the evidence of the reality of the universe -- is stoned in the streets and systematically rubbed out.
Please: before you mod me into oblivion, I want to hear everyone's thoughts on this subject.
Re:Problems (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Problems (Score:5, Insightful)
It's, essentially, in the middle of no-where in Kentucky. The only people that are likely to visit the museum are people that already have their minds made up, or the children of those people. They'll already be indoctrinated.
If schools start mandatory field trips to the museum, we can talk. Until then, it's not likely to get visited by anybody who is "on the fence." People will either be going to take pictures and mock it, or they'll be going because it's a museum dedicated to what they already believe.
Re:Problems (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, this creation museum is ALREADY receiving TAXPAYER funding. It's COMPLETELY outrageous. The state and local government give them FREE police and fire protection, EXEMPTED it from paying its fair share of taxes (due to some BS "non-profit" status), provides it with FREE road maintenance for the surrounding area, REGISTERED it in public directories, and granted it a FREE permit to use the land.
Oh, sorry, I was just looking to rationalize my pre-existing bias that the government forces me to pay for anything I'm opposed to.
Re:Problems (Score:5, Funny)
i think of it this way (Score:5, Interesting)
intolerance of intolerance is actually good
in fact, to meet a fundamentalist, and for them to call you intolerant, as in, hypocritically intolerant, is actually a badge of achievement
because you are not hypocritically intolerant if you are intolerant of them
because what they don't understand is that fundamentalism is true intolerance, and therefore to be intolerant of that is actually to strive in the direction of more tolerance
intolerant: "because you are not a true christian/ true muslim, i am better than you" =evil
intolerance of intolerance: "because you consider yourself better than me based on your religious bigotry, i am intolerant of you" =good
intolerance can be predicated on a number of characteristics of a person that is not intolerant in and of themselves: race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.
intolerance can also be predicated on someone else's intolerance: not tolerating their intolerance of someone because of race, religion, seuxla orientation, etc.
so you can judge any tolerance in question as to what it is opposed to. and if it is opposed to some inherently nonintolerant feature of a person, it is true intolerance. but if it is opposed to an intolerant feature of the person themselves, it is not intolerance, it is a form of tolerance, because it directed against real intolerance
The US is looking more and more like the taliban (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The US is looking more and more like the taliba (Score:5, Interesting)
Look at all the things that people buy into today, particularly in Europe, such as homeopathy, reflexology, chiropractics, magnet therapy, colonics, yadda yadda. How many people believe that irradiated strawberries are radioactive? How many people sit around worrying about the "toxins" in the body? How many people belive that Feng Shui increases the positive "energy" in a room?
I try to console myself... (Score:5, Insightful)
At least we all get a good laugh out of this one.
And a good cry.
You dont explain nuclear fission to a caveman (Score:4, Insightful)
God - Ok so afte a couple of million years...
Secretary - Hold on, how much is a couple million years?
God - Sigh... ok so on the first _day_ I made light using what I like to call the Big Bang.
Secretary - Sorry that's too long and my hand hurts. I'll just write God made light on the first day.
God - Sigh....
I don't actually see that much problem with being both beliver of evolution and the Big bang and being a christian. I think the problem is that people read the bible like it was a book about natural science instead of what it realy is ie a history book and a book about ethics.
As a Christian... let me just say.... (Score:4, Insightful)
PLEASE GO AWAY or SHUT THE HELL UP! You're fscking embarrassing.
Except TBN - you're Jesus pimps... which is far worse. The Bible has something to say about pimping God... and that He doesn't take kindly to it.
Looking at the schedule on their website.... (Score:5, Interesting)
WTF (Score:4, Informative)
For your edification I copied out the central "argument" for you to mock (er, I mean discuss.)
"The farther back in history one goes (back towards the Fall of Adam), the less of a problem mutation in the human population would be.
At the time of Adam and Eve's children, there would have been very few mutations in the human genome--thus close relatives could marry, and provided it was one man for one woman (the biblical doctrine of marriage), there was nothing wrong with close relatives marrying in early biblical history."
B.S. (Bedevere Science) all. (SIR BEDEVERE: And that, my liege, is how we know the earth to be banana-shaped. ARTHUR: This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.)
Now, how comes... (Score:5, Interesting)
I once asked my biology teacher (Jesuit) about the Bible's recount of the Creation. Answer: "The Bible was written by men, and inspired by God. Do you think He could have gone to some Bronze Age guys and told them about atoms, mass-energy equivalence, aminoacids and DNA? That was Abraham and company He was talking to, not Mr Spock."
You folks need some of these Jesuits types, methinks.
What scares me (Score:5, Insightful)
If our elected officials change our government such that it adopts policies in line with Creationist views, and you disagree with those views, it is your right -- your obligation -- to express your contrary opinion in spoken and written form, as well as in the voting booth. The mere existence of a Creationist museum scares me because it means that there are enough voters to push our government in what I feel is a bad direction. The Creationists have a right to have the museum and express their views. But I have a right, and a duty, to express my views that they are mistaken, to argue against their beliefs.
Here's a thought experiment to illustrate my point: Imagine that all medical research and treatment, everywhere in the US from now on, had to adhere to strict supervision by a board of politicians and clergy with fundamentalist views. Now wait 100 years. What do you think the state of US medical technology would be in such a case?
It's like this. (Score:5, Funny)
IDist: All woses are wed.
Scientist: No they aren't. Look. Produces white rose A white rose.
IDist: That is obviouthly not a wose. All woses are wed. That flower is white. Therefore it cannot be a wose.
Scientist: It is a rose. A white rose. Performs some unspecified test which demonstrates that the white flower indeed belongs to the genus Rosa.
IDist: Well, OK then, I acthept that it may be a wose, but you still haven't dithpwoved my theowy. Even you must surely have to admit that it is sort of a bit wed-ish. No, it's not a white rose -- it's just a vewy pale wed wose. You still haven't dithpwoved my theowy. All woses are wed!
Scientist: Now you're just talking bollocks.
IDist: Waaaah! You used a naughty word! Well, that just pwoves it, doesn't it? All woses are wed. I win! Come on, mummy, buy me an ithe cweam!
Re:One Word (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:One Word (Score:4, Interesting)
Not really. As someone else mentioned, it was built by an Australian, but all it proves is that any individual or group of people (no matter how small) with enough money can build anything they want. Having been through the school system, I can assure you that the vast majority of American schools teach Evolution with a fervor that nearly assigns it as actual history (rather than theory), and if the Judeo-Christian concept of Creation is taught at all, it is presented as mythology alongside Roman, Greek, Chaldean and other creation mythology. What people choose to believe despite this education is not really in any way related to success or failure on the part of the schools. It is not the school's responsibility to form your opinions for you. It's their responsibility to provide you with information that allows you to form your own opinions and understand differing opinions of others. Surely you don't think that schools should punish children who refuse to acknowledge the authority of Evolution, do you? Yes, I know that there are a few schools who have been dabbling in "Intelligent Design", but despite the media attention this has received, it's not very widespread in the public school system.
Now, on a separate note, there _are_ serious problems with the American education system, but they are more related to attempts to "dumb down" material (New Math anyone?) and the inability to recognize how children learn best and work with their natural proclivities. They don't do a good job of teaching logic and critical thinking. They wait until the children are too old to start teaching foreign languages. They have replaced much of the classical literature with more modern trash. They no longer discipline unruly students properly, instead allowing them to become a distraction to students who are are interested in learning. But most of all, out of fear of a lawsuit from the parents, they allow students to matriculate without a satisfactory understanding of the basic prerequisites for the next grade.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Would that it were that simple. It's not. [theatlantic.com] Humans don't naturally think in a scientific way. Doing it is hard. Even scientists who train for years have a hard time at at, and usually can only do it within the specific field they've trained in.
Of course, we can dream. And once it was thought that universal literacy was an impossible pipe dream... I can hope for universal scientific
Re:the more we advance in science (Score:5, Insightful)
The more I think we seriously need to consider "weeding out the population" of all the dumb shits too stupid to accept...
Yes! Death to everyone whose theological beliefs don't agree with your own. That will show the religious extremists!
Re:Partly our own fault (Score:4, Insightful)
Evo has not been demonstrated making large-scale complicated life-forms under full, controlled, and repeatable observation.
And gods have been so demonstrated? I must have missed that one.
Incrimental changes do not necessarily equal large changes.
Incremental changes times a million generations do.
Making a beak grow larger is not the same as making brains and immune systems.
Why?
"Time ate my homework" is not good enough.
Actually, it is. In fact, it is the central concept that makes evolution work and that's why the current crop of fairytale believers are so keen to deny deep-time and push the young earth nonsense. They know that the one thing that does make evolution possible - and obviously possible to even fairly dull people - is the huge timescales geologists uncovered in the late 1700s and early 1800s. If they can get people to doubt that then they can shift them off evolution, science, and rational thought, and get them to post money for quack miracles performed on daytime TV. Which, ultimately is what all organised religion is about when you get down to it.
Time, in this case, not only ate your homework, it is your homework.
TWW