Jump to content

Home

Fundamentalists desecrate the very idea of museums


Dagobahn Eagle

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Personally, I considered it closed when Totenkopf said that he was dropping the matter about 10 hours before you locked the thread *shrugs*.

 

I would like to point out though that the group you described is too busy doing the things that you listed to involve themselves, therefore they have no bearing on the discussion that Totenkopf and I were having. If you'd like to take another stab at it though, I'm still interested in learning more about this other anti-abortion group. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Well, I got back from the Creation Museum late last saturday, and I was going to upload all my pictures into a gallery somewhere, but I found another gallery from someone who took better pictures than I did (most of mine ended up badly blurred).

 

gallery

 

On a random note, they must've spent a fortune on fake dinosaurs and high-quality robotic people/animals. Also, I've never seen so many hi-definition flat screen TV's in my entire life. example: the menus at the restaurants and kiosks were made from 40-inch tv's.

 

Content-wise, it looked almost as much like an amusement park as a museum. It also seemed quite small to me, to have so much money invested in it. However, it was EXTREMELY crowded, the parking lot was full 20 minutes before it was supposed to open. They did seem to badly oversimplify the evolutionary position, and they made sure to keep the guilt turned up throughout the whole experience.

 

However, the pictures in the gallery are basically a tour of the museum, albeit from a few months ago. Example: the planetarium projector (one of the few actual "artifacts" in the place) that was in the waiting line are has been moved to the central room.

 

I'll let the signs in the museum speak for themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, they had a lot of toys for the kids, as well as t-shirts, hats, and other apparel.
No doubt.

 

they even had experiment kits and dehydrated astronaut ice cream to make it look a little more like a real science museum.
The part of me that isn't offended thinks that is hilarious.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The part of me that isn't offended thinks that is hilarious.
QFE

 

It is good to know if I ever get sent back in time 208 million years that the Dinosaurs were not carnivores.

 

I'm glad to see they blame everything wrong in the world on Adam. I kept waiting for a sign saying global warming was caused by Adam’s sin. At least they did not blame everything on the woman.

 

I also loved the "Thou Shalt Not Touch! Please" sign.

 

I found out the new term for evolution is "Life Recovers." I guess the term is not as offensive as evolution.

 

Thanks for sharing your impression John Galt and thanks for finding these pictures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is good to know if I ever get sent back in time 208 million years that the Dinosaurs were not carnivores.
Selective-science at its finest.

 

I'm glad to see they blame everything wrong in the world on Adam. I kept waiting for a sign saying global warming was caused by Adam’s sin. At least they did blame everything on the woman.
Oh come now, let's not be naive :xp: (extra super double emphasis on sarcasm)

 

"Adam's Sin" is just PR spin. This is the same party that brought us Answers in Genesis. Everyone knows that it's still that bitch Eve's fault. One of the pics even shows a woman in the throes of painful labor (one of god's punishments for women).

 

I also loved the "Thou Shalt Not Touch! Please" sign.
That was a nice touch. I found the "This exhibit is still evolving" (aka "under construction") was a bit hypocritical though.

 

I found out the new term for evolution is "Life Recovers." I guess the term is not as offensive as evolution.
I wonder how non-YECs feel about the whole "man's logic/god's logic" litany.

 

Thanks for sharing your impression John Galt and thanks for finding these pictures.
Indeed. Thanks for sharing the experience with us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lesson number 1 in the Atheist "How to Win over Religious Idiots to Your Viewpoint":

Make fun of every possible thing you can in religion.

 

Sigh....

Because reasoning with them has such a high success rate. :rolleyes:

 

(emphasis on Jae's specification of "religious idiots". I actually rather enjoy speaking with rational theists)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because reasoning with them has such a high success rate. :rolleyes:

 

That could be because as my favourite philosopher Nietzsche once mused; "Extreme positions are not succeeded by moderate ones, but by contrary extreme positions".

 

Everyone would also do well to remember another of the German couts ever quotable quotes; "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher regard those who think alike than those who think differently".

 

I'm a Christian (as Achilles already knows) I don't agree with this 'museuam' and I think everything in it is psuedo-science. That said the scientist in me is concerned how easily science is manipulated (by both religious people and athiests) to support ones bliefs over what the factual evidence is. I'm undecided on evolution, mainly as the theory as is has several holes in it; maybe they will be rectified over time, maybe not; it is not a 'fact' merley a theory. Maybe a new theory better suiting the facts will be developed, perhaps not; fluid the future is, always in motion ;) However all my astro-physics knowledge indicates that the universe is around 13.7 Billion years old; and that earth is around 6 billion years old. I would point out to the athiest scientists at this point that too often some of you sound very much like the very fundementalists you argue against. Just a thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lesson number 1 in the Atheist "How to Win over Religious Idiots to Your Viewpoint":

Make fun of every possible thing you can in religion.

 

Sigh....

 

The last thing I’d do is make fun of someone’s faith and I apologize if that is what I was doing. What I was making fun of was closed minded people trying to convert people to their way of thinking by going against scientific fact.

 

I believe, but I also believe scientific fact when it staring me in the face. Saying that carbon dating is wrong or saying all dinosaurs were herbivores is a disservices and disrespectful to the scientists who devoted their life to the study. I also find it disrespectful of our intelligence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last thing I’d do is make fun of someone’s faith and I apologize if that is what I was doing. What I was making fun of was closed minded people trying to convert people to their way of thinking by going against scientific fact.

 

I believe, but I also believe scientific fact when it staring me in the face. Saying that carbon dating is wrong or saying all dinosaurs were herbivores is a disservices and disrespectful to the scientists who devoted their life to the study. I also find it disrespectful of our intelligence.

 

You don't want to bring intelligence into this discussion, I know of one Genuis (IQ 155) who believes in New Creation and I dare say he would steam roller you in an argument. That's not to say I don't disagree with him, but I pay him the respect due to a man of his intelligence. You are also getting to emotional on this subject, people will believe what they want too, most people are idiots and believe a whole load of balls. I have far more time for well thought out athiests such as ED and Achilles than I do wishy-washey middle grounders, who are too engrossed in the mediocrity of their own lives than to consider the greater implications of what life on earth entails.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That could be because as my favourite philosopher Nietzsche once mused; "Extreme positions are not succeeded by moderate ones, but by contrary extreme positions".
So extreme rationalism is countered by extreme irrationalism and vice versa. Correct?

 

Everyone would also do well to remember another of the German couts ever quotable quotes; "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher regard those who think alike than those who think differently".
I think such a sentiment, while true, is highly dependent upon context. For instance, someone that comes rationally to a conclusion very different than your own. It is possible to still hold the person in high regard even though their opinion differs from your own. Am I on the right track here?

 

I'm undecided on evolution, mainly as the theory as is has several holes in it;
I'd be interested in learning more about what holes you consider there to be (in the evolution thread, of course :D).

 

maybe they will be rectified over time, maybe not; it is not a 'fact' merley a theory.
I think there may be some confusion over what "theory" means in the scientific context. The way you use it here, I would assume that you are equating it with a hypothesis.

 

No one equates Newton's theory of gravity with a hypothesis just because we don't know what causes it. Similiarly, no one that has ever used electricity equates electron theory with a hypothesis just because we have never seen an electron.

 

I would point out to the athiest scientists at this point that too often some of you sound very much like the very fundementalists you argue against. Just a thought.
Examples?

 

PS: Glad to see you're back! :D

 

EDIT: Whoops. More goodies!

 

You don't want to bring intelligence into this discussion, I know of one Genuis (IQ 155) who believes in New Creation and I dare say he would steam roller you in an argument.
Forgive me if I find this akin to saying "I have a friend that is really tall that will beat you at basketball". The unfortunate reality is that having a lot of intelligence doesn't always mean that it's correctly used.

 

That's not to say I don't disagree with him, but I pay him the respect due to a man of his intelligence.
Smart people make mistakes too. For me the message is what's important, not necessarily the messenger.

 

You are also getting to emotional on this subject, people will believe what they want too, most people are idiots and believe a whole load of balls.
Count me in too then. People that dupe the gullible and the ignorant are immoral. That some people are gullible and ignorant in the first place is beside the point.

 

I have far more time for well thought out athiests such as ED and Achilles than I do wishy-washey middle grounders, who are too engrossed in the mediocrity of their own lives than to consider the greater implications of what life on earth entails.
I enjoy reading your posts as well. Thank you for the compliment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So extreme rationalism is countered by extreme irrationalism and vice versa. Correct?

 

Hehe, not quite the way I was meaning it ;), but yes that is essentially what I mean.

 

I think such a sentiment, while true, is highly dependent upon context. For instance, someone that comes rationally to a conclusion very different than your own. It is possible to still hold the person in high regard even though their opinion differs from your own. Am I on the right track here?

 

Indeedy, or to phraise your point in the words of the great Aristotle; “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” Essentially if someone is intelligent and well read, even if you completely differ with them there is always value in what they say. Further to this I'm also firmley of the belief that books no matter what the content should never be burned; e.g. The book of a cult (no Bibile remarks please :p), to debunk what the cult members believe first you have to understand what they believe befoe you can debunk it. I do however feel Einstein was correct in this observation; "Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions."

 

I'd be interested in learning more about what holes you consider there to be (in the evolution thread, of course :D).

 

I'll hava look through and add my thoughts on it, if someone else hasn't :)

 

I think there may be some confusion over what "theory" means in the scientific context. The way you use it here, I would assume that you are equating it with a hypothesis.

 

No one equates Newton's theory of gravity with a hypothesis just because we don't know what causes it. Similiarly, no one that has ever used electricity equates electron theory with a hypothesis just because we have never seen an electron.

 

Well technically it is still a theory... just the theory is correct; or all the evidence shows it to be correct... what would happen though if I dropped a stone and it 'fell' to the sky? I would however differentiate between evolution and gravity as I think gravity has certainly been proven beyond reasonable doubt (all data ever gathered substantiates it). I still have doubts over the veritibility of the theory of evolution. I certainly agree with micro-evolution, macro I am undecided on.

 

Examples?

 

I think all of us allow our thinking to be influenced by our previous experiances and empotions; so it is something we all do. I think science should possibly follow one of Plato/Socrates in this reguard; "I will follow the truth wherever it may lead". Which means when coming to judge matters scientifically we cast of our own predispositions (such as religion, and I personally would argue athiesm is a religion... a belief there is no God ;)) and look at the data. I'm still of the opinion science doesn't disprove God; but again that is a discussion for another topic.

 

PS: Glad to see you're back! :D

 

Hehe, its nice to debate with you again as well :) I hope you are well.

 

Forgive me if I find this akin to saying "I have a friend that is really tall that will beat you at basketball". The unfortunate reality is that having a lot of intelligence doesn't always mean that it's correctly used.

 

But call people stupid merley because they don't concur with your line of reason however improbable their line of thought, if they are intelligent they are intelligent. Weather they are right or not is not a matter of them being intelligent.

 

Smart people make mistakes too. For me the message is what's important, not necessarily the messenger.

 

Smart peoples mistakes are far more dangerous; take the Atom Bomb as an example. I both agree and disagree if a message is correct it doesn't matter who is delivering it. However I pay heed to those with interlect, I don't agree with Dawkins but he is an intelligent bloke.

 

Count me in too then. People that dupe the gullible and the ignorant are immoral. That some people are gullible and ignorant in the first place is beside the point.

 

Personally I would argue we are all responsible for our actions; is the SS Commander not guilty because he grew up in a social climate of anti semitism?

 

I enjoy reading your posts as well. Thank you for the compliment.

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hehe, not quite the way I was meaning it ;), but yes that is essentially what I mean.
Ok, well guess which side I want to be on :xp:

 

Indeedy, or to phraise your point in the words of the great Aristotle; “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” Essentially if someone is intelligent and well read, even if you completely differ with them there is always value in what they say.<snip>
Would it be sufficient to summarize by saying that we do not respect people beliefs so much as evaluate their reasons? If the reasons are sound, then we should adopt their thinking, however if their reasons are deficient, we should reject them.

 

I'll hava look through and add my thoughts on it, if someone else hasn't :)
I'll keep an eye out for it.

 

Well technically it is still a theory
Again, wrong context.

 

... just the theory is correct; or all the evidence shows it to be correct... what would happen though if I dropped a stone and it 'fell' to the sky?
Gravitational theory wouldn't have made it passed the first few step in the scientific method if they hadn't already tested for that :)

 

I would however differentiate between evolution and gravity as I think gravity has certainly been proven beyond reasonable doubt (all data ever gathered substantiates it). I still have doubts over the veritibility of the theory of evolution. I certainly agree with micro-evolution, macro I am undecided on.
I hate to break it to you, but the same thing is true regarding evolution. All the data gathered supports it.

 

Unfortunately, some people choose to reject it nonetheless, just as there are people today that still believe the earth is flat.

 

I think science should possibly follow one of Plato/Socrates in this reguard; "I will follow the truth wherever it may lead".
This is precisely what science seeks to do. By contrast, religion's doctrine is "I will accept that which does not contradict what I already believe".

 

Which means when coming to judge matters scientifically we cast of our own predispositions (such as religion, and I personally would argue athiesm is a religion... a belief there is no God ;)) and look at the data.
I've argued this point too many times recently to do so again :)

 

I would be interested to know when it was that you did this with regards to your own religion?

 

I'm still of the opinion science doesn't disprove God; but again that is a discussion for another topic.
It doesn't disprove god. So long as god is a supernatural being, it never can. It can only continue to provide alternative explanations which are supported by evidence and that make the god hypothesis unnecessary.

 

Hehe, its nice to debate with you again as well :) I hope you are well.
Everything is great. Hope you plan on sticking around for a while.

 

But call people stupid merley because they don't concur with your line of reason however improbable their line of thought, if they are intelligent they are intelligent. Weather they are right or not is not a matter of them being intelligent.
Well I hope the records will show that I've never accused anyone of being stupid. I certainly question the intelligence of a lot of the arguments that I hear, but I've never made the mistake of projecting that onto the person themself. In fact, you're much more likely to hear "________ is too smart to really believe that" in my internal dialog than "_________ is a moron".

 

Smart peoples mistakes are far more dangerous; take the Atom Bomb as an example. I both agree and disagree if a message is correct it doesn't matter who is delivering it. However I pay heed to those with interlect, I don't agree with Dawkins but he is an intelligent bloke.
He is a smart guy, but not as smart at others. And none of that would matter to me if his arguments weren't sound.

 

Personally I would argue we are all responsible for our actions; is the SS Commander not guilty because he grew up in a social climate of anti semitism?
And what of the evangelist that indoctrinates children into a specific religious tradition? See my point?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would it be sufficient to summarize by saying that we do not respect people beliefs so much as evaluate their reasons? If the reasons are sound, then we should adopt their thinking, however if their reasons are deficient, we should reject them.

 

Yeah, I think that is a logical enough premise.

 

Again, wrong context.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but I was generally of the thought that Science, is basically a hypothesis that stands because it can't be disproved. e.g. With reguards gravity no stone has ever fallen to the ground ergo the hypthesis is correct. In otherwods science disproves a theory.

 

Gravitational theory wouldn't have made it passed the first few step in the scientific method if they hadn't already tested for that :)

 

Hehe

 

I hate to break it to you, but the same thing is true regarding evolution. All the data gathered supports it.

 

Unfortunately, some people choose to reject it nonetheless, just as there are people today that still believe the earth is flat.

 

I feel I may be making a post in the evolution thread. Strictly speaking I am completely sat on the fence, I am unsure currently of how life has changed on earth. All I know is; the earth is 6Billion years old; there is alot of animals who are related in various ways which inhabbit the earth. etc etc

 

This is precisely what science seeks to do. By contrast, religion's doctrine is "I will accept that which does not contradict what I already believe".

 

Not all religious people do that, it is dangerous to group all who believe one thing to group them all to behaving and thinking in the same way.

 

I've argued this point too many times recently to do so again :)

 

hehe, fair enough :)

 

I would be interested to know when it was that you did this with regards to your own religion?

 

Suprisingly frequently; one of my thoughts when I wake up is; can all of these people really be wrong about life? Then I quickly remember most people are idiots which invalidates what they think ;) I try to be as objective as I can and try to take my personal preconceptions out of the equation as far as I can. I also believe I porbably do that better than the average human being but ultimately I can refer back to Einsteins quote. Faith would of course not be needed if doubt didn't occur. Although on the subject of faith I thought you would enjoy the follow Nietzsche quote; "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything".

 

It doesn't disprove god. So long as god is a supernatural being, it never can. It can only continue to provide alternative explanations which are supported by evidence and that make the god hypothesis unnecessary.

 

If the God hypothesis is unnecessary. ;)

 

Everything is great. Hope you plan on sticking around for a while.

 

Not sure, off on holiday leading on a Christian youth camp, my best friends wedding is soon as well, then I'm back at uni. Hopefully will be able to get on here time to time though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...