Conquer Club

From the Old Chestnuts dept:

Here's the story

I p'ticly loved:

When Mr Marsh was asked to explain the existence of fossilised remains of man's ancestors, he replied: "There are no such things.

"Humans are basically as you see them today. Those skeletons they've found, what's the word? They could have been deformed, diseased or something.

"I've seen people like that running round the streets of New York."

and

The Bible makes sense and is overwhelmingly confirmed by observable science

is kentucky really that redneck?

When Mr Marsh was asked to explain the existence of fossilised remains of man's ancestors, he replied: "There are no such things.

"Humans are basically as you see them today. Those skeletons they've found, what's the word? They could have been deformed, diseased or something.

"I've seen people like that running round the streets of New York."

i did have quite a chuckle at that quote.

is kentucky really that redneck?[/quote]

Apparently some parts are enough to have such a museum. But the fact that there is one isnt even the fun part to talk about. I mean certainly there was going to be one eventually. I think the cool questions are Why did the people in Kentucky want to have it there? How is the social dynamic changing (even on non directly religious levels) to make such things start occuring?

Those are at least cooler discussion questions than the Really....a creationist museum really seemed like a good idea guys?

OK the kentucky comment was rubbish.

But seriously i thought this was going the way of flat-earth theory and human sacrifices to the sun god. It is just depressing, at the end of the day. Not because people hold an errant and rather quaint belief, as is there inalienable right, but because there are so many of them and one of them happens to be the most powerful man on the planet (except for Mr Linderman). It became political when they started bleating about evolution being taught in schools.

I read this the other day, it's by Daniel Dennett:

According to a recent survey, only about a quarter of the US understands that evolution is about as well-established as the fact that water is H2O.

This apparent backsliding just makes me a little sad.

Seems ironic, your dissing this guy's "hillbilly" argument as such, when the exact thing he's referring to was a cause of major embarrassment to evolutionists, or have we forgotten when your own carbon dating proved that the "Neanderthal Man" was a 17th century frenchman with arthritis? Your approach is very attorney like - i.e. you omit key facts in order to win your case. Very lawyer like, but not very scientific. By the way, my father's people are from Kentucky.

got tonkaed wrote:

When Mr Marsh was asked to explain the existence of fossilised remains of man's ancestors, he replied: "There are no such things.

"Humans are basically as you see them today. Those skeletons they've found, what's the word? They could have been deformed, diseased or something.

"I've seen people like that running round the streets of New York."

i did have quite a chuckle at that quote.

is kentucky really that redneck?

Apparently some parts are enough to have such a museum. But the fact that there is one isnt even the fun part to talk about. I mean certainly there was going to be one eventually. I think the cool questions are Why did the people in Kentucky want to have it there? How is the social dynamic changing (even on non directly religious levels) to make such things start occuring?

Those are at least cooler discussion questions than the Really....a creationist museum really seemed like a good idea guys?

i'm not understanding, are you under the impression that the people of kentucky voted on the presence of this museum?

good post, heavy. this story is both hilarious and very frightening. i've lived all over the south, including kentucky. it's in the bible belt and has plenty of conservatives, but i'd say it's no more or less redneck than other southern states.

odd thing to me is, i checked the location: it's in the middle of nowhere in northern kentucky. why would they put the place there, esp if they want to make money? maybe the land was cheap. they would probably do better in southern kentucky, it is more conservative. but up there they will draw crazy people from indiana and ohio, i guess.

lastly: look into this nutjob ken ham if you don't know about him. he's the museum director. he's probably the most well-known creationist on earth, the head of a creepy organization called Answers in Genesis. he also got an honorary doctorate from liberty university, falwell's school. wow, just wow.....and i doubt bush really believes that stuff, he just plays along to hook the righty christian vote, mouthing the rite lines when it comes to stuff about evolution in schools and such.....it's really sad that the right seems to be so much more politically savvy than their counterparts....

to clairfy...i do think that the people of the town where its located probably did have to allow it to be there....though truth be told i could potentially be wrong, but it would seem that for something such as this there probably would have been some kind of local vote.

The trends that are occuring are pretty amazing when you look at them though. Increasingly Americans are starting to no longer hold the seemingly well established truths (as well as can be established of course) of science, and replacing them with a very politicized rhetoric of a conservative christian movement, whose science does not hold up to the same rigors as well actual science.

b.k. barunt wrote:my father's people are from Kentucky.

Were any of them Colonels by any chance?

got tonkaed wrote:to clairfy...i do think that the people of the town where its located probably did have to allow it to be there....though truth be told i could potentially be wrong, but it would seem that for something such as this there probably would have been some kind of local vote.

The trends that are occuring are pretty amazing when you look at them though. Increasingly Americans are starting to no longer hold the seemingly well established truths (as well as can be established of course) of science, and replacing them with a very politicized rhetoric of a conservative christian movement, whose science does not hold up to the same rigors as well actual science.

i think i agree w/ your second paragraph. however the first is probably wrong. people can buy land and open anything they want as long as they follow zoning ordinances and such. the only folks to convince in this case would probably be the zoning commission or maybe county commissioners. when was the last time you voted on whether or not a business could open in your town? and it's in a very rural area, so if there was such a vote, the outcome should not be taken to reflect the views of kentuckians in general.

Nephilim wrote:i think i agree w/ your second paragraph. however the first is probably wrong. people can buy land and open anything they want as long as they follow zoning ordinances and such. the only folks to convince in this case would probably be the zoning commission or maybe county commissioners. when was the last time you voted on whether or not a business could open in your town? and it's in a very rural area, so if there was such a vote, the outcome should not be taken to reflect the views of kentuckians in general.

you very well could be right. But i think its one of those things where if an individual (and although knowing that he is the Answers in Genesis guy i dont know much else about him) choose to put something like this (which is fairly attractive to people with a certain mindset) why did he choose there. I would argue there probably were a few different locations that this could have been put, and that there is a possiblity the local community made some kind of case to have it put there. I think thats a more interesting line of inquiry if something similar is true.

I mean this would probably be something that people could take pride in if they saw it as part of a movement to reclaim some things for their faith. So why this location in kentucky, instead of somewhere else, was more of the point i was getting at.

According to a recent survey, only about a quarter of the US understands that evolution is about as well-established as the fact that water is H2O.

Could you post a link to the rest of this article? (assuming, of course, that it is an article)

b.k. barunt wrote:Seems ironic, your dissing this guy's "hillbilly" argument as such, when the exact thing he's referring to was a cause of major embarrassment to evolutionists, or have we forgotten when your own carbon dating proved that the "Neanderthal Man" was a 17th century frenchman with arthritis? Your approach is very attorney like - i.e. you omit key facts in order to win your case. Very lawyer like, but not very scientific. By the way, my father's people are from Kentucky.

I apologise for the redneck comment, i realised it was a pretty stupid thing to type. Sorry if i caused any offence.

I don't know if you can accuse me of leaving anything though out when I haven't really put anything in... are you really agreeing with this guy though? our 'fossilised ancestors' are just recently deceased deformed people?

Nephilim I have indeed heard of Ken Ham. I imagine discussing this with him is particularly unrewarding.

steelerfan24 wrote:

According to a recent survey, only about a quarter of the US understands that evolution is about as well-established as the fact that water is H2O.

Could you post a link to the rest of this article? (assuming, of course, that it is an article)

It's from a book called Breaking the Spell, which is an attempt to subject religion to scientific rigour. A very interesting and (so far) a largely dispassionate, non-partisan read.
(please note that a scientist cannot possibly afford creationism the same status as evolution, so he's not 'objective' there)

here is the rest of the para:

This embarrassing statistic requires some explanation, since other scientifically advanced nations don't show the same pattern. Could so many people be wrong? Well, there was a tiem not so long ago when only a small minority of earth's inhabitants believed the earth was round and travelled around the sun, so we know majorities can be flat wrong. But how, in the face of so much striking confirmation and massive scientific evidence, could so many Americans disbelieve evolution? Simple: they have been solemnly told that the theory of evolution is false (or at least unproven) by people they trust more than they trust scientists.

Dancing Mustard wrote:

b.k. barunt wrote:my father's people are from Kentucky.

Were any of them Colonels by any chance?

Only one that i know of. Anyone can be a "Kentucky Colonel" - it's some kind of civic honor that you get by sending in 2 cereal boxtops or something. My father's people were poor hillbillies and Indians - not really colonel material.

I love the way he says that all the dinosaurs were herbivores until the Fall.

Even though in the days of the flood, the Fall had already occurred yet the T-Rex's and other carnivorous dinosaurs never got out to eat some meat.

I'm not going to argue the whole creationist vs. evolutionist thing again. It's been done to death, and everyone knows where I stand anyway. Just thought this topic was interesting and say that I've never been to a creationist museum, but I've been to the ICR facility in San Diego many times.

http://www.icr.org/

By the way, this article is complete rubbish all try to find the much better one but this museum is actually great, the first article was published by an atheist and the museum is actually amazing, and hell I'm a diest. It shows a good view from the other side and its actually not opinotated at all as many places in the museum show both sides of the conflicts and let you decided on your own. Its actually a wonder, trust me, its nothing like this article says it to be.

Well i'm sure heavycola had no idea that it was biased when he posted it.

b.k. barunt wrote:Well i'm sure heavycola had no idea that it was biased when he posted it.

Have you even read it? Please point out its bias. I apologised for the kentucky comment - what is your malfunction? Do you have anything constructive to contribute?
I didn't want to start another evolution vs creationism debate, just thought it was interesting.

The bias is the article is in a predominantly liberal paper published in a nation where there is practically no-one deluded enough to believe that evolution is something made up to annoy the pious, hence it doesn't even need to give credence to creationism

Oh my gawd...

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27604

When news from The Onion start turning real, you know something has got to be very wrong.

Haha, a creationist museum with dinosaurs in! That's a good one ...




One word for any creationists out there .... geology.

Proves. That. You. Are. Wrong.

heavycola wrote:

b.k. barunt wrote:Well i'm sure heavycola had no idea that it was biased when he posted it.

Have you even read it? Please point out its bias. I apologised for the kentucky comment - what is your malfunction? Do you have anything constructive to contribute?
I didn't want to start another evolution vs creationism debate, just thought it was interesting.

My "malfunction" is a severe aversion to hypocrisy - gives me a royal case of the red ass. On the one hand we have the CC "Jesus Freaks" who for the most part are a bunch of morons who don't read enough to back up their arguments, or even understand them, and on the other hand we have the CC evolutionists who smugly assert that only idiots believe differently than them. My "malfunction" in this particular case is your chickenshit passive aggressive ("I didn't want to start another evolution vs creationism debate, just thought it was interesting") hypocrisy. You post an extremely biased article poking fun at creationists, and then give us this wankerish "who me?". And you ask me if i have anything "constructive" to contribute? Yes, i do - the emperor has no clothes.

b.k. barunt wrote:

heavycola wrote:

b.k. barunt wrote:Well i'm sure heavycola had no idea that it was biased when he posted it.

Have you even read it? Please point out its bias. I apologised for the kentucky comment - what is your malfunction? Do you have anything constructive to contribute?
I didn't want to start another evolution vs creationism debate, just thought it was interesting.

My "malfunction" is a severe aversion to hypocrisy - gives me a royal case of the red ass. On the one hand we have the CC "Jesus Freaks" who for the most part are a bunch of morons who don't read enough to back up their arguments, or even understand them, and on the other hand we have the CC evolutionists who smugly assert that only idiots believe differently than them. My "malfunction" in this particular case is your chickenshit passive aggressive ("I didn't want to start another evolution vs creationism debate, just thought it was interesting") hypocrisy. You post an extremely biased article poking fun at creationists, and then give us this wankerish "who me?". And you ask me if i have anything "constructive" to contribute? Yes, i do - the emperor has no clothes.

[/rage]

You do have something of a point, though. The article has something of a silent bias and must be taken in context when we're talking about whether or not it is completely impartial.

I bet they'll have a hell of a time explaining why T-Rex's can't chew!