Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

A Field Trip To the Creation Museum

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the dinosaurs-were-vegetarians dept.

United States 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.

cancel ×

1854 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. (3, Funny)

Mockylock (1087585) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436743)

Queue anti-religious /. comments...... NOW.

Re:In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. (5, Funny)

ronadams (987516) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436759)

You know, it didn't HAVE to take 5 seconds to queue the comments... it could very easily be scientifically explained how the comments came about in only .5 seconds... you're so narrow-minded.

Re:In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19436775)

Why shouldn't we be anti-"religious", if "religion" means promoting falsehood? Why should we give anyone a free pass to go on and on about nonsense without criticism?

Re:In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. (4, Insightful)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436919)

Because a more direct and effective route would be to skip right over religion and go straight to being be anti-falsehood promotion?

Re:In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 7 years ago | (#19437101)

If your faulting something for the assemble of the core makeup, then you are faulting it. And no, religion doesn't mean promoting falsehoods. People take metaphorical states as fact and that is what you are railing against. Not all religions promote falsehoods either. Some deal with truth and facts so I suggest you narrow your genaric religion down to the ones you know provide "falsehood"

and there isn't why there is the freedom to. People are supposedly free to believe whatever they want when it comes to a religion. When you attack that religion you are attacking that freedom. If you understood that you wouldn't be asking why people say your anti religion.

And seriously, it makes you worse then the bible thumpers who come knocking at your door. If you have some personal vendetta against religion then deal with it on your own.

Re:In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19436783)

You forgot to tick "Post Anonymously", moron.

Faith is a poison upon mankind. (4, Insightful)

FatSean (18753) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436787)

Belief in something with no scientific proof is the foundation of just about every failed adventure in human-kind.

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. (2, Insightful)

EastCoastSurfer (310758) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436853)

Belief in something with no scientific proof is the foundation of just about every failed adventure in human-kind.

Not arguing for religion here, but where do you think scientific proof comes from? Many times scientists take a belief they have and then set out to 'prove' it. Now they always don't find that what they believe is supported and should adjust accordingly, but don't think believing something w/o proof is wrong in any way. Lets not even get into what constitutes 'proof'.

Re:Faith is a poison upon mankind. (2, Insightful)

bedonnant (958404) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436895)

you mistake intuition or theory for belief.

Re:Faith is a poison upon mankind. (1)

verbatim_verbose (411803) | more than 7 years ago | (#19437033)

Unfortunately, those basing their worldviews on faith DON'T set out to prove the correctness of their thoughts. Even when they do discover evidence against what they believe, they find a way to reject it, even when it is logically unthinkable. That's the big difference.

Re:Faith is a poison upon mankind. (5, Insightful)

Jeremi (14640) | more than 7 years ago | (#19437067)

Not arguing for religion here, but where do you think scientific proof comes from? Many times scientists take a belief they have and then set out to 'prove' it.


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.

Re:Faith is a poison upon mankind. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19436883)

Belief in something with no scientific proof is the foundation of just about every failed adventure in human-kind.

You mean like the axioms of logic and induction in particular [wikipedia.org] , without which there would be no science to speak of? Yes, I can just see the failed adventure there.

Re:Faith is a poison upon mankind. (4, Insightful)

faloi (738831) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436913)

It turns man against man, because of different ancient social mores and savagely ignorant beliefs about the workings of the universe.

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. (2, Insightful)

jaymzter (452402) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436965)

How a comment like this gets modded Insightful is beyond me. I guess I can go burn any stories by Homer or Virgil I may have in my possession. Oh yeah, let's finish tearing down the Parthenon while we're at it. Not meaning to sound rude, but "belief in something with no scientific proof" is the foundation of some of Man's greatest achievments.

That being said, I like how the TFA author tried to imply an association between Creationism and anti-Semitism. I quit reading right there.

Re:Faith is a poison upon mankind. (4, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#19437093)

For one thing, it ignores the fact that a lot of progress happened by accident. Columbus set out to prove that there was a route to India by sailing west. He ignored a lot of evidence that the Earth was sufficiently large that he would run out of supplies about half way there. Fortunately, he found a continent in the middle where he could take on food. A lot of scientific discoveries have been made in a similar way; by people trying to prove things that we now think of as silly, and discovering some interesting contradictory evidence.

Re:Faith is a poison upon mankind. (5, Insightful)

div_2n (525075) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436973)

I think it is better to argue that human corruption of faith is the underpinnings behind such misadventures. Furthermore, I would argue that in these instances, faith was the vehicle, the gullible nature of humans was the road and the corrupted "leaders" were the drivers.

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. (2, Funny)

ubrgeek (679399) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436993)

> Faith is a poison upon mankind.

And all this time we've been looking for the WMDs ;)

Re:Faith is a poison upon mankind. (5, Insightful)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#19437077)

Belief in something with no scientific proof is the foundation of just about every failed adventure in human-kind.

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:In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. (0, Troll)

dbolger (161340) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436821)

Queue anti-religious /. comments...... NOW.

--
"Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.


Your sig sounds like every conversation I've ever had with a creationist, alright ;)

Re:In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. (2, Insightful)

Mockylock (1087585) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436961)

So true.

I tend to steer away from most of those conversations. I know scientific fact and evolution, but I find it best not to fight over something that people believe in more than life itself. I guess that's what they're finding out in the Middle-East right now.

"We think you're being a bit harsh with the extreme religion, there. OOOoooh, you've strapped bombs to yourself. AND, you're willing to blow yourself up for your religion. I see, um... Maybe you're right about the 40 virgins. In the meantime, I'm going to go over THIS way."

A lot of people take it sooo seriously. I know I've talked to my grandmother about evolution, though Religion is a family tradition... and she didn't think anything of it.. but other people are incredibly sensitive for no reason. Strange.

Cue myopia-insulating preemptive fallacy in... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19436831)

...oh, there it is!

Re:In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. (2, Insightful)

IdleTime (561841) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436893)

Well, only in USA could could a creation museum be created. Why? Because if how religious this country is and how dumb most people are. If you believe in this bullshit, then explain how you can use a PC. If any of the creation shit was true, a PC would not be possible since the speed of light would have been changing and as such, a PC would fail.

Not to mention the flood is not possible nor did it happen. There is not a single geological evidence to support a global flood, not to mention it would have cover Mt. Everest, over 29000 feet of water in 40 days (960 hours) and it would have rained approx. 30 feet per hour. That's not rain, but hydraulic mining.
>br> This museum is an insult to everyone who are involved in science in some form, it's an insult to all logical and thinking people. This is only attractive to mindless religious idiots.

Re:In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. (1)

brunascle (994197) | more than 7 years ago | (#19437047)

hey, i'm athiest as well, but what does creationism have to do with the speed of light?

Re:In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. (2, Insightful)

nofrak (889021) | more than 7 years ago | (#19437081)

Why could God not create a constant speed of light? I find it highly amusing how very dogmatic and knee-jerk the reaction to creationism is amongst the self proclaimed intelligentsia. I don't particularly approve of this museum (I think that if you believe in miracles, trying to explain them as science is a contradiction in terms), but good grief, get a hold of yourselves. Just look at how the normally reputable Ars launches into a pointless and irrelevant ad hominem attack at the end, seemingly out of spite. And while you're not exactly right that this could only happen in the US, it is one of the few places where people are allowed, unafraid, and unashamed to practice religion. It's not like they're making you go to it! Come on people, deep breaths.

Just to present more than one side (1, Interesting)

jason7655 (1096501) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436939)

There are at least 2 sides to everything...http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.a sp?ID=25812 [bpnews.net] . While most non-creationist long for rights and equality in most things, when it comes to an argument like this they are quick to go on the offensive. The article above is merely from the one Baptist, I'm sure there are other Baptist views as well as other Christian views.

Re:Just to present more than one side (1)

Mockylock (1087585) | more than 7 years ago | (#19437021)

Yeah... Baptist's have a variety of different outlooks. You could go to one in Southern WV and have people talking in tongues, handling snakes and drinking strychnine... then go to southern PA and just have people singing songs and talking very little about the bible or religion.

I think it's just based on the area and founders.

Re:Just to present more than one side (2, Insightful)

bedonnant (958404) | more than 7 years ago | (#19437089)

problem is, creationists have no right to equal treatment, because that would imply that their "theory" is equally plausible with evolution, which it clearly isn't. Why the US media keeps fooling people into thinking there is some kind of scientific debate about it is beyond me (apart from obvious lobbying reasons). There IS NO DEBATE. Evolution is only named a theory because there are specifics that are still not well known, not because the global process involved cannot be backed up by evidence. Creationism is just wishfull thinking.

Factually inacurate (5, Informative)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436773)

Eve was naked until she ate from the tree of knowledge, at which point she made herself a skirt with leaves.

They fail at bible accuracy, in a frikkin bible museum!

Re:Factually inacurate (3, Funny)

bedonnant (958404) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436809)

actually, when they ate from the tree, they realized they were naked. maybe they dressed before and didn't realize it either.
maybe eating only grass is not good for mental health.

Re:Factually inacurate (4, Informative)

allthingscode (642676) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436885)

Nope, according to the bible, which we have to take to mean exactly what it says (we are creationists):

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=genesi s+3 [biblegateway.com]

Re:Factually inacurate (0, Offtopic)

IdleTime (561841) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436929)

And can someone explain what is bad with a naked body? Typical religious bullshit. Nudity is not bad, we are all naked. Violence is bad, nudity is good.

Re:Factually inacurate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19437025)

And can someone explain what is bad with a naked body?


In general ... or on Slashdot?

The former, not much.
The latter ... I wouldn't know where to begin.

Re:Factually inacurate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19437031)

Actually, that's part of the point of the story - exactly how silly their reaction is, and how far they let things get out of control.

Re:Factually inacurate (1, Interesting)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436943)

so they realized they were naked. Could this mean they knew about cloths and had them but something happened that we aren't getting the full story on? They ate the apple, their cloths cam off, they made new ones.

Re:Factually inacurate (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19436825)

And for some reason they forget the woman before Eve: Lilith [wikipedia.org]
(which explain the behavior of most women on earth :) *runs for his life*)

Re:Factually inacurate (4, Funny)

Walt Dismal (534799) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436845)

Oh, the museum isn't all that inaccurate. For example, the exhibit showing the RIAA offering an apple to Eve is certainly correct. And the Stone-Age diorama showing Jack Thompson and Darl McBride hitting each other over the head with clubs was not only historically accurate, but desirable as well.

Re:Factually inacurate (2, Funny)

changling bob (1075587) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436851)

Yeah, but at least they thought of the children. God forbid they saw a model of a naked woman!

They can't tolerate their own history: nude Eve (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19436869)

Not sure why we're even bothering to comment on this article. I guess it has comedy value of sorts.

Perhaps we should flood the nutters with explicit pictures of nude Eve, as per their own scriptures, for even more comedy.

Re:Factually inacurate (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436915)

Can't you tell this was all a joke. Seriously, didn't you see the look of surprise in her eyes when the velociraptor passed her by?

You're response is Biblically inacurate (2, Informative)

jason7655 (1096501) | more than 7 years ago | (#19437013)

From the picture I've seen, there's no way to know if it was before or after she ate from the tree...so you can't really make that point. Also, She didn't make herself a skirt. 21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.

One Word (1)

thygrrr (765730) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436779)

Scary.

I'm at a loss for words (apart from this one)

Re:One Word (5, Interesting)

bedonnant (958404) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436963)

Speaking as a Frenchman, that such a museum has been conceived and built is mind-boggling, in a bad way. It reflects poorly on the american educational system. It shows how far fundamentalists can go to counter Reason in a way that hasn't been seen in France for centuries.

Sarcasm? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19436781)

Sarcasm is beautiful in typed text. You were being sarcastic.. right?

Dinosaurs with sharp teeth were actually very timid and would never chomp into a human flesh bag. But I'm curious, how come there aren't any human bones buried alongside dinosaur bones?

Confused (4, Insightful)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436785)

Ok, I'm confused. What does the great flood have to do with creationism? Is it "evidence" of creation?

This just seems to validate that it's more of a biblical museum than a creation museum.

Re:Confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19436815)

May be the Almighty Creator had ... a leak?

Re:Confused (1)

laejoh (648921) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436863)

or... an orgasm? (or should that be Orgasm?)

Re:Confused (4, Interesting)

gurps_npc (621217) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436975)

One of the problems creationism has is that animal/dinosaur bones are found buried MUCH deeper than any reasonable man can claim to have happened in just 40,000 years, without some kind of natural dissater that dumped a lot of dirt on them. And it happens consistently over the ENTIRE world.

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 (1)

Walzmyn (913748) | more than 7 years ago | (#19437051)

The Museum's ministry focuses on the first 11 chapters of the Bible - those most disputed - which contains the flood. The havock the flood wrecked on the world accounts for most of the geological features we see today, including those interperted to be evidence of a million year old world.

Re:Confused (1)

ch-chuck (9622) | more than 7 years ago | (#19437103)

This is just a personal thought but it seems like the 'great flood' could very well have been a flooding of the Mediterrian(sp?) sea. Maybe it was all below sea level like Death Valley or the dead sea and the straight of Gilbrater was suddenly breached. If it happened way back when history was just orally transmitted that would certainly have been a major event that could be cast into all kinds of morality lessons, the legend of Atlantis etc. It's in the right part of the world.

RTFA for lots of laughs! (1, Funny)

UFgatorSean (739632) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436801)

Seriously, i laughed more at this article than any April Fools or other jokes here on slashdot! Gotta thank the creationists for making it all possible!

Re:RTFA for lots of laughs! (2, Insightful)

bedonnant (958404) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436855)

It would be illarious if it weren't terrifying.
It's 2007 now. Not 1700.

Full of Blasphemous Lies! (4, Funny)

Reverend528 (585549) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436813)

This museum does not reflect the beliefs of all young earth creationists! It actually makes the absurd suggestion that Dinosaurs were allowed on Noah's Ark. If that were true, there would still be Dinosaurs today! Not to mention, it goes against the bible which clearly states that only 2 of every land vertibrate were allowed on the ark.

This museum was built by godless atheists who want to profit from true believers!

Re:Full of Blasphemous Lies! (1)

mroberts47 (1073802) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436899)

Although I am sure you are trying to be sarcastic the first sentence of your post probably does apply to a number of people.

Re:Full of Blasphemous Lies! (1)

dgec (988943) | more than 7 years ago | (#19437045)

Sheesh.

At least get it right. It was 2 UNCLEAN animals and 7 CLEAN beasts and birds.

You'll note that even the unclean animals got a ride.

Re:Full of Blasphemous Lies! (2, Informative)

Lockejaw (955650) | more than 7 years ago | (#19437023)

Check your count.
Genesis 7:2-3 [biblegateway.com]

Re:Full of Blasphemous Lies! (1)

allthingscode (642676) | more than 7 years ago | (#19437107)

Actually, the have an explanation for the dinosaurs: The world had been changed so much after the flood that they couldn't survive.

Belly button (4, Funny)

Eccles (932) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436827)

I couldn't tell from their pics; did their Adam model have a belly button?

Re:Belly button (1)

brandondash (920942) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436979)

Who is Kyle XY?

The most outrageous always make the spotlight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19436833)

This is one interpretation of biblical history. Don't think that all Christians believe this or are what you see on religious TV. Just like not all Muslims have bombs under their clothes.

Imposing? (5, Funny)

CaptainPatent (1087643) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436839)

FTA:

Built at a cost of $27 million, it's an imposing building--not a particularly attractive one

Doesn't sound like it was very intelligently designed

buh-da-ching

It's funny. . . (4, Insightful)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436843)

a local radio host had on an atheist the other day who refused to recite the pledge in its current incarnation because of the "one nation under God" part.

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. . . (1)

misanthrope101 (253915) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436989)

a local radio host had on an atheist the other day who refused to recite the pledge in its current incarnation because of the "one nation under God" part.
Where do they find these atheists? I think some of these guys are ringers trying to show how much bad old atheists hate America, and so on. But to be fair, I also sometimes suspect that Pastor Fred Phelps is an atheist who takes great joy in humiliating every Christian on the planet. That guy just can't be for real.

Re:It's funny. . . (1)

Hydrophobia (954418) | more than 7 years ago | (#19437095)

Won't someone please think of the CHILDREN!!! The big bad scary creationists are gonna get us!

wow (5, Funny)

JeffSh (71237) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436849)

jesus christ! what an abomination.

Re:wow (1)

JeffSh (71237) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436887)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/drjonboyg/526984635/i n/set-72157600301874014/ [flickr.com]

Wow, i recognize that picture of the couple there. That's a BBC owned image from an article about the couple and their two kids and surely a violation of that couple's personality rights, let alone copyright of the BBC.

it seems respecting image licenses was not at the forefront of their thought process when determining what they could include when building their displays.

Re:wow (1)

Jeremi (14640) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436969)

That's a BBC owned image from an article about the couple and their two kids and surely a violation of that couple's personality rights, let alone copyright of the BBC.


How do you know the couple and/or the BBC didn't give permission for the photo's use? Or that the photo wasn't actually owned by the museum and/or the couple and the BBC was wasn't using it with permission?


it seems respecting image licenses was not at the forefront of their thought process


Creationists have a thought process?

I'm a devout Christian who knows God exists (3, Insightful)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436861)

Even though I know God exists, I don't try and fill in history that the Bible doesn't explain. I'm not sure why other people have this desire to do so.

Coal could be made in a few weeks (5, Funny)

Bullfish (858648) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436865)

I read in an illustrated book how this big guy with an S on his shirt turned coal into a diamond by holding the coal and merely pressing his hands together. That took seconds. So maybe coal could be made in weeks. I think too in a similar book, there was this guy who lived with dinosaurs on a hidden island. So maybe man did, or does live with dinosaurs. I mean, I saw these things in print. they must be true.

the more we advance in science (0, Troll)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436881)

The more I think we seriously need to consider "weeding out the population" of all the dumb shits too stupid to accept fact over a bunch of thousands of years dead men trying to make sense of our world.

I know it sounds harsh, but I am really tired or religious people. They have caused more pain and suffering in this world under the idea of uniting it than any scientific advancement has, including nuclear bombs.

Re:the more we advance in science (2, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436987)

Thank you for proving you yourself are much more dangerous kind of person than any right wing religious nut job.

Re:the more we advance in science (2, Insightful)

Dr. Manhattan (29720) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436995)

The more I think we seriously need to consider "weeding out the population" of all the dumb shits too stupid to accept fact...

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 literacy.

Re:the more we advance in science (1)

stormi (837687) | more than 7 years ago | (#19437061)

While I agree on principle that we should weed out the "dumb shits", not all religious people can be blanketed under this category, nor athiests excluded.

A religous person who keeps their beliefs fairly quiet, perhaps will share them but not zealously, is fine by me. I can even lend them an ear to hear their beliefs and theories, and can say at the end of the day it was interesting.

Religious people can be zealous idiots just as much as athiests can, who protests outside churches and try to convert believers to their firm, scientific, disbelief. In the scientific community, let facts speak for themselves. In religious communities, let freedom of thought reign.

Exclusiveness (4, Insightful)

Findeton (818988) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436891)

Only in USA you could see such a building, a museum worshiping stupidity.

How come no one can make money with Flood Geology? (5, Insightful)

Dr. Manhattan (29720) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436905)

Mainstream geology pays off. It helps people find oil, coal, minerals, natural gas, water, etc. etc. etc. How come "Flood Geology" doesn't make better predictions about such things if it's really a better, more accurate theory?

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...

Re:How come no one can make money with Flood Geolo (1)

aicrules (819392) | more than 7 years ago | (#19437001)

Well, I can't find a link right now, but there is at least one company who claims they found a "vein" of pre-flood dirt somewhere. They pack it in jars and sell it for like $30 a pop claiming it is the most fertile land ever and can turn any arrid, no-plant producing land into fertile land again. I'd say that's profiting!

interesting (1)

misanthrope101 (253915) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436907)

I would've liked better pictures of Adam and Eve. Dare I be surprized that they looked ever-so-slightly olive-complected? At least they weren't blond-haired and blue-eyed. I also liked the picture showing how diversity recovered after the flood. It was strange that they picked silhouettes of domesticated dogs, which only have such diversity because humans selectively bred them for differing characteristics. I'm not surprized the museum is so slick, though. Creationism has a lot of money, and that buys good literature, nice buildings, and so on. From what I read, Howard Ahmanson, Jr funded the Discovery Institute, which of course pushes ID, everyone's favorite edited-for-the-Supreme-Court proxy for creationism. I would've liked to read more about how the flood covered the Earth--I've still yet to see an explanation of where all that water came from.

Re:interesting (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 7 years ago | (#19437005)

From what I understand there are two Christian viewpoints of the flood.

1) The earth was much much drier at the surface before the flood, once the flood happened we then started to have the weather patterns and oceans we have today.
2) The flood waters are believed to have come from two sources, either 1) An ice comet or 2) Deep within the earth.

Not saying I believe this, just reiterating what I have heard.

Tourism Mecca? (4, Funny)

moehoward (668736) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436911)


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.

Re:Tourism Mecca? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19437057)

Flat Earth Society

Great idea! Oh, that would be cool. Before you know it, they'd have a carnival-like attraction. Put up a casino, a few more "museums", a beer tent...

What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19436917)

Oh, Jesus Christ!

Errrr, scratch that...

Yeah, I can just imagine velociraptors grazing next to Eve... "Fresh meat!"

Problems (5, Interesting)

virgil_disgr4ce (909068) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436927)

I've been thinking a lot about this ever since I first heard about the Creation Museum, and I find myself powerfully troubled and conflicted -- not over its content, which I know exactly where I stand on -- but over my intense desire to decry this "museum" as an utter abomination. I have always tried to endorse tolerance and understanding, and I've always let people believe whatever they want.

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 (5, Insightful)

Lemmy Caution (8378) | more than 7 years ago | (#19437017)

"Tolerance" isn't just some blanket value which lets everything go. It goes hand-in-hand with a kind of skepticism about dogmatic claims and the absence of a moral teleology (that is, the idea that there is one way people were "meant" to live.) It doesn't mean you have to accept absurd or contradictory ideas, or lifestyles that are actively hostile and dangerous to your own.

Re:Problems (4, Insightful)

faloi (738831) | more than 7 years ago | (#19437111)

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?

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.

The US is looking more and more like the taliban (5, Insightful)

cpotoso (606303) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436937)

It is sad but true. A very "renaissance" of obscurantism. The US looks more and more like Iran or the Taliban. No science, no reason, only stupidity. This is the beginning of the end of the US empire. No doubt about it.

duckies! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19436941)

..the biblical flood would cover the earth, drowning all but a handful of living creatures..

Do they have an explanation for the fish?

Whoaaaww! ... This is serious. (0, Troll)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436951)

What kind of altered state do you have to get yourself wrapped up in to believe this stuff? This counts as a serious mental illness as far as I'm concerned. It's like someone took all the spaced out nutiness in the bible seriously and then put it in one place. Which, well, is exactly what they did.

Hmmm, y'know, with a population of whacked out nut jobs who'll believe anything you tell them no matter how insane, you could conquer the world.

 

Coal in a couple of weeks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19436955)

Now there's a business opportunity if ever I heard one! No more expensive and dangerous mining.

I wonder if they can do the same trick with gasoline.

Actually, let's aim a bit higher: maybe we can get the almighty to miraculously solve global warming and the coming energy crisis by giving us all cheap, C02-free God Power (tm).

It's awesome from the start (2, Insightful)

Kabuthunk (972557) | more than 7 years ago | (#19436981)

I love that third picture on the first page of Ars Technica's site in the article that states "Present changes are too small and too slow to explain these differences, suggesting God provided organisms with special tools to change rapidly."

YES! Because nothing that we're directly looking at in the past few hundred years or so isn't showing massive steps in evolution, that's surely UNDENIABLE evidence that that it couldn't have EVER possibly happened in the past, and is therefore completely false! A VICTORY IS GOD!!!11! :P

Ahh, hilarity at it's best.

The Future (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19437007)

Decades from now, when archaeologists uncover the ruins of this museum, people around the world will wonder how man even survived within the Bible Belt under such harsh conditions of ignorance ...

Hahaha... I pity religious people... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19437009)

The Bible is a law book that was necessary at it's time. People, then, had no idea that they should not kill or that they should not steal.

The Bible was a text that, with many colorful stories, explained why society could benefit from these laws.

The Bible belongs into a museum because it's a very early juridical document.

Instead people became obsessed with these ideas and laws and turned it into something they would later call a "religion".

This Museum is just another embarrassing step. I pity the people who waste their lives with the doctrines of organized religion.

Another buch of ars (1)

edittard (805475) | more than 7 years ago | (#19437011)

Anyone else remember the bad old days when slash was just old digg stories reposted? At least now we get some variety...

Bigotry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19437015)

I guess I am not surprised to see anti-religious bigotry at slashdot. When do we get to see you do some anti-islamic bigotry as well?

Being from someone who believes in God... (0, Flamebait)

Zardog (685943) | more than 7 years ago | (#19437041)

This is total crap. But, if you really think about it, who's to say the universe and all that is in it was not created the moment before you read this post? It is faith either way, and impossible to prove completely. No one thinks like this anymore, always it has to be absolutes. And if God does exist, why not believe in Evolution as it fits with our observations about the world around us? Seems silly not to.

Noah's Ark (1)

jmv (93421) | more than 7 years ago | (#19437043)

Considering the incredible number of species we know, I'm really curious what they claim was the size of Noah's Ark. Anyone knows? I'm not sure the Titanic would be able to fit all of that... I'm also very curious about the method used to mice and cats aboard the same boat. :-)

Sounds like this museum has the wrong name (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 7 years ago | (#19437065)

The Museum of Ignorance would be more appropriate. How else to explain a museum which shuts out overwhelming scientific evidence supporting evolution (amongst other things) by essentially claiming "God did it". Which is a non-answer. For "God" they could substitute "a side of ham", "Elvis Presley" or anything else with as much validity. Oh but you get to ride a triceratops at the end so that makes it money well spent.

Making coal in a few weeks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19437069)

"There were posters explaining just how coal could be formed in a few weeks as opposed to over millions of years"

So, if you could make coal in just a few weeks out of (I assume) whatever biomass is laying around, wouldn't they have a big coal-production plant running by now? I mean, if it's that easy, wouldn't that make it easier than digging it out of the ground?

I try to console myself... (4, Insightful)

christian.einfeldt (874074) | more than 7 years ago | (#19437071)

...by saying that somehow the benefits of democracy outweigh censoring even really dangerous, stupid shit like this museum.

At least we all get a good laugh out of this one.

And a good cry.

Dating (1)

cerqon (1113099) | more than 7 years ago | (#19437079)

Do they know that we have some dating methods that... ummm... date Dinosaurs before 65M BC and humans much, much after that?

You dont explain nuclear fission to a caveman (4, Insightful)

Anzya (464805) | more than 7 years ago | (#19437105)

Ok, so maybe not a caveman but do they realy think that God would bother to explain to people who doesn't even know that there is atoms how he created the universe? It's what Pratchett calls Lies for children.
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.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?