Field trip to the Creation Museum

I mentioned I was back in Ohio last week. The occasion was the celebration of my grandparents’ 60th wedding anniversary, but while I was in the area, a number of us from Panda’s Thumb also met up south of Cincinnati to take our own tour of Answers in Genesis’ Creation Museum. (Wesley has a picture of the group here; I’ll also try to scan in another “official” picture tomorrow).

My brain still hurts. My thoughts on everything below (with photos, of course):

This trip has been planned for awhile, and I’ve purposely tried to avoid most of the blog posts on the museum. I’ve checked out the pictures and skimmed a few articles, but I wanted to go into it without having read about every inch of the place. It didn’t fail to disappoint. We started off viewing a film called “Men in White.”

We were told by the employees that it was a satirical look at evolution. All I have to say is, if they think that was satire, they really need to read some Twain or Swift. The premise was that the angels Michael and Gabriel were talking to a lost and wandering camper–a frustrated soul who was looking for meaning in the world, but didn’t want people to “think she’s stupid” by believing that science was wrong about evolution. The whole movie, while slick, was like an extended Chick tract (Big Daddy comes to mind, as part of it consisted of “Mike” and “Gabe” harassing a science teacher….”duuuuude, like, evolution is sooooo bogus”). And special effects were out in full force. The chairs vibrated with thunder, or when the angels “whooshed” away, and the chair backs squirted water during the rainstorm. (This was SUPREMELY annoying). My brother noted that these distractions occurred frequently when they made a really astounding claim that might make a person think–”let’s distract them by spraying water in their face!” An interesting theory…

Anyway, the movie served to introduce the overarching theme of the museum: the world is bad, Christianity is good, it makes people feel better and science can’t provide you with that comfort.

This theme presented itself throughout the museum. I guess my one main surprise was that despite hailing themselves as an alternative science museum, there really was fairly little science there. Sure, there were videos to watch and many of the exhibits had narration, but just based on the displays, they really half-assed (hell, more like quarter-assed) the “scientific objections to an old universe and evolution” part of the “museum.” Instead, the focus was more typically on “why Christianity is good for you” and “why human reason is wrong”.

Just past the paleontology dig came another room discussing the reason vs. Biblical authority dichotomy they’d set up, continuing on from the theme of the film:

They ask if different starting points (God/ The Bible versus “Science”) matter in one’s life. The people in the poster appear to be in anguish, asking, “Why am I here? Am I alone? Why do I suffer? Is here any hope? Why do we have to die?”

They argue, of course, that these different starting points make all the difference–and that only their version of Christianity offers hope to the human race:

The real enemy isn’t only evolution, or only “millions of years;” it’s the idea that human reason trumps God’s word:

By way of the Enlightenment, then, this elevation of Reason above God may be the death knell of the church. This is the hall you may have seen pictures of in other blog entries (for lots more pictures, you can check out this post), where they have newspaper headlines about abortion and school shootings (all attributable to acceptance of evolutionary theory, of course). I ran into an old friend, Professor Steve Steve, there–poor guy looked like he’d seen better days:

Leaving the hall, we see two main reasons for the acceptance of evolution and the decline of “Christian” teachings: thinkers of the Enlightenment and the Victorian era, and the courts, which “kicked God out of school.” AiG intends this to scare their target audience, noting how many young adults fall away from the faith while in college. The message is that, ultimately, the rejection of literal scripture leads to moral relativism, atheism, and as they depict, the death of God and Truth:

With this warning in place, you then watch a film on the days of creation, enter the Garden of Eden, see the Fall, the Flood, the division of the races at the Tower of Babel, etc.–”Sunday school from Hell,” as one colleague put it. (And the workers on the ark sound like they just left a production of Fiddler on the Roof). This eventually leads to yet another short film to cap off the evangelism: “The Last Adam,” detailing the history of sacrifice in Christianity from the beginning up to Jesus. (It included a strange interview with a rather bitter Mary about God using her son as a sacrificial lamb. Weird).

Of course, following the end of this movie, there were plenty of workers milling around and asking museum goers what they thought of the museum. We had one chat with us, asking us our opinion, if the museum had changed our outlook, etc. I didn’t feel like being rude and didn’t want to get into a discussion (and only had a few minutes to get to our show at the planetarium), so I told him the place was pretty much what I’d expected and left it at that. This was the truth, but I was a bit surprised that they really didn’t even try with the science. Sure, they threw in a few scientific-looking displays and videos, and dressed up their employees to look like paleontologists in the field, but overall, the place was just a Christian camp without the pretense of scientific evidence. After all, if we can’t trust human reason, why bother with the scientific method anyway?

I knew I’d be depressed leaving there, but I really made things worse by stopping at the gift shop. I’m all too familiar with the creationist books for adults, but I’d not seen the ones aimed at kids previously–and even worse, ones aimed at toddlers. One was a board book called “It’s designed to do what it does do”, featuring a cute frog on the cover with googly eyes, and targeted roughly at the 2-5 year old set. The book goes through animals and how they’re so cleverly designed “to do what it does do,” and how God created them that way.

…including animals such as the Behemoth, which apparently was a very cute sauropod:

Sigh. Damaging young minds, one googly eye at a time.

I was disappointed also because I hadn’t realized that one of the displays I wanted to see–the dinosaur room–isn’t opening until July. There were a few dinosaurs here and there (including one in the Garden of Eden using its sharp teeth to dig into a pineapple, if I recall correctly), but i was looking forward to hearing much more about how they were vegetarians before the fall, how Noah fit them all on the ark, how the presence of soft tissue in fossils proves a young earth, etc. etc. Of course, going by the rest of the museum, they wouldn’t have even mentioned that–it’s probably just the dinosaurs and the verses mentioning the Behemoth and Leviathan.

Obviously, the good thing about the museum is that it will only be convincing to the already convinced. For those who aren’t about to accept a literal Genesis, there’s nothing in the museum to make them change their mind. However, it does have enough here and there to sow confusion in the minds of those who already have some anti-science leanings.

I suppose it’s all too fitting that we capped off our drive back north on I-75 by passing by this icon at the Solid Rock Church in Monroe:

$250,000 spent on a 60-foot tall Jesus statue. $27 million spent on a Creation “museum,” not to mention all the hours of donated labor. Meanwhile, our kids are failing to learn even basic science knowledge in school. Disheartening to a scientist, to say the least.

Final image from http://www.churchmarketingsucks.com/graphics/2005_01_13giantjesus.jpg

Comments

#1 Steven Carr
June 21, 2007

The question in the Creation Museum ‘Why do I have to die?’, has a pretty easy answer from the Bible.

If you take Genesis literally, people die because God deliberately stopped Adam and Eve eating from the tree of eternal life.

Eternal life was in the grasp of humanity until God intervened.

Of course, that Answer from Genesis will not be in the creation museum’s agenda.
#2 J-Dog
June 21, 2007

The last picture to me says that the 3-pointer went in.:)

Thanks for putting up with the creos, so I don’t have to.

At ATBC we are organizing a trip to the Darwin exhibit at the Field Museum in late July – early Augst, which promises to be much more fun!
#3 Don Rauch
June 21, 2007

We pass the “Sinking Jesus” of the Solid Rock church quite frequently. That is the name used for it by many in this area and it has become quite the joke.
#4 CJ
June 21, 2007

Hilarious!
So the movie was a feelie? (Brave New World)

“Better a scam than a damn.”
#5 Tara C. Smith
June 21, 2007

We pass the “Sinking Jesus” of the Solid Rock church quite frequently. That is the name used for it by many in this area and it has become quite the joke.

Yeah, my uncle (who lives in Cinci) alerted me to the butter Jesus song. Classic…
#6 Warren
June 21, 2007

I thought Jesus walked on water, not sank into it. Huh.
#7 Blake Stacey, OM
June 21, 2007

(sings)

Oh, give me soma any day,
To wash those creo blues away —
The weather down home is rotten,
And the school standards be droppin’,
So baby what do you say,
Let’s find a club that’s hoppin’
And send a soma-gram to-day,
To chase those creo blues away!

Sorry. . . . Huxley always puts me in the mood for song.
#8 OwnedByTwoCats
June 21, 2007

Giant Jesus says “Help me, Help me! I’m sinking in quicksand!”

Or… “and the kick is GOOD!”
#9 Media Czech
June 21, 2007

Thanks for the link Tara … like your blog.
#10 df
June 21, 2007

Tara,

I just drove through Nevada and amused myself listening to the Christian talk shows. I make this trip once or twice a year on my way to/from Berkeley. Some of the stuff that gets said and debated by the likes of Pastor Matt and Co. is beyond belief. One guy spent the Elko – Winnemucca segment analyzing Genesis 1:1 and that verse alone. He railed and wailed like a dervish against human wisdom and, of course, never once supplied any evidence why Gen. 1:1 should be believed. But he was sane by comparsion with some of the other stuff.

And then there was the guy from Las Vegas who called in with a “self-abuse” issue. The Pastors went wild – three white guys by the sound of it – the real climax came when they prayed for him on the air.

I’ve paid good money for less amusing stuff – that is, it would be amusing were it not so corrosive. The Creation Museum, from your report, and somewhat sadly, seems like it’s putting a respectable face on the lunancy.
#11 delphi_ote
June 21, 2007

HOORAY FOR TOUCHDOWN JESUS!!!
#12 Zuska
June 21, 2007

Oh god, Big Butter Jesus is sooooo wonderful.

Back where I grew up, the god-fearin’ folks spend their money on erecting giant sets of three crosses all over the place, blighting the beautiful countryside.

Here’s a great book I’ve just started reading (available free online) that explains a lot about why so many people so willingly follow the nutjobs who want everyone to shut off their thinking, abandon their free will, and mindlessly follow a punitive leader. The Authoritarians It’s a scary read.
#13 Dean Morrison
June 21, 2007

Just love that Big Butter Jesus song! …
#14 Moses
June 21, 2007

Touchdown!!!
#15 Zeno
June 21, 2007

I looked at the picture with the caption “Is there any hope?” and it immediately struck me that the boy’s parents were arguing over whether to throw their kid out for telling them he’s gay. Check out Dad’s stone face and pointing index finger. Junior is out on the streets tonight, I tell you.

I have no idea why I reacted this way. If the photo drama continued in the typical kitschy Christian way, the boy would confess his sins to Jesus and “straighten out”. Right.

Or run away with his ex-gay counselor.
#16 eugene_X
June 21, 2007

Couldn’t they afford to make an enitre Jesus, instead of just the upper half?

They could have at least put him IN the water, instead of next to it; then at least it would look like the La Brea tar pits; we could sneak a sculpted Mastodon and a sabre-toothed tiger in there with him.

Still, I gotta say, $250k, that’s not a bad price for a 60-foot Jesus.
#17 raven
June 21, 2007

Instead, the focus was more typically on “why Christianity is good for you” and “why human reason is wrong”.

I don’t know where to start. In a sense it doesn’t matter. In the end their position is a loser.

1. The attack on human reason is bizarre and stupid. Human reason lifted us from the dark ages to the 21st century. Life spans have increased from 47 to 77, 1900 to 2007. Computers and all the technological devices have made life easier and more interesting. Even cars run off a computer brain these days. The green revolutions have fed more people than we thought possible 40 years ago. People might take cheap shots at science and medicine but it doesn’t seem to stop them from enjoying the benefits.

2. What is wrong with human reason anyway? Highly thought of in many circles. The flying spaghetti monster, cthulhu, jehovah, or the blind watchmaker gave it to us for a reason. If nothing else we’ve gone from being another ape to the dominant species on the planet.

3. This isn’t really a creationist museum. From the description it is just a fundie cultist propaganda exhibit.

4. They have set up a false dichotomy. Another lie in their pack of lies. The choice they present is between believing in the accumulated scientific knowledge of the last 400 years or believing literally a bunch of nonsense written by nomads barely out of the stone age 4,000 years ago. Sorry this is BS. Many christians, in fact most, including the mainstream protestant, catholic, and Europeans don’t have a problem with science in general and evolution in particular. The real choice is whether to believe a pack of gratuitous and unnecessary lies or not. This is nonexistent science and bad theology.
#18 TheBlackCat
June 21, 2007

Isn’t Men In White a movie about garbage men saving the world from aliens?
#19 brad daly
June 21, 2007

my own photos from the creation museum:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bradbrad/sets/72157600323932617/
#20 raven
June 21, 2007

Unlike many, I’m not predicting the demise of Ham’s fallacy. PT Barnum had it right decades ago, there is a sucker born every second. But I don’t see it being wildly successful either except as a grotesque exhibit like a haunted house or something.

Real science museums aren’t static. They aren’t propaganda either. Exhibits change, new knowledge is accumulated and leads to new exhibits. There are reasons to go back every once in a while.

Creationism is static and old. Their myth is 4,000 years old give a take a few. Nothing much has happened since Jesus. So what will they add that is new and interesting? About all they can do is attack the constant stream of scientific findings in biology, paleontology, astronomy, geology that all contradict their 4,000 year old middle eastern sheepherder stories.

I could see visiting it once for the thrills and bizarreness factors if it was close by. I couldn’t see visiting it more than once or driving too far out of my way.
#21 Chris
June 22, 2007

Why is it religion only offers you hope after your dead? ok back to reading.
#22 fairlane
June 22, 2007

I think the “satire” comes in the notion that “human reason trumps God’s”. After all, the people who created this “museum” are human.

They’re terrified that science will one day disprove God’s existence. I guess they don’t ever think that if God truly exists one day science will find him/her/it.

That “museum” is going to rake in some serious cash until he bankrupts the fools.

“So what will they add that is new and interesting?”

Jesus riding a Tyrannosaurus Rex and the Apostles flying around on Pteradactyls?
#23 wheatdogg
June 22, 2007

They spray water on you? Was the theater designer a Rocky Horror refugee? I would have brought my lighter, rice and umbrella.
#24 Ed Darrell
June 22, 2007

With this warning in place, you then watch a film on the days of creation, enter the Garden of Eden, see the Fall, the Flood, the division of the races at the Tower of Babel, etc.–”Sunday school from Hell,” as one colleague put it.

Hmmmm. Maybe the Mormons should sue for copyright infringement. Isn’t that sorta part of the Mormon Temple marriage ceremony?

At least the Mormons allow for non-literal creation stories, allowing them to be metaphoric, and then teach evolution in biology — gotta stick to the facts and be honest, as one professor put it.
#25 ex-xian (from iidb)
June 22, 2007

I wish I had known you were going. I would loved to have gotten with the group.
#26 frank
June 22, 2007

“the angels Michael and Gabriel…”

Seems to me that was done better in Dogma. Ben Affleck et al should sue.
#27 Tara C. Smith
June 22, 2007

I wish I had known you were going. I would loved to have gotten with the group.

Hi! RBH was actually one of those in attendance, and I thought he said he’d mentioned it on II or that some II folks were going, but no one else showed up. I didn’t even think to publicize it there…
#28 Judith in Ottawa
June 22, 2007

Raven complains that the story is static and old, but I think that is one of the strengths of dogma for the believer. If the story never changes, then you never look stupid if you didn’t keep up. Your kids can read the same story books, and schools never need new textbooks. This museum will never have to revamp galleries to reflect new research findings. Just imagine the efficiencies!
#29 fusilier
June 22, 2007

Unhh THIS is “Touchdown Jesus:”
http://www.nd.edu/aboutnd/about/sights/images/gal_heslibrary_lg.jpg

It’s right behind the north end-zone of Rockne Memorial Stadium, and has been there for about 45 years.

fusilier, ND ’71
James 2:24
#30 neonboy
June 22, 2007

If anyone decides to go I suggest a couple of peyotes buttons or some good blotter be taken around 45 minutes beforehand. The exhibits make more sense that way, and for a brief moment I actually understood what they were talking about, but then I started laughing and forgot.
#31 I.P.Lemur
June 22, 2007

I was particularly interested to read that the museum is disavowing Reason. It seems to me that whatever one’s views on God and religion, when a group of people start arguing that we should reject the use of reason and instead that we should just swallow what’s placed in front of us, then that group are well and truly members of a Cult (and perhaps the next thing we’ll all be asked to swallow is some funny-looking Kool-aid..)
#32 Frank Fungus
June 22, 2007

It’s like that scene in the Hitch-hiker’s guide to the Galaxy movie.
Whenever someone starts thinking a large spatula comes up from the ground and whacks them on the head.
#33 genotypical
June 23, 2007

My grad students, several of whom live near that statue, call him “Touchdown Jesus”.
#34 The Ridger
June 23, 2007

The instant we admit a book is too sacred to be doubted, or even reasoned about, we are mental serfs. — Robert Ingersoll, “Gods”
#35 Science Avenger
June 24, 2007

I was particularly interested to read that the museum is disavowing Reason.

Run into the museum, grab the first item small enough to be carried out, run out with it, put it in a friend’s car and have him drive away. When their security people question you, deny everything and claim their questions are based on mere human reasoning. In my experience, the dedication of groups like Ham’s to disavowing human reason goes precisely as far as it takes to cost them money. Then, they run to human reason and institutions like the courts the same as everyone else.
#36 jkc
June 24, 2007

Pandas wearing fig leaves? Now that’s a bio-theo-logical conundrum that makes the head spin!
#37 Kevin
June 24, 2007

It’s interesting, most all people cry out to God when they really need Him. Until then, many just want to prove Him wrong.

1 Corinthians 1:18

18 The message of the cross seems foolish to those who are lost and dying. But it is God’s power to us who are being saved. 19 It is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of those who are wise.
I will do away with the cleverness of those who think they are so smart.” –(Isaiah 29:14)
#38 Carlie
June 24, 2007

I don’t know where to start. In a sense it doesn’t matter. In the end their position is a loser.

Actually, I’ve been thinking about it lately and have come to the conclusion that they’ve covered all bases in making their religion completely impregnable.

Christianity says X.
X is stupid and makes no sense.
But wait! You aren’t supposed to use reason, you’re supposed to use faith.
And if you still don’t believe X, it’s a sign that God’s testing your faith and you’ve failed.
Or, Satan is causing you not to believe X.
Specifically, reason is the enemy of God, so if you’re using reason to reject X, you are falling right into Satan’s clutches.

The thing is, they’ve already been inoculated to every possible reason you can give why the belief is obviously wrong, because the Bible gives so many warnings about how Satan uses reason and the physical nature of this world to delude people and lead them astray. If anything contradicts the Bible, then it’s God testing you or Satan tricking you, and so you dare not question no matter what the evidence to the contrary. Pretty tight scheme they’ve got there.
#39 Carlie
June 24, 2007

Wow, and Kevin there posted a perfect example at the exact same time I wrote that. Thanks, Kevin, for handing that verse over! Too much of a coincidence – must have been god’s doing.
#40 Carlie
June 24, 2007

Wait, he’s listed at an hour earlier. Does it find your own time zone, or was I in some internet black hole? I swear his post wasn’t there when I started composing mine. More mysteries of god, I guess. I won’t try to figure it out, though, since god will do away with my cleverness if I do.
#41 Nullifidian
June 24, 2007

18 The message of the cross seems foolish to those who are lost and dying. But it is God’s power to us who are being saved. 19 It is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of those who are wise.
I will do away with the cleverness of those who think they are so smart.” –(Isaiah 29:14)

Wow, that is exceptionally insipid prose. The International Bible Society has clearly outdone itself in its ever-increasing condescension to its readers. Apparently they take the view that a simplified English language Bible should sound like a Valley Girl is delivering the lesson. “You think your [sic] soooo smart, huh?!”

I fully blame them for the fact that the writings of evangelicals are hardly readable. The KJV is most certainly a flawed translation, but at least when the Scofield edition was popular with the fundies they were aware of the power of rhetoric.
#42 Nullifidian
June 24, 2007

I thought Jesus walked on water, not sank into it. Huh.

It’s a depiction of the story in the non-canonical Gospel According to Tex (Avery).

And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus. But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me. And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt? And then Peter replied Because you’re sinking too! And then Jesus looked down at the water, and saw he was ankle deep. And then he did see he was knee-deep. And he did panic and then stop sinking only long enough to raise his hands to the heavens and give a comical shrug before sinking beneath the waves.”

There are other passages recounting how Satan tempted Jesus to step off the mountain and how he only fell when he looked down and gave the viewer a drooping, hangdog look and how he freed himself from his deranged followers who were chasing him (some following the sandal, some the gourd) by painting a fake tunnel entrance in the side of the mountain.

Naturally, all of this extensive research into the Biblical record has been hushed up by the vested religious interests.
#43 Ed Darrell
June 25, 2007

Kevin said:

19 It is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of those who are wise.
I will do away with the cleverness of those who think they are so smart.”

And Ham is the walking evidence of that? Is that what you’re saying?

Was Ham much different before God smote him?
#44 Kevin
June 25, 2007

This is so funny. Of all the articles I have read about the Creation Museum, it seems everyone loves to pick at certain things that have nothing to do with the content. One article sighted that there was a huge fence around the museum with storm trooper type guards and guard dogs so as to keep out anyone not ‘paying’ to get into the museum. As if letting people in for free would be the ‘Christian’ way. Who needs to actually pay for the 300 workers and lights and land etc. For those that have actually gone to the museum, you won’t find money grubbing profiteers. The entrance fee is very inline with other midwest attractions and I was pleasantly surprised that hot dogs weren’t five dollars each in the café’. Venture on over to Cincy’s King’s Island or the Great American Ballpark for that. At least I haven’t heard anyone complaining about the food prices.. well… yet. This ‘trip’ article took the prize for most silly because in the end, they blasted a statue that had nothing to do with the museum but rather the author just wanted to slam the ‘stupid’ Christians. So I participate and post and quickly get blasted for the version of bible I took a passage from. lol What’s next? Will you insult my grammar or spelling? Will that help ‘slam’ the funny believer in Christ? I very much enjoyed the museum. My beliefs are based on faith that some may not understand.
#45 nate
June 25, 2007

wow, you all blast Christians for teaching their young kids the Biblical version of the origins of the universe which requires no less faith than the Big Bang and evolution which is full of “missing links”. The museum would have been a lot cheaper to get in if Ham had been able to get tax payer funds for this museum like all the “science” museums across the country getting millions of dollars promoting their propaganda and unproven theories of the earth being millions of years old. I find it interesting none of your “science” museums have any mt.st. helens exhibits… you pick and choose the acts of nature that prove your religion and ignore the ones that openly disprove it…
#46 Tara C. Smith
June 25, 2007

Kevin,

Of all the articles I have read about the Creation Museum, it seems everyone loves to pick at certain things that have nothing to do with the content.

You’re missing the point–there *is* no content besides one version of Christian theology. So yes, it does come down to “blasting,” as you put it, your version of Christianity. (I’d not to nate that other Christians do not share his “Biblical version of the origins of the universe,” so this is not some kind of atheist-vs.-Christian issue either. Some in our group are Christians as well).

The statue note was simply because that was quite the fitting punctuation to our trip–looked like it belonged right there at the creation museum.

I find it interesting none of your “science” museums have any mt.st. helens exhibits… you pick and choose the acts of nature that prove your religion and ignore the ones that openly disprove it…

Huh?
#47 Ask for a Higher Level
June 25, 2007

One of the things people forget about when they visit a science museum or a creation museum is our greatest gift, our ability of speech, and the next level which is literacy, the ability to read and write, a recorded form of speech. These abilities that we humans have, which are above the abilities of the other animals, are gifts. Whenever we receive a gift we say thank you. This first thank you is the beginning of the religious experience which does not negate or diminish science. It is a different world view from science, both of which present an equally valid, but different view of the same universe.
#48 Kevin
June 25, 2007

Tara,

There is solid content, just not the content you believe in. Neil Armstrong has a museum in Wapakoneta Ohio. Just 3 hours north of the Creation Museum. I have been there but I wasn’t looking for it to prove we went to the moon. That’s a whole other blog site and debate isn’t it? The museums goal is not to prove that either. Rather, it is to tell the story of the moon mission from Neil’s point of view. From my perspective (or age), I learned how man went to the moon with technology that fits in my Pocket PC from that museum. The Creation Museum this article blasts was never intended to prove creation to scientists. If it had, it would not appeal to most people. It would be boring, like many technical books on the subject are. Well those books are directed to scientists such as yourself. The Creation Museum just like the Neil Armstrong Museum was created for those that want to hear the story from a Biblical point of view. And even if you don’t agree with the message, you have to admit they did a heck of a job at presenting the Bible’s message. I have been to many museums with subject matter from computers to space to science and its clear AIG did a fabulous job at the presentation.

The real question is, had Ken Ham created the Creation Vrs Big Bang/Millions of Years Scientific Museum of Facts and Fiction (5 hours of glorious hours of information only a scientist would love), would you still be exclaiming he’s a crazy Christian with his facts rooted in nonsense? I am sure you would agree with me when I say that would be true because his conclusions are not yours. You see Tara, you don’t like the message so blast the messenger for investing his time into his version of free speech. There are resources out there that say the same thing but are much more technical.

It’s nice the group in this article went and supported the museum. God bless em!
#49 Tara C. Smith
June 25, 2007

Kevin,

But indeed, the creation museum *has* been presented as being dedicated to changing the minds of skeptics. Therefore, you’d think that, maybe, there would be something there to do that? Indeed, one of the tour guides even noted that if we left there still skeptical about a young earth, we had to repeat the museum again (what a card!). The directions even say “prepare to believe,” and Ham in interviews has noted how the museum would be such a “threat” to skeptics. Well, baloney. If it’s only meant to be a Bible school for adults, don’t advertise it with all the “we will wow the skeptics” propaganda, and then cry when the skeptics say what garbage it is.
#50 raven
June 25, 2007

Nate:

wow, you all blast Christians for teaching their young kids the Biblical version of the origins of the universe which requires no less faith than the Big Bang and evolution which is full of “missing links”.

The hallmark of a fundie cultist, THE BIG LIE. Nothing more reliable. Ranting and raving are second. Witch hunting and terrorism are much rarer.

The vast majority of christians have no problem with reason, thinking, science, evolution, astronomy, medicine, geology, schooling, the truth, and on and on. The PACK OF LIES christians are cult groups found mostly in the south central USA.

Voluntary ignorance and lies are legal in the USA. But most of us are far more interested in the truth, living in the 21st century and making the world a better place.
#51 Kevin
June 25, 2007

Tara,

I would agree with you in regards to one point. You have to dig past the presentation (again that was not directed towards you) to hear or read the more technical information. Even at that, someone that really wants to investigate this subject needs to do more research. But I believe you would find that that’s the case with any subject like this.

I am not crying that you don’t believe and I certainly understand where you are coming from. I fully expected mankind’s greatest minds would discount it like you have. This goes back to the bible verse I posted with originally.

So are you upset at the message or the presentation? Or maybe the unmet expectations? Or the hot dog prices? Nachos? Could it be the location of the museum? (To close to a crazy church statue that has nothing to do with it) or maybe the bathroom stalls just aren’t accommodating enough! Oh wait, it’s how they promoted their museum now! Those gosh darn Christian’s!
#52 raven
June 25, 2007

Keven:

So are you upset at the message or the presentation? Or maybe the unmet expectations?

It is just a standard creo collection of lies. The biggest lie of all is that one has to be dumb, ignorant, and dishonest to be a christian. The vast majority of christians, catholic, mainstream protestant, the Europeans, mormons etc. have no problem with thought, thinking, the truth or science.

There has never been a requirement in christianity that one has to check their brain at the door.
#53 Nullifidian
June 25, 2007

Huh?

Dr. Smith,

If I may translate from Creationese, what is in the back of “nate’s” mind is the argument that runs thus:

Mt. St. Helens blew on a definite day in history, was observed by numerous people, recording devices, etc. However, within weeks of the blast, gulleys had been carved through the volcanic tuff which resemble the Grand Canyon [except in size, of course, and the fact that this is volcanic ash we're talking about and not solid sandstone]. This proves that the Grand Canyon could have been carved by retreating floodwaters [except for the presence of evaporites in the geological layers and fragile trace fossils]. Naturally, since the Grand Canyon is used to date the earth [we're completely in Creationist La-La Land now], this proves that the conventional geological ages are wrong and the earth is 6,000 years old ["Huh? Where does that come from?!" the reasonable person interrobangs]. QED.

It’s one of the most convoluted pieces of creationist derangement, particularly when one is so heavily invested in the idea that one will accuse mainstream museums of completely ignoring Mt. St. Helens because it’s just such an ‘obvious’ (scare quotes don’t even come close to approximating how I feel right now) challenge to conventional geology. I wonder if “nate” has even been to any natural history museum in Washington state.
#54 raven
June 25, 2007

19 It is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of those who are wise.
I will do away with the cleverness of those who think they are so smart.” –(Isaiah 29:14)

More creo cult nonsense. According to them, god just randomly looks for smart, well educated, wise people and makes them dumb. This is the malevolent, anthill-destroying-child model of god.

Probably not.Isaiah 29
Woe to David’s City
1 Woe to you, Ariel, Ariel,
the city where David settled!
2 Yet I will besiege Ariel;
DELETED FOR LENGTH
14 Therefore once more I will astound these people
with wonder upon wonder;
the wisdom of the wise will perish,
the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish.”

This is apparently ISAIAH, some guy channeling god or popping off to “Ariel”, a city somewhere that he/they aren’t happy with. In other words, if you lived thousands of years ago, in Ariel, and were smart and educated, well watch out. Meaningless quote mining out of context by Kevin, a fundie cultist, again.
#55 Kevin
June 25, 2007

raven,

*laughs* Thank you for the well thoughtout name calling. You have done the ‘intellectual’ side well with your responses. I am sure most on this blog are very proud.
#56 raven
June 25, 2007

Kevin:

Thank you for the well thoughtout name calling.

You are entirely welcome. Going to be a while before your kind can burn witches and scientists at the stake again. Or mount mass murder terrorist campaigns.

The creo agenda is to overthrow the US government, set up a theocracy, and head on back to the dark ages. They make no secret of it and see nothing wrong with it. One never wants to say never, but I can’t see the US majority buying into assured destruction.

But all is not lost. In some countries of the world today, religious fanatics roam the countryside with automatic rifles, explosives, and worse, murdering each other on a truly large scale. All in the name of god. If you get tired of just lying, why not give the Taliban or Al Qaeda a call?
#57 Kristine
June 25, 2007

I find it interesting none of your “science” museums have any mt.st. helens exhibits…

Nate, hello – the first film that the Omnitheatre at our Science Museum showed was on Mount St. Helens, time-lapse photos and everything.

Get over yourself. Your argument goes as thus: “An ANT made an ANTHILL in my LAWN! Thus it takes God only a few hours to form the San Andreas fault!” Duh, no.

But good job making creationism look really stupid. Excellent work there, Nate.
#58 Nullifidian
June 25, 2007

So I participate and post and quickly get blasted for the version of bible I took a passage from.

Wah!

I can see why evangelicals like commenting on skeptical blogs. They can take everything as an attack, cultivating the Myth of the Martyrdom of St. Themselves, while still getting the word out. ‘Persecution’ and publication: the crusader’s dream world.

Kevin, I have a confession to make. When I attacked the translations by the International Bible Society, even though your post was the one that provoked me to it, I did not ever consider your existence at all. Had it been anyone else, my response to that infantile and condescending translation would have been exactly the same. I know that telling you this won’t make any difference, since you’re never going to climb off that velvet, cushioned cross fundagelicals cart around for every interaction, but it will clear the air at least.
#59 Berlzebub
June 25, 2007

…including animals such as the Behemoth, which apparently was a very cute sauropod:

That would explain a comment left on my site by a troll. That’s what I get for thinking that a creationist might have had an original (although anticipated) idea.
#60 Kevin
June 25, 2007

Nullifidian,

You wrote: I did not ever consider your existence at all.

While I fully understand that, I decided to post on this skeptics blog because I did consider yours. All of yours. Just one seed of doubt in thinking you have all the answers thru science was my goal. I most likely failed with you and I am sure I failed with raven. lol Poor guy. He equated me with Islamic Terrorist! But that’s ok, we still have tomorrow to debate. I have to say, your idea that I am on some velvet cart.. that made me laugh. While I will argue my side until I am blue, I do it humbly knowing I probably am out-gunned on this issue intellectually.

After all, I came to your turf. Quoted a verse that basically reminded you that God is smarter than even your doctors of science. I wasn’t really expecting a red carpet.
#61 Pattanowski
June 25, 2007

Kevin, you must be truly berzerk if you think that any of us are going to be eating hotdogs out of THAT carnival! Even if they do have complementary hallucinagens
#62 Robster, FCD
June 25, 2007

Faith only works the absence of evidence. The creationists want to get rid of the idea that we can understand the world around us without resorting to the supernatural. Science wouldn’t exist if we just threw up our hands and said, “God did it!” They hate that we study the world and produce evidence that their interpretation of the bible isn’t reflected by the evidence around us. But if you lie about the evidence, as do the Hamsterites, any supernatural origin becomes valid.

Since we are bandying about quotes, here is one I am fond of…

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

-Epicurus
#63 Kate D
June 25, 2007

“The elevation of reason above God’s Word is the essence of every attack on God’s Word.” Seeing those words on a museum poster–any museum, regardless of the laughable context–scared me.

Now, perhaps I’m a naive, tree-hugging hippie, but I don’t see why religion and reason should be mutually exclusive. Perhaps this is because I went to Brown University, where Ken Miller–a devout Catholic–is also a leading biology professor and proponent of evolution.

Besides, Christianity is, at its heart, a “religion of the book.” People of faith debate how to interpret the Bible, but regardless of whether they believe that interpretations should be literal or figurative, the Bible is integral to Christianity. It’s a text. You have to read it. So shouldn’t the Christian clergy and congregation be literate and thoughtful?

I’m an English teacher. I’m an American. I love my Bill of Rights. I’m a big believer in free speech. I’m anti-censorship. I’m a person of faith. I believe in God. I believe in evolution.

Yep, I’m a Christian who believes in evolution. Contradiction? I don’t think so. I have no desire to go to a museum full of naked Eve mannequins with strategically placed hair (although admittedly I found this whole blog post vastly entertaining). Frankly, I’m annoyed that the Religious Right chose Intelligent Design as a battleground. What a waste of time and money. Consider the amount of children in this country who go without health care. Consider world hunger. Consider global warming (yes, I believe in that scientific fact, too). Consider that Jesus preached plain old tolerance and compassion–which is the doctrine I think Christians SHOULD be pushing.

Then consider this sad mismanagement of resources:”$250,000 spent on a 60-foot tall Jesus statue. $27 million spent on a Creation ‘museum,’ not to mention all the hours of donated labor.”

I wish these people could have donated their money to the Red Cross and then spent their volunteer hours at a local homeless shelter or school. In my mind, that would be a more productive, more Christian use of resources.

For all you atheists and agnostics out there: please know that tolerant, educated Christians do exist and that expensive evangelical monuments to psuedo-science probably annoy us even more than they annoy you. (To any evangelical Christians reading this post: I respect your religious freedom and fully support your freedom of speech, but I hope that you challenge yourself to be equally tolerant of others’ beliefs. )

P.S. Kevin, I live in Washington state. We have many museum exhibits devoted to Mt. St. Helens.
#64 Nullifidian
June 26, 2007

While I fully understand that, I decided to post on this skeptics blog because I did consider yours. All of yours. Just one seed of doubt in thinking you have all the answers thru science was my goal. I most likely failed with you….

On the contrary, you succeeded before you came, in my case. Having all the answers would make research pointless. If I had all the answers, I’d have to find another career, like accountancy.

The question is “Where does not having all the answers” bring us? Your approach would be, I am sure, to then throw the Bible at me and ask if I would consider looking there for my answers. My response would be “Why?” What fundagelicals like you, and others I have met, all fail to collectively comprehend is that it is not the answers that are important, but the questions. While, in the context of disease, greater understanding may lead to a cure, with the benefit to humanity that all that implies, much of the fruitful science in this field start when people start asking “I wonder why…?” Pat answers to hard questions are not impressive and not informative, even when they are proclaimed to come from the transcendant creator of the universe.

I have to say, your idea that I am on some velvet cart.. that made me laugh.

“Cart” was being used in my sentence as a transitive verb, not a noun. I referred to your velvet, cushioned cross. In other words, the sort of fake ‘martyrdom’ that fundagelicals like to claim for themselves which is absolutely consequence-free. No death, no pain, and publication to boot. Perfect for the armchair crusader.

After all, I came to your turf. Quoted a verse that basically reminded you that God is smarter than even your doctors of science. I wasn’t really expecting a red carpet.

No, actually you quoted a verse that reminded me, first and foremost, of Cher and Dion from the 90s film Clueless. The content was a secondary consideration when I read it, because I’d heard it all before and then some from people who try to make a virtue of willful ignorance.
#65 Kevin
June 26, 2007

Nullifidian,

Sounds like you got all the answers for all the ignorant Christians of the world. Amazing how you know my thoughts and belief’s before I even have to state them! Good luck with all of that.
#66 Travis
June 26, 2007

Kevin, how about you actually address what Nullifidian said. Your last comment just makes you sound like a jackass. If you disagree with that characterization of your thoughts perhaps you should address why that is the case. Considering that you say you came here to help people don’t you think it might be better to actually clarify your thinking? However I doubt you will. I don’t think you really want to help anyone at all. I think you just enjoy coming here making people angry and that you do feel like a martyr.
#67 Nullifidian
June 26, 2007

Sounds like you got all the answers for all the ignorant Christians of the world.

I didn’t say “Christians”, I said fundagelicals, although that strengthens my confidence in that characterization, since only that subset of Christians, in my experience, takes themselves for the whole of Christianity.

And I have one answer which applies to the ignorant anyones of the world: question and learn. Really. In my view, the answers are not the important things. What matters is how one goes about asking the questions.

Amazing how you know my thoughts and belief’s before I even have to state them!

Not that amazing. I’ve debated enough fundagelicals to know their form as much as any experienced better on the gee-gees. Christian apologetics is never rethought enough for someone who’s been in the debate for a while to find anything truly novel in it. I would guess by your refusal to offer up any alternative to my characterization that it was spot-on. I can see, somewhat, why a person would be offended by the other already knowing what one was going to say, but aren’t you glad we didn’t waste time on elaborating it over several posts?

Good luck with all of that.

[subtext]…because it’s just going to lead you straight to hell![/subtext]

If I misunderstood the nature of that parting shot, I’d be very much surprised.
#68 Kevin
June 26, 2007

I certainly didn’t mean ‘That will lead you to hell’ with that statement. Sin leads us all apart from God in eternity. You can call it anything you want. It’s simply being apart from hope aka God. Life void of hope is called depression and an eternity of that would be.. well bad. I simply meant if you characterize people that way, it will continue to lead to frustrating encounters with anyone who looks to God for their answers and not themselves. Of course your next statement is that you look to science for your answers which are hidden inside your continual search for questions. You of course know this from the vast number of stimulating debates with ‘christians’ or ‘fundies’ that my response will be that God created science. You would mock this as a far to simplistic notion to even entertain thus anyone that would think this way is retarded and far beneath you mentality.

I am not one that will judge you or your actions here on earth. Don’t be so offended when someone says ‘Good luck with that’.

In the end, we can go on and on and your other skeptic friends can pop in, get their two cents in and call me names as if this will somehow jerk me away from my faith in God because someone called raven can’t spell Kevin correctly and called me names.

Your statement about ‘questions’ rather than answers made me think of a book that would be a wonderful read for you. Do a search on Amazon for ‘The Great Divorce’ by CS Lewis. I think, based on your posts, would find the book facinating. You might find one particular character alot like you.

As for being a martyr, this of course would be a rediculous characterization as well. If you read thru the posts on this page, its very apparent that you and you nameless buddies have been on the attack ever since I mentioned a ‘possible’ greater power ‘might’ have said you aren’t as smart as you think you are. For shame!

So the ‘question’ is Null… could you be wrong? Answer that one and I will go away and leave you to your glorious yet temporary web site Throne and Subjects. *kevin wonders if Null’s answer will just be a vast series of questions because to him, nothing is absolute* (ahhh no absolutes! amazing!)
#69 Kevin
June 26, 2007

I certainly didn’t mean ‘That will lead you to hell’ with that statement. Sin leads us all apart from God in eternity. –Kevin

Your statements are so over the top that I’m almost inclined to believe that your posts are being ghost-written by one of the many curmudgeons on this blog as yet another character assault. I’m not sure this blog is big enough for another “Kevin”, especially a pair with such divergent viewpoints.

Regardless, it should be noted that the HIV dissident posting on this blog as “Kevin” (Me) is not the same person as the terribly deluded religious fanatic posting in this thread.

While I strongly don’t believe that HIV is a necessary nor a sufficient explanation for AIDS, I believe in a “creator” even less so.

the “real” Kevin
#70 Nullifidian
June 27, 2007

Sin leads us all apart from God in eternity. You can call it anything you want. It’s simply being apart from hope aka God. Life void of hope is called depression and an eternity of that would be.. well bad.

Now, for all your false claims about finding things offensive in this post, this is offensive. Clinical depression is a medical condition which cannot be encompassed and constrained in your trite little definition of “void of hope” and using a serious medical condition to proselytize is incredibly tacky and callous.

I simply meant if you characterize people that way, it will continue to lead to frustrating encounters with anyone who looks to God for their answers and not themselves.

Actually, the real frustration of encounters like this comes when I do not quash bad arguments, but let them unfold, and then I have to go through the tedious business of explaining, after having done so in similar contexts dozens of times before, why the arguments are wrong.

Of course your next statement is that you look to science for your answers which are hidden inside your continual search for questions.

No, I just look to science for answers about the natural world, not answers in general. There’s no way of charting, scientifically, what political position one should adopt (although some positions are more consistent with knowledge derived from science than others). It’s a combination of the empirical, one’s state of knowledge or ignorance about the world, and one’s sense of ethics. And the ethical system one should adopt cannot be addressed by science either. At best, although I believe not currently, one can only manage to explain why certain ethical concepts have currency. And on and on.

The bar to accepting your religion is not that I leave the questions solely to science to answer, but that the answers are uninteresting and probably wrong, as far as they can be evaluated empirically.

You of course know this from the vast number of stimulating debates with ‘christians’ or ‘fundies’ that my response will be that God created science. You would mock this as a far to simplistic notion to even entertain thus anyone that would think this way is retarded and far beneath you mentality.

No, I would tell you that you’re wrong. (And you don’t think this sounds like a whiny attempt to put on the mantle of a martyr?) One can trace the development of empirical science as the systematization of knowledge originally deriving from the classes of skilled and unskilled labor (for more on this, I suggest Clifford Conner’s A People’s History of Science). It’s no coincidence that Georg Bauer’s masterpiece, called one of the first texts of science, is a book about mining. In all that time, there’s no evidence of a god giving any guidance in the process whatsoever.

I would also call this viewpoint profoundly reactionary, like much religion. Instead doing what historians of science have just started to do in giving credit to the lower classes that they deserve, the idea that a god created science completely decontextualizes the development of this knowledge, ripping it from the hands of the artisans, whose trade secrets were already plundered by “gentleman scientists”, and putting it in the hands of the ultimate autocrat, god.

Your statement about ‘questions’ rather than answers made me think of a book that would be a wonderful read for you. Do a search on Amazon for ‘The Great Divorce’ by CS Lewis. I think, based on your posts, would find the book facinating. You might find one particular character alot like you.

I already have a copy of The Great Divorce and read it, although I may have dropped it in the recycling before now.

And contrary to your expectations, I found nothing in it in the least interesting, because it was simply Lewis being Lewis, whose infantile conception of religion never rose above him wanting to be top of the class in fourth form and licking the boots of the headmaster god.

Lewis spent his life with capacity for empathy, which is why his fiction is so inferior, and it comes across loudly and stridently in The Great Divorce. I know you meant the chapter with the Episcopal Ghost (Lewis beats up on the Anglican Church because it’s not made in his image–funny how it’s possible for believers to do that, but illegitimate for unbelievers). However, the Episcopal Ghost is a mere strawman. Anything which is supposed to represent a mash-up of atheism and liberal theism would have to be. Even if one ignores the differences within them, the differences between them show that one character cannot rightfully encompass both.

The chapters I found most ‘interesting’, if one can call religiously-motivated psychopathology “interesting”, are chapters twelve and thirteen, where a spirit named Sarah Smith converses with one of the ghosts, whom she knew in life. Ironically, Lewis uses the image of a puppet, whom the ghost names the Tragedian, who speaks for him, since Smith is as much an emotional cripple and a puppet of heaven. She and the man argue for a time, because, ever since she’s gone to heaven she hasn’t considered of him at the slightest. This argument proceeds until she hurts and diminishes the man with her words until he disappears entirely, leaving only his puppet behind. This is not a religion for humanity, but for inhumanity. Apparently salvation is one’s excuse for being utterly oblivious to the needs and wishes of other people, a viewpoint which could only be found appealing by unbridled narcissists.

As for being a martyr, this of course would be a rediculous characterization as well. If you read thru the posts on this page, its very apparent that you and you nameless buddies

None of whom I know, but go on thinking that a cabal is out to get you.

have been on the attack ever since I mentioned a ‘possible’ greater power ‘might’ have said you aren’t as smart as you think you are. For shame!

Uh, no it isn’t. However, I guess you are the narcissist that Lewis has in mind. “It’s all about me!” you cry, even when the initial so-called ‘attack’ that came from me would have to be construed as an attack on the International Bible Society, not you.

So the ‘question’ is Null… could you be wrong?

Of course I could. That’s not the important question. Any of us could be wrong. The far more relevant question is “Who’s more likely to be wrong: the one who bends his understanding of the world into the pre-formed shape provided to him by a series of Bronze Age preachers and rejects entirely the basis for gaining and gathering knowledge since then, or the one who consistently questions the answers and questions the questions and holds his assent back when the evidence is unsatisfactory?

Answer that one and I will go away and leave you to your glorious yet temporary web site Throne and Subjects.

Eh? You do realize that I’m not Dr. Tara Smith, don’t you?

*kevin wonders if Null’s answer will just be a vast series of questions because to him, nothing is absolute* (ahhh no absolutes! amazing!)

You’re babbling and revealing your basic incomprehension of those who are skeptical of your revealed religion. I’d suggest putting the straw-skeptic away and reading books by real atheists. Critiques of God edited by Peter Angeles is a fairly broad overview, but Atheist Universe by David Mills is a far more readable introduction.
#71 Nullifidian
June 27, 2007

Of course that should read that C.S. Lewis had “no capacity for empathy”.
#72 Kevin
June 27, 2007

thanks for your insightful and lengthly response. Also thank you for the book recommedations though I have read Atheist Universe and am well aware of Mr. Mills. It didn’t live up to its promotional billing and added little to what has been already mindlessly presented by others. But you knew I would say that. Right? You indeed answered the question and I am a man of my word so I will depart.

Good luck with your questions.
#73 nate
July 2, 2007

does the museum in Washington talk about the fossilized trees, coal formation and many other evolution “facts” that mt. st. helens changed everyone’s minds on? oh no, so called scientists only post what helps their argument, and ignore what hurts their so called fact driven religion. Sounds like the fanatical religion is right here to me… I don’t go around protesting at evolution museums like all the atheist nuts did at the creation museum. The museum was built with 21 million in non-tax deductible donations. Why would all you scientists even care about this museum? Could it be because you think the 60% of Americans who still believe in Creation of the Earth by God may bring their kids there and those same kids may even start arguing with you when they get in your college class in a few years when they hear your religion presented as scientific fact? I think the answer to my questions are obvious when you read the posts on this blog.
#74 YetAnotherKevin
July 5, 2007

nate,
Are you saying that trees were fossilized during / after the recent Mt. St. Helens eruption?
#75 The Third Kevin
July 5, 2007

kevin said;

While I strongly don’t believe that HIV is a necessary nor a sufficient explanation for AIDS, I believe in a “creator” even less so.

The creator probably says the same thing about you.
#76 rassy
July 8, 2007

‘nate’ is also appearing on Panda Thumbs, and yes, they are saying that, see post 184543 under Adam and Stevesteve in the garden of eden… Hey, do you think there’s an underground bunker somewhere, full of people hunched over computers seeking out evolutionary heretics and typing off prescripted cluecards? Just seems to be a lot of samesame about these trollposts. It’s true that you can’t use reason against faith, but you can have faith and use reason…
#77 Fred Welsh
September 25, 2007

Steven Carr made an error in recounting the story of creation. This is from Genesis Chapter 2

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden;

17 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.”

For me, this story is much deeper than the simple tale of disobedience that we normally hear. It is about becoming knowledgable of what is good and bad. It is about becoming self-aware. I think man became aware of death when he became aware of himself.
#78 jeff
November 28, 2007

kevin, don’t waste your time.

Romans 1, esp v.28
#79 sohbet
January 3, 2008

The creator probably says the same thing about you.
#80 e-okul
January 6, 2008

hi,
While I strongly don’t believe that HIV is a necessary nor a sufficient explanation for AIDS, I believe in a “creator” even less so. ?
#81 kerizim
February 12, 2008

The creator probably says the same thing about you.
#82 porno
March 20, 2009

thanks
#83 Dizi izle
March 21, 2009

just laughin
#84 Dr. Bill
June 15, 2010

So when lightning hit the Solid Rock Jesus statue yesterday and burned it to
the ground, was that God’s vengeance for not using the reasoning power he
gave us to put a lightning rod and grounding cable in the statue? Or was it
pure evil science invoking a 500 megajoule, 50,000 degree, scientifically
measurable electrical discharge and blasting the highest object around.
Maybe someone ‘elevated’ their statue above reason. Shades of the Tower
of Babel!