…and this is a 
It's a small thing, but it's representative of the bizarre pseudoscience in the world of the Creation "Museum". There was a room with a small collection of dinosaur models and skeleton casts, and they each had little panels describing the specimen…just like a real museum! Then you read them, and the weirdness sinks in.
Notice that "Diet" specifies "after the Fall" — that's because everything was a vegetarian before Adam and Eve ate the apple, since there was no death anywhere in the universe (which implies, apparently, that in their version of Christian theology, plants are dead). That's not the weirdest thing, though.
No, the part that I found most amusing is the date. This is a Jurassic ceratosaur, so it says that this is from the Jurassic (~2348 BC). There were other specimens from other geological eras, and they would say "Upper Cretaceous (~2348 BC)" and "Lower Cretaceous (~2348 BC)". I'm sure that if they had some Cambrian specimens there, they would have also said "(~2348 BC)".
Why does the geology even matter to them if they're just going to ignore it all and compress everything into one year, a year given with such remarkable specificity?
Even if you don't care about the geology, what about the history? All but 7 people are exterminated in 2348 BC, by their accounting, yet we know that in that century, we have the establishment of the Akkadian empire in Mesopotamia, the sixth dynasty in Egypt, the founding of major cities in the Indus valley and Korea…we have archaeological and historical records that show business as usual, with no one noting a massive annihilation of the human race.
The whole "museum" is like that — it's a succession of assertions that flout the evidence, but does so in a style that is simply parroted from legitimate museums. Substance is completely lacking.
Brain & Behavior
Comments
Posted by: Invigilator | August 8, 2009 7:34 AM
I argued with a YEC about the historical record and the flood once, and he immediately conceded that the world could be 10,000 years old. This guy also maintained that God creating the stars with the light from galaxies millions of light years away already reaching Earth was not deception but generosity -- God was giving us a beautiful universe.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 8, 2009 7:35 AM
Shaun are you actually accepting the "creation museum" as fact rather than fiction?
Posted by: Invigilator | August 8, 2009 7:37 AM
@1 -- Huh?
Posted by: JosherK | August 8, 2009 7:38 AM
Did they have any cosmology there?
Big bang (~2348 BC)
Formation of the solar system (~2348 BC)
Moon impacts Earth (~2348 BC)
God transports photons for distant galaxies closer to earth in order to trick silly scientists (~2348 BC)
Posted by: One Eyed Jack | August 8, 2009 7:38 AM
Classic Evilutionist closed mind.
You just can't stand it when REAL SCIENTIFIC evidence doesn't fit with your Darwinian religion. You scientists like to say you just interpret the evidence, but in truth, you can't handle it when the evidence takes you the REAL TRUTH.
I can't wait hear what you thought when you learned the TRUTH about radiometric dating. Try and talk that one away! HA!
/sarcasm
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 8, 2009 7:39 AM
Above in PZ's bit are the ramblings of a bitter man - Shaun
Care to give some evidence for that assertion Shaun? The tone of PZ's post throughout is clearly one of amusement. Oh, but I'm forgetting - creobots don't do evidence.
Posted by: PeterKarim | August 8, 2009 7:40 AM
So the muscular legs and the sharp teeth were used before the fall to hunt down shrubberies ?
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 8, 2009 7:41 AM
Shaun, you probably aren't aware that it is very easy to disprove a 6000 year old Earth with concrete retestable proof. Are you interested?
Posted by: Josh
|
August 8, 2009 7:42 AM
Fixed it. Sorry, pet peeve. Mixing up period and era is like mixing up cm and kilometer.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
August 8, 2009 7:43 AM
"Shaun" is a previously banned troll -- his droppings will be cleaned up as I find time to get to them, so please don't waste time on him.
Posted by: Spontorder | August 8, 2009 7:43 AM
God also doesn't seem to have been very helpful. Imagine how much smaller the ark could have been had God just said, 'eh, skip those animals. They are going to be extinct after the flood anyway'. I also love how God had to use super-evolution after the flood but the ark had to contain each kind, because the family jump would apparently be impossible for God. If you are going to go supernatural, why only go halfway?
Now fundies will probably try to school us on the story of Noah's ark being about obedience to God at its core. If Noah was so obedient, why the naked kegger after the cruise (a scene I bet the museum overlooked in their dioramas)?
Wasn't there. Think this vicarious visit to museum is enough for me.
Andrew
Posted by: Invigilator | August 8, 2009 7:46 AM
Before the Fall, plants tried to eat animals; the muscular legs were used to run away, and the sharp teeth for grooming. The plants could never catch the animals so there was no death. Oh, and the animals never killed the plants they ate; they only ate fruit. See -- that theory is just as good as anything!
Posted by: Pope Maledict DCLXVI | August 8, 2009 7:47 AM
Au contraire, first poster "ShaunofTom'sCrew", in those very same words I read the bemusement of a keen intellect, when faced with the incredible bare-faced lies at the heart of the "Creation Museum". Are you really going to expect us to believe that the colossal range of historical buildings, artifacts, and records of the Mesopotamian, Akkadian, Indus River, Egyptian, and so many other ancient civilisations that existed before "~2348 BC", are merely forgeries invented by the "God of Creation"? Really?
Posted by: Pope Maledict DCLXVI | August 8, 2009 8:00 AM
PZ, once you're done expunging the troll dung from this thread, would you mind releasing one of my posts in the previous thread from the limbo of being "held for approval by the blog owner" (I made the mistake of putting in a URL in the Name/Email/URL boxes). Better late than never.
Posted by: Iain Walker | August 8, 2009 8:01 AM
Spontorder (#11):
Not sure what the point would be, since they can't really win with a story like that. Either it's meant to be taken allegorically, in which case it's one of the most morally objectionable stories in the bible, or it's meant to be taken literally, in which case it's false and one of the most morally objectionable stories in the bible.
Posted by: C. B. Brown | August 8, 2009 8:04 AM
To be fair, PZ, that little squiggly thing before the number means "approximately."
They're saying "2348 BC *give or take* 100 million years."
You've got to leave room for the fudge factor. Even Jesus rounds.
Posted by: Tim H | August 8, 2009 8:04 AM
Egyptian hieroglyphics go back to at least 3200BCE. I wonder what the hieroglyph for dinosaur was. Or were the Egyptians remarkably unobservant?
Nefertiti: Seti, dear, something crushed the shed where we keep the pyramid building tools, all the sheep have been eaten, and there are huge footprints all over the riverbank. Did you see what happened?
Seti: Nope.
Posted by: ice9 | August 8, 2009 8:12 AM
Perhaps the Creationoids think Cenozoic and Assozoic and all of those are just layers. Cause the flood got the dinos and put them in layers. At about a certain point.
Do I get an A?
ice
Posted by: Jeremy | August 8, 2009 8:14 AM
So Ham created a display to show off his fantasy world, and people show up to give him money.
It's a lot like JK Rowling, JRR Tolkien, George Lucas, etc. With those fantasy works, however, even the most rabid fans don't believe for a second that the events described REALLY HAPPENED.
That's the thing that creeps me out the most about most religious people...they're essential Harry Potter fans who believe with all their hearts that wizards, flying brooms, Lord Voldemort and Harry Potter are real. If such Potterists actually existed, people of other religions would point at them and laugh at their ridiculous ideas, without looking at their own talking snakes, resurrections, immaculate conceptions, magic underwear, miracles, prayer, and herbivorous carnivores.
Literal belief in impossible fantasy that is contradicted by reality is a mental illness. Seek help.
Posted by: Bruce | August 8, 2009 8:15 AM
Invigilator @ 1 - This guy also maintained that God creating the stars with the light from galaxies millions of light years away already reaching Earth was not deception but generosity -- God was giving us a beautiful universe.
Cassiopeia A breaks this pap nicely. It's about 11,000 light years away and we see it as an expanding supernova remnant, the supernova being first visible 300 years ago
If the supernova happened 11,300 years ago, that predates the YEC creation.
If the supernova happened since, but the way it appears, then speed of light is magically different, just for Cassiopeia A, which given the observed speed of light elsewhere else (or for other special cases the Creationist may make up), is misleading.
Or, Cassiopeia A was never a star, in which case the observable supernova showed an event which didn't happen - also misleading.
Posted by: marc buhler | August 8, 2009 8:16 AM
I hope that this is the start of making this "museum" a super-cool thing to do. Gays, misfits and the godless should add it to Best Kitsch Things list - did anyone ask if they do weddings there?
I bet kitsch gay weddings would be a hit there! (Well, a hit with the rest of us!)
Posted by: Geoff Lane | August 8, 2009 8:16 AM
Large animals tend to live a long time. A large dinosaur might take 50 years to reach maturity. That is entire geological eras according to the young earthers.
How could any animal survive in a world that must have been changing so violently when millions of years of change had to occur in just minutes.
Or are we to believe that dinosaurs had life spans measured in milliseconds :-)
Posted by: Tom | August 8, 2009 8:19 AM
I hope there's going to be a lot more than just that post.
Posted by: Jeremy | August 8, 2009 8:20 AM
Well they ate their veggies, so they probably grew big and strong real fast. :)Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 8, 2009 8:24 AM
The Jurassic was in March 2348, the Lower Cretaceous was April 2348 and the Upper Cretaceous was May and the first week of June 2348. The appearance of angiosperms (flowering plants) took place on May 12 (which was appropriate, it's my mother's birthday).
Posted by: Alf | August 8, 2009 8:25 AM
That place is surely the DISNEYLAND FOR THE DUMB.
Posted by: SciencePundit
|
August 8, 2009 8:25 AM
Kent Hovind had repeatedly said that plants aren't alive, so I'm not surprised that Ham also adopts this theology.
Posted by: Dahan
|
August 8, 2009 8:27 AM
Yep! That's also why they've got their eyes set in the front of their skull. When hunting down wild Aloe plants a trait like that really helps.
Posted by: Tim H | August 8, 2009 8:37 AM
So, do they NOT water the grass at Dino-world and the CreoTard Museum? If plants aren't alive, how can you kill them?
Fortunately for the plants at Dino-World, the park has been seized by the IRS, so they will be watered according to official federal regulations now.
I wonder if Ken Ham pays his payroll taxes properly?
Posted by: ken | August 8, 2009 8:37 AM
I have been waiting for a while for you to post something about your visit. But I am glad this is the first posting.
I get the sense that it must have been a bit surreal and that you are preparing to tell us something we probably won't really get unless we go there ourselves.
Your post is so calm it's like you're really shocked and speechless at the misinformation.
Posted by: DA360 | August 8, 2009 8:43 AM
I wish I could of seen you guys but I had to work rather late on Friday. Seeing all the posts here REALLY makes me wish I was there with you guys...
But yea, the lies and religious-based BS is just mind boggling there. Its EXTREMELY clear that they just made things up as they went along just to brainwash people into extremist young-earth Creationist Christianity, and sadly here, it works well here for the people who aren't educated enough to know that's its BS. I mean, 2348 BCE? What part of Ken Ham's anus did they pull that out of, and they must of dug for corn in his crap when they put made up the "diet after the fall". Plus, anyone who watches Discovery, History, etc., had basic grade school or middle school science, or any other basic knowledge will know all that is complete BS and that there hundreds of millions of years old (145 million for the one their showing in your picture) and their diet never changed to some fictional supernatural "event".
I just wonder if you passed by any of their "hate rooms" (as I call it) while you were there, aka rooms (including a red lighted room) demonizing Atheists, pro-choice people, scientists, etc. These parts of the "Museum" show the REAL nature of the place...
Posted by: RobertDW | August 8, 2009 8:43 AM
Pope Maledict,
Hey, if said deity is going to the trouble of inventing light on the way, creating a few thousand years of history is just a matter of putting the finishing touches on, right?
Posted by: Dave | August 8, 2009 8:44 AM
It's be way funnier if it wasn't so freakin' irritating.
Posted by: NewEnglandBob | August 8, 2009 8:44 AM
OT, but the "Movable Type" login is severely broken.
Posted by: maxamillion | August 8, 2009 8:45 AM
One of the sad things about the museum and creationists in general is that they make Scientology sound reasonable.
Posted by: lazlow | August 8, 2009 8:45 AM
"Even if you don't care about the geology, what about the history?"
The short answer to that would be: When you live in a bubble, you really do live in a bubble!
Posted by: Troy | August 8, 2009 8:46 AM
LOL, THEY JUST MAKE SHIT UP!
Posted by: se-rat-o-SAWR-us | August 8, 2009 8:48 AM
#CreoZerg-erz: We all know from press accounts and flickr slide shows that the "museum"'s exhibits are all wall-to-wall bullshit and contradict at least the first twenty facts and arguments from "human reason" that pop into your head. It's fun to laugh at willfull ignorance.
But what I haven't heard much at all of is what the staff is like at the "museum"—that would be very interesting! Creo-zombies like the troll above? Earnestly polite? Sanctimonious assholes like Looy? Folks just working a job in a shifty economy? Any signs of cynicism? Condescension? Conversion attempts? Were they friendly? Intimidated? Stand-offish? What?
Posted by: se-rat-o-SAWR-us | August 8, 2009 8:53 AM
And ditto for the "museum"'s other visitors.
Posted by: Roger the Shrubber | August 8, 2009 8:54 AM
When you compare known facts to made-up shit, of course the made-up shit is going to come off looking like real shit. Why not make a fairer comparison, pitting creationism against astrology or palmistry or alchemy or numerology?
Posted by: Ray S. | August 8, 2009 8:57 AM
Jeremy@19
You're right on target, except that the religidiots that swallow the crap Ham produces actually believe kids can learn real witchcraft from the Potter series. I think at some level their objection to Rowling's work might be driven by the realization that once kids try it and fail, they may take the same approach to the wholey babble.
I think I read that someone is developing a Harry Potter theme park.
Posted by: Jim | August 8, 2009 8:57 AM
All those sorts of things are what I was thinking about when I read, mouth agape, that when Michael Ruse went he said, “Just for one moment about half way through the exhibit …I got that Kuhnian flash that it could all be true – it was only a flash (rather like thinking that Freudianism is true or that the Republicans are right on anything whatsoever) but it was interesting nevertheless to get a sense of how much sense this whole display and paradigm can make to people.” What the hell was going on there?!
You have to ignore so much evidence, so much of their sheer absurdity, that there is no way any sane person who is not completely ignorant of the facts could, in anything approaching good conscience, believe that place's bullshit.
Posted by: llewelly | August 8, 2009 9:05 AM
That's easy. It's on the same cartouche as the hieroglyph for space alien.
Posted by: Geoffrey of Ballard | August 8, 2009 9:06 AM
I appreciate the attention to detail in the dating. ~2345 BC would be easier but sounds like the password I use on all my luggage. Adding the 3 extra years to make it 2348 gives it that extra air of believability.
Posted by: mr_subjunctive | August 8, 2009 9:08 AM
'Tis Himself (#25) is a liar. Angiosperms appeared on April 25, which is my mom's birthday.
Yeah, that's right. Angiosperms in the Lower Cretaceous. Deal with it.
Posted by: Hank Fox | August 8, 2009 9:08 AM
Hidden in all this too is the recognition, even by the "museum," that science is the real thing, the thing that works, and religion is the poor relation.
The "museum" deals with the scientific fact of the existence of dinosaurs, for instance, which even idiot creationists now have to accept.
This "museum" is a mere rearguard action against the knowledge that permeates our society. You've got sullen know-nothings on one side and a grubby parasite on the other, turning the crank to make the thing work, but it's all temporary, and fragile as hell.
Like PZ said, there’s no SUBSTANCE here. It CAN’T work. For every child who gets fooled into a lifetime of gullibility by parents who bring them here, I’ll bet there are 200 who will grow up to think of their parents as hapless dolts, and will cite the visit to this “museum” as the moment when they really started to have conscious doubts about their parents’ beliefs.
It’s all really pathetic, when you think about it. People who come here hoping to be convinced that they can still believe in their god are the intellectual equivalent of the homeless. They’re desperate for some kind of intellectual nourishment but – being too lame to create it on their own, too socially maladjusted to accept it from others – they don’t have anywhere else to go to get it.
Ken Ham, of course, doesn’t care about any of that. Don’t ever doubt that he knows exactly what he’s doing, which is making money by sucking a little more of the life out of people too weak to resist.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 8, 2009 9:09 AM
Yep.
Posted by: superposition
|
August 8, 2009 9:10 AM
"The Wizarding World of Harry Potter" at Univeral's Islands of Adventure: http://www.universalorlando.com/harrypotter/index.htmlI doubt they'll be making factual claims that contradict reality however.
Posted by: Rachel Cope | August 8, 2009 9:12 AM
You're being too easy on them PZ.
Maybe you're still stunned by the inannity of it all.
Let's hope for some more meaty posts to come.
Posted by: Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. | August 8, 2009 9:15 AM
#22 Geoff Lane:
"Large animals tend to live a long time. A large dinosaur might take 50 years to reach maturity."
Actually, skeletochronology shows that even giant dinosaurs typically reached full body size within their first or second decade of life: very rapid growth rates.
Sorry to get out of the spirit of the thread...
(My poor, poor dinos, being whored out for the Creotards!)
Posted by: maxamillion | August 8, 2009 9:15 AM
This photo of "The Hamster" is just too Orwellian for me.
http://twitpic.com/d1jmo
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
August 8, 2009 9:15 AM
There will be a complete summary of the "museum" experience, but I'm at a meeting right now, and it will have to wait until I'm free...I'll probably work on it on the plane tomorrow.
Posted by: Josh
|
August 8, 2009 9:21 AM
What? No! Say it isn't so...
http://www.bot.uni-heidelberg.de/koch/Studenten/SS-2004/HAUPTSTUDIUM-ZYKLUSVORLESUNG_2/Archaefructus-Sun_1.pdf
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/paleobotany/dldpdfs/2002sunetalarchaefructus.pdf
http://www.jipb.net/tupian/2009/6/4/152225.pdf
FYI, the Sun et al. 1998 paper has the age wrong.
Posted by: Museli | August 8, 2009 9:21 AM
It is certainly a shame that people are being lied to so completely. I look forward to the flurry of reviews and discussions to follow :)
Posted by: nagator | August 8, 2009 9:28 AM
Indus Valley Civilization (mature period 2600–1900 BCE) in there paintings and writings there is not a single mention about dinosaurs... Athough they have drawn lots of other animals.. I wonder if they forgot to mention about that...
Posted by: Stefan | August 8, 2009 9:32 AM
Aren't Ham and the Creation Museum just symptoms of the larger problem? I suspect that except for the occasional group that goes to the Creo BullSeum to be amused and dismayed - the people that go there want to believe this...it reinforces their world view. It's a wee bit sobering to see the BS laid out so concretely...All of a sudden I'm getting depressed about the shear number of people who have thrown off the shackles of reality and reason to live in this religious con game. Sorry - not everyone has thrown off those shackles, most of these people were never shackled to reality in the first place...DOH!
Posted by: Jim | August 8, 2009 9:33 AM
@46 Hank Fox,
I don't know that it shows that they think science works at all. More than anything, this seems to be a mockery of science, an attempt to suggest that science is nonsense. Of course it makes no sense to lump all those eras together. As ignorant as Ken Ham might be, he's quite clever an manipulative. It seems unlikely that he didn't catch that absurdity. It seems more likely that it's a tongue-in-cheek sort of thing, that he's really saying "All this 'science' dating is nonsense, so let's all laugh at it." I wish there was an admission somewhere in there, but I don't see it. All I see is a strange attempt to belittle science in general.
Posted by: The Other Elwood | August 8, 2009 9:40 AM
@46--I do agree that the Answers in Genesis Facility (I will not call it by its given name) has enormous potential to backfire. A running them is that authority can't be trusted. If this set of experts can't be trusted about what they know and study, why should pastor be?
Do not underestimate the power of isolation. I went to a Fundamentalist Bible College for a couple of semesters. There were at most a handful of students there who had been to public school at all. They go from home school to private college to professions that do not require outside research(teaching English as a second language, music, missions and pastoral studies were the most popular majors at the school I attended), settle down, and have kids and raise them the same way. It's like being Amish, but wish the comforts of technology.
Posted by: PettyD | August 8, 2009 9:44 AM
My fundamentalist parents were each as religious as two or three regular Christians. In a fudamentalist family the father is the spiritual leader of the family and general authority on everything. One night after bible school my father told me in the perfect certainty of a true believer that primitive men and dinosaurs did not exist. Right after that he told me the moon landing was fake because the moon ,stars and planets were just lights in the sky. I was crushed by the inescapable fact that my father did't know a damn thing.
Posted by: ed | August 8, 2009 9:55 AM
Thanks to Pz and all the other people for going to this great museum of bullshit! We should gather all the film and pics from the trip and encourage every one to view them instead of giving any more money to the great king bullshitter Hamm!
Posted by: Larry | August 8, 2009 9:59 AM
They're saying "2348 BC *give or take* 100 million years.
I think you're wrong there, CB (#16). They're just admitting that they don't know if the creature was created before or after lunch.
Posted by: Flex | August 8, 2009 10:19 AM
@46 Hank Fox wrote, "Hidden in all this too is the recognition, even by the "museum," that science is the real thing, the thing that works, and religion is the poor relation."
Which suggests to me, and has been said before, that this is more on the nature of 'cargo-cult science'.
They assume the trappings of science: the neatly laid out displays, complete with fictitious dates assigned to real periods; the creation of an atmosphere of respectful reverence within their theme park. It's a wonder we don't see any magic white lab coats.
But just like the cargo planes stopped bringing wealth to the islanders, regardless of what preparations the islanders made for their return, displaying the fetishes of science won't bring the scientists back to young-earth cosmology.
Posted by: Joe M. | August 8, 2009 10:23 AM
Okay, kudos to all you brave folks who continue to fight the good fight. What with being chronically sick and disabled -- and acutely sick of late -- it was probably not a good idea for me to wake up on a Saturday and immediately read about your "field trip." That you can your maintain humor and sanity in the face of such creationist inanity and the ferocious danger it presents to the survival of "higher" life, never mind civilization, is something I recognize as being psychologically essential, yet all I can focus on in my existential despair-cum-self-pity is my decades of scientific (espec., evolutionary-anthropological and neuroscientific) training being erased by the legions of fools who swallow the offerings of this "museum" ... and immediately propagate its drivel at the ballot box, via the persecution of biology teachers, and by means of their viroid, memetic innoculation of EVERYBODY's kids ...
But please keep up the good work, all ye scientists and free thinkers of various stripes. I'm off to the bathroom to puke, and then, back to bed. Hopefully in that order.
Posted by: Hank Fox | August 8, 2009 10:26 AM
Jim #57: "I don't know that it shows that they think science works at all. More than anything, this seems to be a mockery of science, an attempt to suggest that science is nonsense."
Of course that's it. But my point was that they MUST engage in the discussion based on SCIENCE. This museum is all about science, however twisted, rather than the ramblings of Bronze Age shepherds. This whole "museum" is about presenting their beliefs as a fake veneer over real science.
If they attempted to ignore science completely, there would be no "museum." Because dinosaurs really did exist, and because we know (in many cases) what they looked like, and what they ate, and how they acted, and even the shape of their footprints.
In the same vein, medicine works by science, not by faith -- they'll twist it to attempt to explain it based on their beliefs (Thank Jesus for antibiotics!), but they have to deal with the fact that it does work.
Their religion itself, at least as presented by this "museum," is now little more than a parasite latched onto real science.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | August 8, 2009 10:34 AM
David Attenborough's brilliant "Attenborough in Paradise" series has a fascinating bit about a visit they made to a museum in (I think it was) New Guinea. Here was this tribe in the middle of noplace, that basically owned:
1) feathers
2) very small rocks
3) fairly large rocks
4) pieces of wood
5) shells
6) dead things
and they made a museum, because that's what civilized people do. It was full of all kinds of exhibits ("dead lizard") and so forth - kind of a cargo cult museum if you will. Really incredible. Obviously, the idea of a repository for byproducts of one's culture and civilization had sunk in as something valuable.
So maybe Ken Ham is on the right track. See? He attracted a couple of real scientists!
Posted by: Susan | August 8, 2009 10:34 AM
Thanks for visiting that museum-y building filled with truthiness for us, and documenting the expedition. AiG is not the first time anyone has faked science (or history) of course, but it sure seems to be the most elaborate and (unintentionally) hilarious!
Posted by: Steven Dunlap | August 8, 2009 10:36 AM
Posted by: The Other Elwood @58
I former colleague attended a "Christian College" which had the students fenced in and monitored their television watching (no TVs in the dorm rooms and the ones in the common areas tightly controlled by the residence administrators). It was almost literally like going to jail. The threat of eternal damnation kept most from "going over the fence" (literally, in this case). Do not underestimate the power of isolation. (What? You've never seen Logan's Run or The Island?).
Posted by: eidolon | August 8, 2009 10:36 AM
Thomas R @50
Interesting. Any info on possible life spans? Also - where stands the warm/cold blood issue?
We return you now to our regular programming...
Posted by: co | August 8, 2009 10:36 AM
Dogdamnit -- I hate it when comments are deleted, and then the whole thread goes to hell because of people railing against the absent. This thread, so far as I can tell, has had comments deleted from the very top!
Posted by: Grumpy | August 8, 2009 10:38 AM
ice9 #18: "Perhaps the Creationoids think Cenozoic and Assozoic and all of those are just layers. Cause the flood got the dinos and put them in layers. At about a certain point."
Good point. They might use "Jurassic" and "Cretaceous" to refer to identifiable layers in Flood sediment... but that doesn't explain why certain fossils would be confined to those particular layers. That is, they treat the strata as spatial coordinates for where you're likely to find certain fossils, not as an arrangement in time.
Then there's the problem of how the chalk-forming Cretaceous layer ended up in the middle of Flood mud.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 8, 2009 10:39 AM
... in their version of Christian theology, plants are dead.
From The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth (1972), by Henry M. Morris:
Morris drops an interesting clue in telling us that "men" were given instructions to eat fruits way back when - maybe the presence of this mysterious Steve person we've heard about has been confirmed?
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | August 8, 2009 10:41 AM
JosherK writes:
Did they have any cosmology there?
Big bang (~2348 BC -182:00)
Formation of the solar system (~2348 BC-180:30)
Moon impacts Earth (~2348 BC-172:15)
God transports photons for distant galaxies closer to earth in order to trick silly scientists (~2348 BC-160:21)
Fixed it for you! (all offsets GMT, of course, to make it more sciency, and because god is decidedly a victorian englishman)
Posted by: raven | August 8, 2009 10:45 AM
Competent is more like it. We now know that the Flood Rescue Effort was a near total failure. 99.9% of all species went extinct. Including all the nonavian dinosaurs. Despite heavy supernatural support and miracles by the dozens, anything with a 99.9% failure rate must be considered failed.
Posted by: The Other Elwood | August 8, 2009 10:49 AM
@67, it sounds like the same place. TV's were forbidden in dorm rooms. Common area TV's only had the blandest of programming and almost no news. This was before Internet. If not for a fiance on the outside, I probably would not have known what was going on in the world at all.
Posted by: ragarth | August 8, 2009 10:53 AM
So, someone make sure I did this correctly. If the upper jurassic was ~2348 years ago, then the founding of the Akkadian Empire was ~14 days ago?
proof:
2348/145.5Ma = x/2348
x145.3Ma=2348*2348
x=2348^2/145.5Ma
x= 0.0378907491
x=~0.038
364*0.038=13.38200
Well damn, I guess I just missed it.
Posted by: Iain Walker | August 8, 2009 10:54 AM
Marcus Ranum (#65):
That's actually rather touching (and I mean that in a "hooray for the human spirit" rather than a "let's patronise the natives" kind of way). But by the sound of it, these tribespeople seem to have grasped the concept of a museum much better than Ken Ham - as a cultural repository rather than a propaganda wank-fest.
Posted by: jimmiraybob | August 8, 2009 10:56 AM
(~2348 BC)
I see much work ahead in the sciences* in correlating the various rock units to the months of this year.
*Bible science is not for the timid.
Posted by: Meyrick Kirby | August 8, 2009 11:00 AM
Ah yes, but if everyone but 7 people were exterminated, there would be no one to record the event, therefore we would not expect there to be a record, QED ... I have rapier like logic!
Posted by: Don Smith, FCD | August 8, 2009 11:01 AM
Let me get this straight. They threw him out of the place while he was leaving? Did they shout "And stay out!" too?
If I had to guess, wearing that t-shirt was the disruptive behavior. When you encounter a thought you've been suppressing as hard as you can, it is usually very disruptive.
Posted by: Brian Rapp | August 8, 2009 11:03 AM
@50 - Thomas R. Holtz: I love the picture at the top of your web page; big game hunter posing with Giganotosaurus carolinii skull.
Posted by: Joel | August 8, 2009 11:05 AM
Plants don't have to die in order to feed you.
Posted by: Don Smith, FCD | August 8, 2009 11:06 AM
oops wrong thread!
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | August 8, 2009 11:08 AM
Forget the bad science - the circular logic makes your head worse than Megan in the Exorcist.....
No death before the Fall. Did that mean that everything had eternal life, from beetles to bacteria? Did they reproduce? We'd be knee deep in beetles and bacteria if that was so.
If they did not, then the world would only be populated the the actual animals that were created. No more, no less.
What happened to all the dino poop? Bacteria eat it, breaking it down to return to the earth. Those poor, finite deathless bacteria must have had a had time keeping up with that dino poop. But if there was only a finite number of dinos, I guess the could manage.......
Vegan dinos? It's not just big teeth and rending claws. There are major differences in the digestive systems of herbivores, carnivores and omnivores. The adaptation after the Fall must have been brutal for the carnivores to be.
These Creotards must be very thankful that Darwin came up with that evilution theory - none of them poor carnivores would have survived a generation without rapid mutation and adaption..........really rapid mutation & adaption.
Posted by: No BS | August 8, 2009 11:08 AM
Ok now I'm confused.
-6000 BC yaweh creates the universe.
- A bit later Eve has him bite the apple (is that a metaphor for oral sex?) Dinos go wrong and start eating meat.
-4500 BC floods earth, kills off all terrestrial life. Except that which is in the ark.
-2348 BC Dinos die and are fossilized.
So there where Dinosaurs on the Ark?
That would make an awesome movie. T-Rex gets lose on the Ark and eats everything in sight. And the time patrol goes back in time to kill the Dinos before they get in the Ark, thus restoring the timeline....
Posted by: jimmiraybob | August 8, 2009 11:17 AM
It's rather obvious that the Precambrian correlates to between the morning of 23 October 4004 BC to sometime in early ~2348 BC [the beginning of, and end of, the Phanerozoic, Mesozoic and most of (~98.63%) the Cenozoic Eras]. By my considerable calculations and assuming that God would have gotten busy right after Christmas holiday I place the Cambrian period at approximately the first several weeks of January - certainly no later than January 23rd.
This, of course, is independent of whether the flood occurred in 2347, 2348 or 2349 BC which only adds to the robust nature of the argument.
This Theory will need to be fleshed out a bit more before it's museum worthy.
Posted by: raven | August 8, 2009 11:21 AM
We all think creationism will die out eventually like all primitive mythology.
Someone recently made a point that scientific revolutions don't take over quickly. The Old Guard is never convinced. They just eventually die of old age. The scientific Old Guard of creationism died generations ago and all that are left is a handful of kooks.
The general public takes a lot longer. 400 years after Copernicus, 20% of the population still believes the sun orbits the earth. With that timeline, in a few hundred years, creationism will be down to 20% of the population. But things happen faster these days. It could be as soon as 50 or a hundred years.
The older creationists like Ken Ham, Dembski, etc.. will never give it up. They will just die eventually like everyone does. But a lot of their kids won't buy it, the best and brightest will catch on first.
Posted by: Akiko | August 8, 2009 11:25 AM
It is frightening how little people actually understand physical history. So it is easy for them to be led down such a ridiculous path. Without a solid foundation of science and logic in the schools children grow up to be morons who will believe anything someone says in the same of their deity. The ignorant masses are easily led. My home schooled first grader learned about the evolution of life from single cells to mammals and then studied the history of humans from the earliest hominids to life in ancient Mesopotamia, then we stopped for a summer break. Her public school friends learned that George Washington chopped down cherry trees, the Indians brought corn to Thanksgiving to thank god and Betsy Ross sewed flags in history. They learned grass grows from seeds and some animals are furry. Led into the darkness and left there.
Posted by: ragarth | August 8, 2009 11:27 AM
Woops! Math fail! Correcting my math:
2348+1+2009=4358
4358/145.5Ma = x/4358
x145.3Ma=4358^2
x=4358^2/145.5Ma
x= 0.130530337
x=~0.13
364*~0.13=~47
So the akkadian empire was established ~47 days ago.
Posted by: raven | August 8, 2009 11:35 AM
This is simply extreme brainwashing. Any belief system that requires extreme brainwashing is most likely doomed to failure. in a free society.
Read some interviews with local homeschoolers recently. The religious ones described it as "exhausting". They didn't say why, but my guess is that monitoring and controlling the kids information flow is difficult. This is the information and communications age and there is TV, movies, videos, Youtube, the internet, cell phones, libraries, newspapers, magazines, Ipods, and so on. Keeping the little darlings isolated without living in the wilderness with no electricity must be a full time job.
Kids usually go through a rebellious and curiosity phase in their teen age years. I can imagine what some of them end up thinking about their parents and their cults.
Polls by Barna, an evangelical organization show that 7 of 10 kids will drop out of their churches when they can.
PS Homeschooling might be declining. In my area it is down 40% from its peak.,
Posted by: Ben | August 8, 2009 11:48 AM
Sorry Raven @86, but creationism won't be dying out. The "old guard," while completely moronic in everything else, are unbelievably savvy when it comes to perpetuating their beliefs. Just watch a few minutes of that awful 18 and Counting show about the Duggar family if you can stomach it. I actually know several families just like that. They reproduce at fantastic rates, homeschool their massive brood through high school, then send them to the ultra conservative (even by Christian standards) Bible colleges or marry them off at age 18 to start the process over. I've seen it happen. I'm still seeing it happen every day here in the small town I live in. It's frightening.
Posted by: Ben | August 8, 2009 11:52 AM
Raven, where on earth do you live that homeschooling is actually decreasing? I haven't checked any polls or surverys, but I'm pretty sure that in my small Iowa town it's increasing. At least that's what it seems like to me.
Posted by: raven | August 8, 2009 12:05 PM
Ben, most Americans live in big cities and while some fundies might have 18 kids, the American average is 2.2 or so. The Duggars are notable for being extreme. My scenario is just a best guess as to how it plays out based on lots of history. It could be wrong but this morning is the one for hope.
I'm on the west coast. The school districts try to keep track of the homeschoolers for some reason involving state mandated standardized testing or some such. I'm not sure how accurate the data is or if this is a localized phenomena.
We have fundies here of course, but not many and they aren't very visible or influential. A small town in Texas would be alien to most of us.
Posted by: Lee Picton | August 8, 2009 12:06 PM
Dear Joe M.
I am sorry to see you are both chronically sick and disabled and are having a particularly bad day to boot. But there are ways to deal with the worst of ailments. No, I am no pollyanna, but I am caregiver to the husbeast who, admirably, gets up every morning and faces life with good cheer and a desire to have a good day. This in spite of a heart attack, two episodes of death, and a terminal disease to contend with. It seems to boil down a lot to attitude. You cannot change what is happening to your body, but you can change yourself and how you decide to deal with your condition. He doesn't need them yet, but anti-depressants are available anytime he thinks he needs them. Have you considered changing your mindset? I feel bad when I hear of people in distress, when there might be ways of alleviating it. I wish you better days.
Posted by: Pope Maledict DCLXVI | August 8, 2009 12:07 PM
Hi RobertDW!
Yes, but it wouldn't be any less miraculous, and we know what good old David Hume said about the integrity of the testimony that would be required to make belief in such a miracle the more likely explanation.
Personally, I like Troy's comment, which was posted just below yours:
Which is as succinct a summation of the integrity of these "Liars for Jebus™" as you can get.
False witnesses => "False T.Estes", perhaps?
Posted by: Rolan le Gargéac | August 8, 2009 12:09 PM
C. B. Brown #16
Son of God, can I call you Sonny, it'll be quicker ? Thanks, how old are you Sonny, twelve ?
Meh, round it up, thirty-three.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | August 8, 2009 12:15 PM
Joel writes:
Plants don't have to die in order to feed you.
Do you think that they harvest the corn ears and leave the corn standing so that they can try to reproduce again next year? Do you know what part of a plant a beet or a carrot is? Do tomatoes take a picking and keep on ticking? Do you think that rice maybe re-seeds itself miraculously after people eat its, uh, seeds?
I want to assume you're joking. Because not even the most woo-tarded tree hugger would seriously say plants don't "have to die" to become food.
Posted by: Invigilator | August 8, 2009 12:16 PM
"Any belief system that requires extreme brainwashing is most likely doomed to failure. in a free society."
Doesn't necessarily require a free society. Soviet Communism (which was certainly no sillier than Christianity) only lasted ca. 74 years even without a free society.
Posted by: Ben | August 8, 2009 12:20 PM
Raven, sometimes I forget that not all of America is like the place I live. I really do hope that your home, the west coast, does eventually succeed in stamping out creationism. Unfortunately, here in Iowa many people call it the Left Coast. I guess that means it's the Mos Eisley of America. Whatever you do, we'll do the opposite!
And while it's true that 18 kids is extreme for most of America, it's not terribly extreme for YECs. At least not here. Like I said, I know several families with ten or more kids. Of course, I used to be a YEC, so I probably know more families like this than the average person.
I try to have hope, and I do for cities like Ames, Iowa City, and Cedar Falls that have respectable universities and large populations of college students and professors. But it's hard to have hope for many of the other communities. Maybe I'm just too cynical.
Posted by: Paco | August 8, 2009 12:22 PM
All this science/not-science stuff is fairly straightforward if viewed in the context of the pseudo-intellectual machinations of the other aspects of their lives.
In short, one word: cherrypicking.
These fundies cherrypick their theology, as we all know, ignoring ancient taboos on eating shellfish and pork, taking slaves, etc. and choose to follow the ones that are easy or conveniently hateful to follow. So too, their science, as the CM demonstrates. This also is evident in their day-to-day sliding barometers of morals and ethics that self-rationalizes their behavior. Their cherrypicking is at the root of their wide-ranging hypocrisies--religious, political, and personal.
So the insanity presented at the CM is in keeping with their operant cognition. The CM simply serves to fine-tune/"inform"/justify their particular prejudices.
Although thoroughly laughable (thanks to all that participated and are posting about it) it is also thoroughly predictable.
Posted by: Jim | August 8, 2009 12:24 PM
@64 Hank Fox
The more I think about it the more I'm uncertain they even know what they're doing. I absolutely see what you're saying, that they must have the veneer of science in order to get their message out. Obviously, they adopted the image of a museum for that purpose. But it's also absolutely clear that they are unapologetically hostile to science, and this can be seen in their mocking of geological periods as seen in this post. So it isn't that they have fully adopted the garb of scientific clothing. It's more like they're wearing an old t-shirt for the sake of irony.
My point is that I'm not certain if they are, as you described, attempting to leech off science in a parasitic fashion, or if they are trying to hold science up for ridicule by dressing up in its clothing and dancing in an idiotic fashion for everyone to see. What's worse is that, like I said, I'm not at all sure even they know what they're doing at this point.
Posted by: Rolan le Gargéac | August 8, 2009 12:32 PM
Tim H #16
Of course he's going to deny it ! She didn't want him to have any in the first place !
Posted by: LinzeeBinzee | August 8, 2009 12:39 PM
Wow...they honestly just use the same year over and over again? Insane.
Posted by: E.V. | August 8, 2009 12:41 PM
Rolan le Gargéac: CB was being facetious. His tongue was planted firmly in his cheek.
Posted by: 386sx | August 8, 2009 12:46 PM
I believe they think of the Jurassic strictly as a "layer" if I'm not mistaken. They think of the geologic time scale as a bunch of layers happening within, like, a couple days or months or whatever.
Posted by: Sandra Kay | August 8, 2009 12:48 PM
My newspaper has comments and people on there are so ignorant it is amazing. Sometimes I talk to them, mostly for practice cause I thought I'd start small on people with zero knowledge. I am always outnumber with the dumb though. If you'd like to see here is a small page of it. http://www.topix.net/forum/source/twincities-pioneer-press/TU40QQ2BIROLSKTTL/p3
Posted by: unstable Molecule | August 8, 2009 12:50 PM
As a Vegetarian, it pleases me that Christians at least acknowledge vegetarianism as an ideal state of being.
Posted by: Steve in MI | August 8, 2009 12:51 PM
For what it's worth, I made a list of all of the critters portrayed in that room, and of the various geological time periods (which in the C"M"s parlance are called "flood layers", since obviously all of the fossil layers were formed during and immediately after the "Great Flood").
Upper Carboniferous ~2348 BC
Lower Permian ~2348 BC
Lower Jurassic ~2348 BC
Upper Jurassic ~2348 BC
Lower Cretaceous ~2348 BC
Upper Cretaceous ~2348 BC
The critters found in the Dinosaur Balcony - where this article's photo was taken - include the following. (To be fair, any spelling errors in this list are probably my typos.)
Ornithoestes ~2348 BC
Heterodontosaurus ~2348 BC
Dsungaripterus ~2348 BC
Archaeoptryx ~2348 BC
Protoceratops ~2348 BC
Rhamphorynchus ~2348 BC
Struthiomimus ~2348 BC
Triceratops ~2348 BC
Thescelosaurus ~2348 BC
T. Rex ~2348 BC
Velociraptor ~2348 BC
Ceratosaurus ~2348 BC
Anurognathus ~2348 BC
Dsungaripterus ~2348 BC
Stegosaurus ~2348 BC
Ornitholestes ~2348 BC
Edaphosaurus ~2348 BC
Chasmosaurus ~2348 BC
And to think, this is only a TINY FRACTION of what I learned in my day at the "museum"!
Posted by: raven | August 8, 2009 12:52 PM
There is a phenomena in the midwest called rural flight. To the cities.
Some of my relatives lived in the rural midwest. Past tense. They and their kids all ended up in the large cities for economic and social reasons. Their county has been steadily losing population for years. The main town has a program where they buy up abandoned houses and tear them down. To keep the place from looking like a ghost town which it is steadily becoming. The average age is close to 60.
influential. A small town in Texas would be alien to most of us.
Posted by: Sandra Kay | August 8, 2009 12:53 PM
I am sorry , I was trying to post my comment in the story The dilemma of the anti-creationist. Makes less sense here!
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 8, 2009 1:03 PM
The creepy pastor weights in on PZ's post. It breaks down into two pieces. He complains that PZ points out that all the eras are ~2348 BC. That is because The Flud ended it. The pastor then goes off about the evidence for Lucy is just as flimsy.
The second part is even better. The pastor states that there were eight people on the ark, not seven. And ignores all the other societies around the world that should have noticed the dinosaurs and The Flud.
Tom Estes is a seriously ignorant man and that is the HARD TRUTH.
Posted by: muffler | August 8, 2009 1:17 PM
This is the only museum in the world that has a sign something new for them to have to explain in their alternate reality.
Posted by: Owen | August 8, 2009 1:19 PM
Well, no, plants don't have to die. You can pull individual leaves off lettuce, for example, and of course the coconut palm is a perennial.
On the other hand, I don't recall anything in the OT about "thou shalt not eat of the carrot, neither shall thou consume the seed of the grass, for dead veggies are an abomination..."
Posted by: Giant Blue Anteater | August 8, 2009 1:28 PM
I want these guys to tell me, did Gilgamesh hunt dinosaurs as well?
What astounds me is that they ignore everything! Not just science, but history as well! If dinosaurs really lived with humans, then ancient artwork and accounts of these monster-birds would be made. Especially since Sumerians were such adamant record-keepers. But no such things were found. Yet these guys adhere to such an old book that has a long history behind it, and twist recent scientific discoveries to fit this sketchy story.
I just want to ask them this one question: how did your beliefs evolve over the few millenia human civilization has been around, and where did they originate? This question I think would be the most challenging one for them to answer, unless you guys disagree...
Oh, and PZ Meyers, don't forget to spot that one poster which arrogantly claims that Christianity is the one true religion and all other religions, including Greek mythology, are fake, when such people were so fervent in their beliefs in Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, Artemis, and others that they would even die in the name of their pantheon. Not to mention on the same poster said Aristotle mocked Apostle Paul, when the two lived centuries apart. These guys don't do their friggin' research! Make sure to catch that poster!
Posted by: Dan W | August 8, 2009 1:29 PM
Man, these guys picked a bad approximate date for when they claim dinosaurs were around, huh? I'm majoring in history, and I have to say, that's just a major epic fail on their part. Historical evidence says no- how could there have been dinos around when ancient Egypt was flourishing? And what about the Akkadians, and other Mesopotamian cultures, such as the Sumerians and Babylonians? Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of history of that time period can see how horribly wrong this is. Of course, I've also read a good deal about the dinosaurs....
It's way too easy to show how factually inaccurate the Creation "Museum" is.
Posted by: Guy | August 8, 2009 1:51 PM
I was just imagining how much easier it must of been for those Egyptians dragging them boulders, then setting them in place for the pyramids by straddling an enslaved T-Rex. Yabba-dabba-Amun-Ra!
Posted by: Thunderbird5 | August 8, 2009 1:54 PM
#63 -
Dear Joe M
Like Lee @93, I too am sorry to hear you are feeling so crap. My take on it is this:
Without knowing anything about your condition, I regret I am unable to condescendingly predict whether Happy Thoughts would make the slightest bit of difference. I must recommend you make active physiological measures your priority. It is rather rich for The Goode Wyfe of Grynanbearit to suggest that someone who is clearly suffering should just suck it up and smile just like her old man has to.
Most of all, I hope you have access to good medical and social care and affordable prescriptions. There are many preparations for pain and nausea, for example that, correctly taken, can alleviate some of your discomfort at least and without serious side fx - and I do not count the possibly of, say, physical dependence on opiates, as making such things prohibitive for the chronically ill. I also do not recommend OTC tapwater suspensions of molecular traces of garden weeds. I know you know they are at best a waste of cash and at worse a cynical attempt to fleece the needy but I wanted to reassure you I'm not that British nurse who offers to pray for you and shit.
Even with the best anti-emetics, accidents can happen, alas. Always have to hand some copies of your pet particular tracts: Christo-fascist/Republitard/latest-screed-from-randon-backward shit-for-brains to aim for whenever the barf-factor overwhelms. The gloss doesn't help the absorbency any more than it helps the message either but that's incidental.
As for your spiritual and emotional well-being, I can certainly recommend a daily dose of Pharyngula: as well as being efficacious in itself it also leads one to explore many other fascinating and enriching subjects. I hope the (distant but here-in-spirit) company of us like-minded souls helps too. Let us know how you're doing.
All the best.
Thunderbird5, BSc(Hons), DipHE, DipN, RN (& UK NHS)
Posted by: chgo_liz | August 8, 2009 2:11 PM
Thunderbird @ #116:
Thank you for that brilliant retort. I too was appalled at the response of "The Goode Wyfe of Grynanbearit" to Joe's situation, but sadly am too witless to come up with a proper rejoinder.
Posted by: James T. Trumm | August 8, 2009 2:15 PM
I posted part of this under another Creation Museum thread, but perhaps it is more appropriate here.
I was more discouraged by the facility than I had expected to be. By that I mean that many parts of it were engaging, well-done, and professional. Of course the content was loopy medieval nonsense. But I hope that no one of our group underestimates the persuasive power of the facility. We can chortle quietly about the thousands of misrepresentations and crackpot scientific claims presented there, but I suspect that the average man or woman on the street would find it pretty compelling. I left thinking that those of us who would uphold Enlightenment values really have our work cut out for us. Ham & Co. are sophisticated and clever. We underestimate them at our peril. Where are the evolution museums that would present the real science of the origins of life in an interesting, engaging and compelling way? Those of us on the side of science face a massive educational and public relations challenge, one we are still not prepared to meet.
I'd love to see scientists and evolutionists erect an Evolution Museum right down the road from Ken Ham's joint. I'd be willing to donate money to such an effort. While scientific truth doesn't depend at all on popular acceptance, it's dangerous to society to have unreason and nonscience held in such high regard by so many.
Posted by: PVA | August 8, 2009 2:26 PM
i need a recommendation for a dinosaur book for a 7 year old attending a fundamentalist school and being indoctrinated into this alternate reality.
Posted by: Mintz | August 8, 2009 2:26 PM
Joel #81 said: "Plants don't have to die in order to feed you."
So what did insectivorous plants plants do before the fall? If they didn't eat insect why were the given insect luring traps?
Posted by: Rolan le Gargéac | August 8, 2009 2:32 PM
E.V. H #103
And I'm being serious ?
Posted by: Guy | August 8, 2009 2:41 PM
Re#118
I concur, a scientifically backed evolution museum right next to the creationist museum would be not only a good idea, but a very responsible one. A good marketing strategy would be, if you bought a pass to the creationist museum, you could show your ticket at the gate and get half off to the evolutionist museum. I'd even be willing to volunteer my time to help build it.
Posted by: Thunderbird5 | August 8, 2009 2:50 PM
Liz, thanks *blushes*
That kind of happy-crappy pisses me off no end. However, upon re-examining the Goode Wyfe's cheery dribble, it could be that happy "husbeast's" perma-grin is in fact the mandibular rictus characteristic of the onset of rigor mortis. A "very special death episode" maybe. Of course if he'd been born a few minutes earlier - before The Eve and Apple Situation - this could never happen.
Posted by: bastion of sass | August 8, 2009 2:51 PM
Steve in MI @# 107:
WRT to dating of geological periods and various prehistoric critters: Dating every one ~2348 BC sure makes remembering the dates for them so much easier.
Posted by: Sara | August 8, 2009 3:05 PM
As an assyriologist, I must say that the fact that the creationist Jurassic era is roughly contemporary* with Sargon of Akkade is a thing of true beauty.
* depending on which chronology you choose.
Posted by: zilch | August 8, 2009 3:05 PM
Bruce@20:
Or, Cassiopeia A was never a star, in which case the observable supernova showed an event which didn't happen - also misleading.
Not misleading: just another part of the beautiful gift God gave us. As Gosse pointed out in Omphalos, when God created the world six thousand years ago, everything had to be already functioning: that's why the world looks much older. That would include stars in every point of their evolution, including post-supernova nebulae. And the speed of light doesn't tell the true age of stars, because it is distorted by the sphere of aether surrounding the Earth.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 8, 2009 3:09 PM
Yup, 2348BC - one hell of a year. Its the year it all happened. The year when everything changed. Just a little shy of 2500 years before the birth of Jesus (who, of course, we all know actually lived and did all that groovy scientifically impossible miracle stuff) dinosaurs still roamed the earth. They had cool saddles and everything. Then god just up and decided to flush 'em in the great flood because, well he's like that you know. All short tempered and smite-y. Which is why all you silly atheist/heretic/false god/homosexual types should be plenty afraid. Ohh yeah, god's all turn-the-other-cheek and benign forgiveness. Until you piss him off. Then he gets biblical on your ass with the plagues and the fire and the brimstone.
Not that he's a bad chap you understand. Just misunderstood really. I mean that whole plague of the first born thing was just a mistake. God told the Angel of Death, Jeff to his friends, to just have a stern word with the first born but Jeff . . . well lets just say Jeff has problems. Real bad problems. The kind of problems you find in the bottom of a bottle of Jack Daniels. Just saying, not god's fault. You just can't get the staff these days.
Anyway, back to 2348BC. It was one of those red letter years, you know? One of those years when big things were predestined to happen. Just like Y2K . . . err, OK bad example. Just like the predicted 2006 apocalypse. Um, another loser. Just like the coming 2012 armageddon predicted by the Aztecs (yeah, that one hasn't happened yet so I can't be proved wrong until at least 2013, plenty of time to come up with another crackpot theory . . .) Lots of entire eras of geological time and millions of years of evolution all happened in 2348BC. How do I know this you ask? Because god (and Ken Ham) said so. Thats how. If you don't like it, we'll throw out of our museum. Our museum full of sacred science. Thats REAL SCIENCE to all you smart ass atheist types. Not your kind of devil science that prostitutes itself to facts and reason and reproduceable results. We have good, god fearing, sexually repressed, possibly-borderline-psychotic science that likes to hang out with young boys. That's the kimd of proper science we creationists use to make up . . . err I mean 'discover', the truth about the universe. Truths like the massive importance of 2348BC - the year when all of prehistory happened.
Posted by: Sara | August 8, 2009 3:11 PM
#113
If we assume Gilgamesh existed, it would have to be sometime in the Early Dynastic period. Let's say, about 2700 BC. Where would that put us in the creationist "chronology"?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 8, 2009 3:12 PM
ragarth #88
That was June 23rd. I must have missed reading about it in the paper.
Posted by: Sara | August 8, 2009 3:21 PM
#129
On the 23rd, in the evening, I thought I saw some pillaging Gutean hordes through the window, but I might have been wrong.
Posted by: Ben | August 8, 2009 3:46 PM
Zilch @126
Are you serious, or are you just mocking YECs? I'm sorry, but I really can't tell.
Posted by: zilch | August 8, 2009 3:58 PM
Ben@131: it was just a sneaky poe, but it was all stuff I've heard from creationists. All you really need to satirize these beliefs is to repeat them with a straight face.
Posted by: Kseniya | August 8, 2009 4:02 PM
Wow. The whole thing is a manifestation of psychotic denial of reality. What a waste of money. Think of the good those millions could have done, but instead, we have a monument to stupidity and to the corrupting influence dogma has upon reason and education. It's not even very funny. It's sad.
Posted by: Ian Adams | August 8, 2009 4:04 PM
That's the thing I've never understood about the young earthers; how can they say that the earth is only a few thousand years old when we have archaeological evidence of much older civilisations? I mean, they're basically saying that the Earth was created after the Copper Age!
Incidentally, PZ, if you're using a Mac, you can type the ≈ character by pressing Option+x. Just a little pet peeve of mine when people use ~ when they mean ≈. :)
Posted by: Xenithrys | August 8, 2009 4:26 PM
@96:
No, plants don't necessarily have to die. Plants have a modular structure -- cut a piece off and the plant grows another. Doesn't work with (most) animals.
Plants like corn (maize) are monocarpic; they die after reproducing whether or not you eat their fruit.
Plants with fleshy fruits can disperse seeds more effectively. Eating fruit is thus good for the plant's fitness. Evidence? Tomatoes and peppers growing in abundance around sewage treatment ponds, apples growing wild along roadsides. Of course the cells in the parts you eat will die; no way round that.
If you didn't want to kill any whole organism, you could survive on fruits.
Posted by: AndrewB | August 8, 2009 4:40 PM
@ 44
Roland: One.
Dark Helmet: One.
Colonel Sandurz: One.
Roland: Two.
Dark Helmet: Two.
Colonel Sandurz: Two.
Roland: Three.
Dark Helmet: Three.
Colonel Sandurz: Three.
Roland: Four.
Dark Helmet: Four.
Colonel Sandurz: Four.
Roland: Five.
Dark Helmet: Five.
Colonel Sandurz: Five.
Dark Helmet: So the combination is... one, two, three, four, five? That's the stupidest combination I've ever heard in my life! The kind of thing an idiot would have on his luggage! President Skroob: Did it work? Where's the king?
Dark Helmet: It worked, sir. We have the combination.
President Skroob: Great. Now we can take every last breath of fresh air from Planet Druidia. What's the combination?
Colonel Sandurz: 1-2-3-4-5
President Skroob: 1-2-3-4-5?
Colonel Sandurz: Yes!
President Skroob: That's amazing. I've got the same combination on my luggage.
Posted by: Nibien | August 8, 2009 4:53 PM
"As a Vegetarian, it pleases me that Christians at least acknowledge vegetarianism as an ideal state of being. "
Exactly -- Remember, whenever you're looking for morality or 'ideal' states of being, the best authority is YEC Fundamentalist Christians.
Posted by: Ben | August 8, 2009 4:56 PM
Good to hear Zilch. It was sneaky enough to make me wonder anyway. I've heard stuff like that from creationists, too. I just wanted to know if I should be laughing at you or with you.
Posted by: Alan Reynolds | August 8, 2009 5:18 PM
Hank Fox #46. What a great post!
Posted by: Echo | August 8, 2009 5:20 PM
Do you hear that? Sounds like an echo.
Posted by: Josh
|
August 8, 2009 5:26 PM
Which is mind boggling when you think about it, and then so much more so when you really think about it. The thicknesses of rock involved in any one of those geological periods, especially the Jurassic.
Yeah--you're gonna lay that all down in a year. Good luck.
Posted by: Martin R
|
August 8, 2009 5:27 PM
2348 BC? Woah! Wait a minute, they're definitely on to something there. That's right about the transition from the Middle to the Late Neolithic in southern Scandinavia. What is the likelihood of that being a coincidence!?1?!
Posted by: Josh
|
August 8, 2009 5:37 PM
I basically just have one question for the good Pastor regarding the flood.
How did Prometheus survive it?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/science_of_watchmen.php#comment-1503040
Posted by: articulett | August 8, 2009 5:39 PM
And M&K think it's the "new atheists" and ham-handed scientists that are responsible for unscientific America??
It seems that lies of the faith crowd and Ken Ham-handed pseudoscience is far more to blame!
Posted by: manicstreetpreacher | August 8, 2009 6:23 PM
Eye-witness account of a lecture given by the head of Answers In Genesis, Ken Ham, at Liverpool University in 2008:
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=399
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | August 8, 2009 8:05 PM
There are actually such people as fruitarians, who do not kill plants for food. I'm not sure what their position is on eating leaves, I never cared to investigate the details of this kind of crankiness.
Joe, I think that "Good Wife" Lee means well, and does have a point, even if it didn't come over well. I don't know your situation, so it may well be completely redundant or useless, but a mental health check might be worthwhile. Depression is horrible to live with, and is a high risk for people who mostly live shut-in for whatever reason. And for some people it can be helped with cognitive therapy and/or drugs and/or exercise. Those of us who've experienced this can get a bit strong on the zealous testimonials. I wish you well, regardless.
Posted by: rpenner | August 8, 2009 8:43 PM
Ha Ha -- YEC FIRST COMMENT.
(All other comment specifically rigged up to scare Ken Ham into thinking he missed the oppurtunity to have the first comment on the thread.)
Posted by: cam9976 | August 8, 2009 10:11 PM
Can't you see! This is all just a trick being used by the evolutionists as part of their plan to rule the world!
Posted by: Rorschach | August 8, 2009 10:24 PM
You know, what I would really die for to know, is whether Ham really believes any of this shit, or just made the whole crap up to make some money from the uneducated deluded american xtian wingnuts, saddled dino and all.
This visit has already paid off for the rational folks I think, with the blog and net coverage it is getting.The more people laugh at Ham's house of hideous hilarity, the more parents will hopefully think twice of taking their children there, because that's where the damage is being done, to the kids, not the braindead xtian zombie parents that take them there.
Posted by: zilch | August 9, 2009 4:55 AM
Ben@138- Please laugh with me. In the words of the Bullfrog Blues, we're laughin' just to keep from cryin'.
Posted by: wasd | August 9, 2009 6:55 AM
Implies, implies? I was there a year ago and I still remember the panel where this is said pretty much explicitly! Its the one where they complain/explain that scientist and creationists disagree about so much they even disagree on the definition of life. IIRC the photos in the background of a video explain that scientist think plants are alive while creationist think a human fetus is alive.
Posted by: Samantha Vimes | August 9, 2009 7:55 AM
The reason "The Good Wife of Grinandbearit" received such a hostile response is because so many people have been in the chronic illness position, or known those who are in it.
1. Since at least the 80s, people have been hearing how important attitude is to coping/recovery/survival.
2. Lesser known studies suggest that pushing the "positive attitude" approach on those who are struggling is counterproductive
2a because actually, people can be realistic in their self-assessment and okay with it
2b and because BLAMING THE FUCKING VICTIM SUCKS!
2c and if you tell a pessimist they can't beat cancer because optimism is what beat cancer, you not only blame them for the outcome but make their outlook more negative.
3 You can't diagnose a person with depression based on one slightly tongue in cheek complaint on a blog
3a there's a difference between clinical depression and situational depression. Situational depression is often better treated by changing the situation.
3b, actually, I thought he was being kind of humorous about his situation. Sounded like the kind of joke I make on one of my "I am barely breathing; I can't find the air" asthma days. Humor is a mentally healthy coping device.
4. Not really her business. Chronically Ill commenter was NOT asking for advice or suggestions on coping.
So people reacted the way they want to when people stick their noses into their own or their loved one's illness-coping mechanisms. We put up with so much of well-meant crap-- you wouldn't believe how many people think vitamins and a good attitude will cure anything-- that sometimes the response to a stranger may be immoderate.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | August 9, 2009 8:12 AM
#110:
I've just discovered that David Bowie is not only a musical genius; he wrote something about our beloved clergyman, years before we heard about him!
"Ashes to ashes, funk to funky
We know Pastor Tom's a junkie
Strung out in heavens high
Hitting an all-time low"
Creepy isn't it?
Posted by: Drosera | August 9, 2009 8:34 AM
Mintz @120,
Ha, if anyone can tackle this one it's me.
Answer: Before the fall carnivorous plants neither had nor needed traps. But because of Adam's sin God banned these plants to places where the soil was very poor. To compensate for this, he gave them traps to feed on insects and other small creatures.
See, it's easy to reason like Ken Ham. All you have to do is to pretend that you are completely disconnected from reality.
Posted by: Disciple of "Bob" | August 9, 2009 9:21 AM
On first glance, I read the name as "creatosauridae"
Posted by: A Recovering Catholic | August 9, 2009 9:52 AM
That place sounds like the twighlight zone.
Posted by: BohemianGirl | August 9, 2009 12:01 PM
The accuracy, or lack of, scientific truths this museum put on exhibit didn't matter....they put money in their pockets when you graced their halls. I do love being entertained by your posts though. Keep up the good work my nerdy friends!
Posted by: Giant Blue Anteater | August 9, 2009 12:36 PM
@ Sara Comment #128:
Well, you got me there. I honestly thought creationists believed that all prehistoric creatures lived at the same time until the Flood that never happened.
Posted by: Lynn Fancher | August 9, 2009 1:27 PM
Invigilator said: "Oh, and the animals never killed the plants they ate; they only ate fruit. See -- that theory is just as good as anything!"
But... but... that's infanticide! Abortion! Those fruits are all full of baby plants!
Posted by: KrateKraig | August 9, 2009 3:41 PM
So, Before the "fall" there was no death???
I would love to hear an explanation on how an ecosystem functions without plants, insects and animals dieing.
Posted by: KevinC | August 9, 2009 6:54 PM
KrateKraig wrote (#160):
This only shows that the folks at "Answers in Genesis" have not read the Book of Genesis (or the rest of their Magic Book of All Knowledge) very well. Turn in your Bibles please, to Genesis 2:16-17:
Thus, before there was any "Fall," Yahweh introduces the concept of death into Creation. He does this as a threat, to back up a command. By establishing a relationship with humanity based on tyranny and fear, Yahweh destroys any harmony that might have existed in Eden right from the start, before Adam had a chance to talk to any snake, and before Eve even existed.
In making clothes for Adam and Eve out of animal skin (Gen. 3:21) rather than, say, cotton, it is Yahweh who directly causes the first recorded death in the Bible. This scene is portrayed in gory detail in one of the dioramas in the Creation "Museum." After driving Adam and Eve from the Garden, Yahweh places a "Cherub" with a flaming sword in the way to prevent Adam and Eve from returning to the Garden. The "flaming sword" is an instrument of both torture and murder. Torture, by burning with the flat of the blade, murder by cutting or thrusting as swords are normally used. Adam did not invent this device.
Other passages in the Bible explicitly state that death existed even before this:
In other words, the rite of blood sacrifice and cannibalism at the heart of Christianity is portrayed as an eternal verity that precedes and transcends the created order. Note especially the specific nature of Christ's death. The "Passion"[1] of Christ is something that could not be possible without the most vile degrees of hate, cruelty, and violence, the very epitome of evil.
The Gospels make it quite clear that it would not have been enough for Jesus to merely die, such as by a heart attack or from being accidentally run over by a chariot. The point of the Garden of Gethsemane story is that the "cup" of crucifixion could not be taken from Christ even though he prayed with such desperation that he sweat drops of blood. If anyone could have persuaded Yahweh to answer a prayer, surely it would have been his "only begotten son!" The savage brutality of the Cross was something Yahweh wanted, and would not be denied. It was a premeditated murder, planned by Yahweh before the world began.
Not only is the doctrine of Christ's crucifixion morally repugnant, it requires the deepest moral depravity of those who would embrace it. In order to become a Christian, one must not merely believe that Yahweh exists and the Crucifixion took place. No, the aspiring Christian must be willing to "wash in the blood" of Christ, to approach the Cross as a ravenous vampire who tears off gory chunks of Jesus' flesh and washes them down with his hot flowing blood--to gain the vampire's gift of immortality!
The key ingredient of Christ's flesh and blood (as opposed to anyone else's) that makes it efficacious is the fact that he is said to be innocent of any crime. It is not enough to sink to participation in a bacchanalia of sadism and human sacrifice. No! The would-be Christian must be willing to profit from the suffering and death of an innocent victim. And not just any innocent victim! It must be the one person the would-be Christian professes to love the most, and regard as the epitome of all that is good.
Is it possible to imagine a greater inversion and desecration of all goodness and justice? Let us hear no more then, of Christian "morality." One cannot even become a Christian without utterly repudiating the very concept.
NOTES:
1. Is that a sick use of the word "passion," or what?
Posted by: Keith Harwood | August 9, 2009 8:03 PM
Regarding the date of 2348BC: some years ago I spent an hour or so thumbing through some Egyptology journals of my wife's. I found twenty or thirty people who lived through the Flood, all with biographies, some with sutobiographies (one in his own hand, we are talking original documents here, not copies of copies of ...) and in a couple of cases, the people themselves. Not in the best of health, admittedly, but, to paraphrase, when five thousand years old you are, look so good you won't.
I also determiend that the builders of the pyramid of Unas, the last king of the fifth dynasty, had to build a 20,000 foot high coffer dam so they could continue working and considered the exercise so trivial that they didn't bother recording it in the otherwise detailed record of Unas's reign. They were also very good at removing it and making good when it was no longer needed, leaving no trace of its existence in the archeology.
Posted by: Craig | August 9, 2009 10:54 PM
I went through much of the National Museum of Natural History today, and I was wondering what the creotards would think. Every collection of specimens has been turned into a lesson, and every piece of the evolutionary puzzle is present. It is truly remarkable and amazing. Everyone should see it!
Posted by: jstnearthling | August 10, 2009 3:19 AM
First, I always thought it funny how we seemed to make "young Earth" sound as if it were a viable alternative theory and we all, well most all, know it is naught but nonsense, a superstition engineered by theists to try and give their delusion credence.
So instead of calling them "young Earth" people we should call them as we see them , "that delusional crowd"
Posted by: Kelcin | August 10, 2009 9:02 AM
"So, Before the "fall" there was no death???
I would love to hear an explanation on how an ecosystem functions without plants, insects and animals dieing. "
Plants could of died, for they don't have any couscous life.
"Not only is the doctrine of Christ's crucifixion morally repugnant, it requires the deepest moral depravity of those who would embrace it."
But wait!
If you don't believe in God, how can there be morals?
As to Jesus Christ death, He willingly died. "he said, "It is finished," and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."
He wasn't forced into this. And God's will is Jesus will, for Jesus is the image of God.
"First, I always thought it funny how we seemed to make "young Earth" sound as if it were a viable alternative theory and we all, well most all, know it is naught but nonsense, a superstition engineered by theists to try and give their delusion credence."
Is it any less crazy then your idea?
That life came out of non life?
Don't you think it's strange that Evolutionist, while claiming to be intelligent, choose to believe that there is no intelligence in life?
Posted by: Kelcin | August 10, 2009 9:03 AM
"So, Before the "fall" there was no death???
I would love to hear an explanation on how an ecosystem functions without plants, insects and animals dieing. "
Plants could of died, for they don't have any couscous life.
"Not only is the doctrine of Christ's crucifixion morally repugnant, it requires the deepest moral depravity of those who would embrace it."
But wait!
If you don't believe in God, how can there be morals?
As to Jesus Christ death, He willingly died. "he said, "It is finished," and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."
He wasn't forced into this. And God's will is Jesus will, for Jesus is the image of God.
"First, I always thought it funny how we seemed to make "young Earth" sound as if it were a viable alternative theory and we all, well most all, know it is naught but nonsense, a superstition engineered by theists to try and give their delusion credence."
Is it any less crazy then your idea?
That life came out of non life?
Don't you think it's strange that Evolutionist, while claiming to be intelligent, choose to believe that there is no intelligence in life?
Posted by: Kelcin | August 10, 2009 9:06 AM
"So, Before the "fall" there was no death???
I would love to hear an explanation on how an ecosystem functions without plants, insects and animals dieing. "
Plants could of died, for they don't have any couscous life.
"Not only is the doctrine of Christ's crucifixion morally repugnant, it requires the deepest moral depravity of those who would embrace it."
But wait!
If you don't believe in God, how can there be morals?
As to Jesus Christ death, He willingly died. "he said, "It is finished," and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."
He wasn't forced into this. And God's will is Jesus will, for Jesus is the image of God.
"First, I always thought it funny how we seemed to make "young Earth" sound as if it were a viable alternative theory and we all, well most all, know it is naught but nonsense, a superstition engineered by theists to try and give their delusion credence."
Is it any less crazy then your idea?
That life came out of non life?
Don't you think it's strange that Evolutionist, while claiming to be intelligent, choose to believe that there is no intelligence in life?
Posted by: Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. | August 10, 2009 9:07 AM
Eidolon @ 68,
Sorry for the delay in responding:
The maximum age of tyrannosaurs studied so far is around 30, the maximum age of hadrosaurs about half that. Small dinosaurs are known from oldest individuals in the 5-15 year range. Big sauropods seem to have lived for many decades (50, 60 years), but not centuries as once thought as as tortoises and whales do today.
As for the endothermy/ectothermy issue: there is little support for a strictly ectothermic model. However, it is not yet certain which of the Mesozoic dinosaurs had a fully avian-style endothermic physiology, and which something intermediate.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 10, 2009 9:09 AM
Plants could of died, for they don't have any couscous life. - Kelcin [my emphasis]
For sublimely surreal stupidity, that's going to take some beating! Come on creobots, Kelcin has set you a high standard to aim at!
Posted by: Josh | August 10, 2009 9:13 AM
Because...wait for it...morality doesn't come from your deity.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 10, 2009 9:19 AM
If you don't believe in God, how can there be morals? - Kelcin
Morality is about caring about other people, Kelcin. I know many goddists have problems with this. Indeed, many appear here to assure us that if they didn't believe in God, they would go around robbing and raping, because to them, "morality" means doing what you are told by the biggest bully around; if they thought God was telling them to torture and murder people, they would happily do that - as of course many religious believers have done. Is that what you would do?
Is it [young Earth creationism] any less crazy then your idea? That life came out of non life?
No, Kelcin, young Earth creationism isn't any less crazy than... well, anything, really. It's right up there with L. Ron Hubbard and David Icke in the craziness stakes.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 10, 2009 9:26 AM
What, that there's an invisible magic man in the sky who made the universe, and he's perfect and knows everything but still gets angry even when he knows we're not doing what he created us to do and he's 100% good and loving but sentences people who don't obey him to an eternity of punishment? And who wants us to worship him but doesn't want to prove he exists?
Yeah, that's far less crazy than an impersonal universe backed up by actual physical evidence.
Gah, this is making my head hurt. Please tell me that English isn't this tool's first language.
Posted by: Rick R | August 10, 2009 9:49 AM
"Gah, this is making my head hurt. Please tell me that English isn't this tool's first language."
He/she certainly seems to find the error message challenging...
Posted by: aratina cage | August 10, 2009 9:52 AM
Sometimes I really wonder if people like Kelcin of Christgamers ever pause to consider their own existence.
"My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" Clearly, those are the words of a believer being put to death against his will. Kelcin's depiction of the death deceitfully left that out.Posted by: Steve_C | August 10, 2009 10:18 AM
I would hate to have a "couscous" life too.
epic fail
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 10, 2009 10:23 AM
Don't you find it strange that people who claim the moral highground continually lie about things they don't understand or like?
Posted by: Philip H. | August 10, 2009 11:55 AM
What's that old P.T. Barnum saying about a fool and his money soon being parted? Clearly the "museum's" owners are helping a lot of fools part with theirs.
Posted by: Arobin | August 10, 2009 12:23 PM
Of course they were hunting down shrubberies! How else would they ever get past the knights?
Posted by: Brandon P. | August 10, 2009 2:01 PM
One thing these creotards have never explained very well is why, if non-avian dinosaurs were on the Ark and got out after the Flood along with the other animals, why we don't see more of them today. Other than some dubious cryptids, the non-avian dinosaur population today is much smaller than we would expect. You think they'd be running all over the place.
Posted by: Josh | August 10, 2009 2:06 PM
I guess so, considering that the number is zero.
Posted by: Jamie | August 10, 2009 2:45 PM
Plants could of died, for they don't have any couscous life.
-Kelchin
[emphasis mine]
You know, when I read this sentence, even though the first part didn't make much sense (did he mean "couldn't have" or "could've"? I didn't know), I thought the second part was trying to be clever because couscous is a popular vegetarian dish, but I realize now that it was just a bad spelling of conscious. My mistake.
If you don't believe in God, how can there be morals?
My question to you is, how did you decide that bashing in babies' heads was not moral? Doesn't the bible say that was a good thing for his people to do? So if you do decide it was immoral, how did you do that against his word? You must have some other source of morality.
On the subject of Evolution Kelchin says
Is it any less crazy then your idea?
That life came out of non life?
First of all, Evolution does NOT claim this, that is Abiogenesis. Second, religion claims this as well (from mud/dust), so I guess it's not more crazy, but abiogenesis doesn't add the unnecessary omniscient being.
Posted by: KevinC | August 10, 2009 7:41 PM
Kelcin (#165-167) wrote:
Where do you get the idea that morality comes from your god? Even in your own myth it is made abundantly clear that Yahweh preferred people not to be moral (i.e., discover the knowledge of good and evil). According to the Genesis tale, Yahweh created Adam (Eve, being a girl, doesn't count in Yahweh's universe) without the capacity for moral decision-making.
He ordered him (and by proxy, Eve) to avoid morality on pain of death. He did not want moral people. He wanted obedient people who would follow orders without regard to whether the orders were good or evil, because they couldn't tell the difference. Examples: Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac, Moses' war crime in Numbers 31:17-18.
If it were true that morality required a mythic or supernatural origin from the Book of Genesis, credit would have to go to the Promethean being who dared to defy the malevolent tyranny of your evil demiurge, and open human eyes to the discovery of conscience: the Serpent.
But of course, I don't believe in talking snakes any more than I believe in an angry sky king who comes equipped with an army of winged warrior-messengers, charioteers and cavalrymen with white horses.
Stepping out of the realm of myth into reality, there is a real basis for morality that requires no appeal to the supernatural. Humans are entities of a specific nature, and certain requirements must be met in order for them to survive and flourish. Among these requirements are the practice of cooperation, empathy, and benevolence towards one's fellow beings.
I'm more than happy to discuss this with you at greater length, if you're willing to start out-growing the trained-dog "morality" of obedience = good, disobedience = evil.