When's the Flying Spaghetti Monster going to get his noodly tendrils into a museum then?
The science desk here at El Reg has long held that creationism belongs in a museum. Now it seems that the creationists agree with us, as they have opened just such an institution. All right, it is in Kentucky, but at least they're trying. The organisers, Answers in Genesis*, say they expect upwards of 250,000 visitors in the …
When's the Flying Spaghetti Monster going to get his noodly tendrils into a museum then?
I was going to write a massive essay about how stupid the Americans are, how this is going to damage their future in science, ecconomics etc. However, I really cannot be bothered.
Good luck to them, I hope they all love it.
The museum promises 'life-sized people' - are museums in this part of the world normally run by midgets or something? Or is this seen as proof that the curators did not involve from monkeys like the rest of us?
What's this - the Creation Park is open on a Sunday! Do they have devine permission for this flagrant disregard of Christian dogma? or maybe they subscribe to the "Christianity's OK but money's money....." belief system.......
I was initially quite impressed that they've avoided the "Intelligent Design" misnomer and adopted good old Creationism.
But then the website says:
"Throughout this family-friendly experience, guests will learn how to answer the attacks on the Bible’s authority in geology, biology, anthropology, cosmology, etc., and they will discover how science actually confirms biblical history."
I'm hoping that the Flying Spaghetti Monster will save us from this nonsense.
It was bound to happen. With Disney's Blockbuster with Pirates of the Caribbean, it was only a matter of time that the process of Film-based-on-Theme-Park was once again reversed. Having had the requisite success with "The Passion of the Christ", the funding for the Creationist Theme Park was done and dusted.
It would also save the South Park team a lot of time, they just need to walk through the park with a camera and super-impose the characters and their usual "warning" caption.
But half the people surveyed (in the US, of course), believe in either creationism or intelligent design!
As my anatomy prof said. "The appendix, now that's proof of intelligent design"
I got so frustrated at the idea of creationism that I spent a week arguing with one guy via email. The complete absurdity of his argument was freakish, citing that darwin must have been wrong because he converted to Christianity just before he died, (even if that was the case, i could forgive him for that, I'd like to cover all the bases too).
I think the most important point to make about these people is that they are complete nutters, they're extreme right wing, word of the bible is the word of god crazy americans who for the most part haven't even read the bible.
An interesting point to make about genesis;
Genesis as a story is a very very old one indeed, the first written accounts of "Genesis" are in the book of Enoch, which was apparently written about 5,500 years back. The earliest surviving copy of this book of the Torah dates to about 2700 years ago. And there is none of this "And ye God declared that there be light and flowers and trees" and the rest of that nonsense, it is actually very very very weird book of the bible to read, because it doesn't describe God creating anything, it describes this; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_disk Which is also known as the accretion theory of solar system formation.
Reading it sent a chill down my spine because for all I don't believe the nonsense of the re-written, political brain washing which is King James' Genesis, the book of Enoch tells a story which isn't fiction. It describes a conversation between God and Enoch, see fit to replace God with aliens, atlantians, or whatever as essentially its an un-named story teller rather than a deity speaking from on high, I also believe that the real name of the teller was removed/changed as it has been in the Torah Elohim replaced Yahway, which replaced an earlier unknown name, the King James' bible God is always written in capital letters because of this break in syntax/textual flow of the original texts it was copied/translated/mutilated from.
Anyway back to my point, the conversation is essentially a banter of questions and answers, Enoch has some questions so he asks the story teller who gives him some pretty compelling answers.
So yes, I agree, there are answers in genesis... Just not the Genesis that is currently published, a much older one... But if you want to go looking for those answers you might as well just read Stephen Hawkings books because in essence its the exact same thing. Except Hawking doesn't tell as much of a good narrative as Enoch did, but they are easier to find, the copy of the Book of Enoch I found took me about 3 months of searching.
"It promises visitors "a fully engaging, sensory experience", complete with "realistic scenery, computer-generated visual effects, over 50 exotic animals, life-sized people, and dinosaur animatronics"."
Can you believe it, I mean LIFE-SIZED PEOPLE! Wow.
As soon as the Pastafarians get their arses in gear and build one!
I would note though that 'Build a museum' is not one of the answers to "What would a pirate do?"
...so his noodly appendages are already present in the aforementioned museum?
If you don't know that then you're a heretic, and must face DEATH BY CAKE!
Even today humans live alongside dinosaurs. They're called "creationists" and they are taking way too long to go extinct.
As soon as the FSM creates his own universe.....
Because the register seems to attract alot of really dumb comments.
First off this whole thing has been in developement as far as I know for the last several years plus.
Secondly... this has nothing to do with the movies.
Thirdly... If it was a museum on evolution... you wouldn't be posting that dribble of a comment(s).
I swear...you only make yourselves look stupid! Try commenting with brains for a change! I sure hope this isn't the face of today's IT industry.... because if it is.. im likely to change careers.
You may think, only in America, but next time (if you ever do) you visit Portsmouth, don't forget to pay a visit to our own version of this superstitious nonsense
If they are proposing that ancient man lived at the same time as dinosaurs, don't you think that Jesus's encounter with a 30 tonne Brachiosaurus would have merited a mention in the good book?
Everybody knows that the Earth was created by a giant cheesy globule called Smegma. From his single eye he wept milky tears upon the barren land and thus fertilised it [with the salt of life].
Thus the first male was born, Edam. And with him was also born the first female, Fishee. And their offspring were many, and their lives were content until Fishee forced Edam to use the banned fluid of Cleanit upon his biological idol of Smegma.
With his new shiny wand stood in attention, Edam and Fishee were banished from the Garden of Clevedon - never again were they to find favour with Smegma.
This is how it was.
"the copy of the Book of Enoch I found took me about 3 months of searching."
Took me less than three minutes to find a few different versions.
"It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones." Luke Chapter 17
"Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man," Jesuit moto based on a quote from Francis Xavier. This one also speaks to bringing democracy and peace to the middle east.
"The mind is its own place,
and in itself
Can make a heaven of hell,
a hell of heaven." Milton
Whatever next. Wonderful suggestion. I wonder why boffins didn't think of that sooner...
"If it was a museum on evolution... you wouldn't be posting that dribble of a comment(s)."
What would there be to comment on? Museums and science go together like shoes and socks. Creationism isn't science, therefore this is notable. Retrograde and regrettable, but still notable.
Most of you assume that evolution is true because you presuppose in your own mind that naturalism can explain origins. This is false. You can make many wild guesses but you were not there. Creationists interpret scientific data according to the Bible because we have the Word of someone who was there. It is not science that disagrees with the Bible. It is evolutionary thought that disagrees with the Bible. You interpret the same data creationists interpret, only according to your own naturalistic bias. Either you believe the Bible or you don't. But acting like you are so mentally superior to creationists because they believe the Word of God is childish. To those of you who have not evolved past the point of having an open mind, try checking out www.answersingenesis.org
If your comment
"Thirdly... If it was a museum on evolution... you wouldn't be posting that dribble of a comment(s)."
was in defence of creationism, please feel free to change career. Also take your views on a flat earth with you. Twenty First century tech workers deal more with science than myths and fairy tales...
First: however long it has been in development makes it none the worse retarded and likely going to set many folks back. Thankfully anyone that believes in this is likely not going into a scientific discipline.
Second: You are right...it has to do with a culture of mis/dis-information.
Thirdly: No because we have those already. And quite frankly it seems the church missed the boat on that...it would have been much easier to look at evolution as a whole and say "Man that God really is something else to come up with this plan!"
instead of the ignorant drivel espoused by some Americans in regards to evolution.
And for my points...religion should be the why...not the how of it all. Ignorance is not wholly an American commodity. I have heard just as much stupid rhetoric in the UK. However I am embarassed that my country seems to keep bringing this nonsense up. It seems to me that religion can be (if people chose for it to be) so malleable (sp?) as to allow whatever science to take hold and then take credit for that! It is like saving the life of a doctor who goes on to save 100s of lives. You get a small credit for everyone that doctor saves because you saved him. Flawed argument I know but it has a better framework than most these days.
What's your take on Enoch's original words there?
I'll be sure to attend anyway! Humans among dinosaurs! Has anyone ever ridden the Disney dinosaur ride in Florida? So awesome.
Seriously though, animatronic bible bullshit or man eating thirty foot sharks, who cares as long as it's entertaining.
Maybe they even have a ride through Sodom complete with fire and brimstone! And maybe they can have a character actor on the ride for every five to ten people who looks back and turns into a pillar of salt.
This would be way more badass than the silly Pirates of the Carribean ride.
I won't fault them for being morons. (It's genetic and the mutation for this gene happened way before the pilgrims came over from the old country. So please don't point fingers at us "stupid Americans." Although, I must concede the inbreeding over here must have caused that gene to be a bit more prevalent than in other places.) I will fault them if they build a shitty ride. If you're going to be moronic make sure you do it so well that at least I can be entertained.
"You can make many wild guesses but you were not there" and now read from the same comment, "...because we have the Word of someone who was there".
Now those 2 lines alone have just broken the laws of logic if they are to be true. More interestingly if you have the word of someone who is that old I would like to meet him (along with the rest of the world probably), sorry what was that, the Word is from someone you've never actually met so that means it's 2nd/3rd etc. hand information that your going on, bit like "us lot" who use wild guesses based on a combination of theory and facts presented to us from Various Sources rather than the Bible, which in todays climate is one book with a number of short stories from authors who are all (currently) dead (leaving room for if/when the son of god rises, to corroborate the whole thing).
Wonder what creationists think of Scientologists (now there's compelling viewing for a Big Brother episode if ever I heard one).
I, for one, would be much more impressed by a god that thought of something as sublime as evolution than I would be by a god that merely went into his workshop and built some animals. It seems to me that what the creationists are really attached to isn't God, but an understanding of God that's understandable to nomadic sheepherders in a society with highly-restricted literacy.
It's like God is a science teacher that has to teach children of all ages. He's trying to tell the older kids about evolution, but they won't listen and keep saying "but when we were five and you told us about this, you just said you made the animals. How can you tell us that there was more to it than that? We won't listen to you anymore."
... that this was in Kentucky and not Kansas. Us poor rational thinkers here (in KS) get a bad rap from all the wackos.
"Creationists interpret scientific data according to the Bible because we have the Word of someone who was there."
Surely it should be 'who they believe was there'. Anyway to get back to the www.answersingenesis.org thing. I did have a look and found that as with many of these things there is always a leap of faith required at the bottom of the explainations.
Each person inherits one gene of each pair from each parent. Unfortunately, genes today contain many mistakes (because of sin and the Curse), and these mistakes show up in a variety of ways.
because of sin and the Curse? Were is the proof for that, oh yeah in the bible. In the end it always comes down to 'We know the bible is true because it says it's true in the bible'.
Oh and they seem to point you to things you need to buy quite a lot. Danny, did you read the texts other posters had suggested or did you dismiss them out of hand?
"Creationists interpret scientific data according to the Bible because we have the Word of someone who was there. "
What so "scientific" about interpreting data
wrt a bunch of allegorical tales!?
Do you think that wolves actually go hunting
by dressing up in sheepskin? (As per Aesop's fable.)
Sorry, but many of the comments against the museum bear the exact same hallmarks of bigotry and intolerance that the standard religious nutcases use. It's mostly "you're different from me, so you're stupid" arguments.
Not everybody sees evolution as the only explanation of life. It's certainly possible that there is a higher power that could have steered life out of the primordial soup into the world we know of. If you evolution nutters would stop putting all of your efforts into your 'all or nothing' arguments and figure that your fellow human beings are just as likely to have a grasp on a kernel of truth in there somewhere, you may learn something.
I think this museum is a sad display of how poorly understood science and a half-read and selectively understood bible can get hammered into an illogical ethos that scores $20 a head. However, it does make somebody a living, and entertainment based upon what people believe is nothing new.
However, just because some Americans are nuts doesn't mean that you can smugly conclude that all of us are. In terms of tolerance, it doesn't line up that neatly. If your fellow man decides to start his own religion on worshipping cheese, if you want your own religion to enjoy its protection, you need to tolerate the foul Camembert worshippers. Otherwise, you're no better than the rest of the world, which does not tolerate dissent.
crashIO: The church (which one?) can't say whatever it wants, it has to tell the truth. It accepts the truth by definition, rather than by democratic development, but it has definitions which it cares enough to use. Your desire to have the church convert itself to science is curiously religious in itself.
Rob Kirton: if creationist belief is inconsistent with tech employment, please explain whether you, or your computer, writes the programs you run. Although the computer touches the code last, doesn't it feel like 'you' wrote it...?
Danny, I’d just like to pass on my thanks for the link to www.answersingenesis.org. Very funny :)
Most amusing I think were statements like:
“In fact, there is no proof whatsoever that the world and its fossil layers are millions of years old.” (Ham, K., Dinosaurs and the Bible)
which I’m sure a clearly intelligent and educated man such as yourself will be chuckling over just as much as I was. For the rest of you less enlightened folks the deliberate omission here is ‘Carbon Dating’. How we laughed eh Danny?
The book of Enoch, while it is an enjoyable read is not verifiable for the time period for which it is supposed to have been written. It was very interesting however.
Thanks for the reply. Actually, you can meet him. His name is Jesus...
"That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10:9
"Sorry, but many of the comments against the museum bear the exact same hallmarks of bigotry and intolerance that the standard religious nutcases use. It's mostly "you're different from me, so you're stupid" arguments."
Most of the arguments are "you're advocating something that has been repeatedly shown to be a load of tosh, so you're stupid". Believing this creationist nonsense is a choice, and there is nothing wrong with calling people out on the irrational and, frankly, stupid choices they make. This is not bigotry, it is discernment.
As for intolerance, do you see calls for the museum to be closed? Suggestions that people should be prevented from going there? No, you don't. You see criticisms of its existence - valid criticism. Tolerating something does not preclude criticising it.
I am glad you checked out the site. Believing in the Bible as the final authority is the whole point. Yes, I read all of the posts but I would only bother responding to those posts that are not an open attack as opposed reasoned response.
"What so "scientific" about interpreting data"
Need I say more?
'which I’m sure a clearly intelligent and educated man such as yourself will be chuckling over just as much as I was. For the rest of you less enlightened folks the deliberate omission here is ‘Carbon Dating’. How we laughed eh Danny?'
Only in a very few circumstances is carbon dating useful on a geological timescale; the half-life of C14 at 5700 years is just too short for most samples - 2 half lives takes you back just as far as the end of the last glacial. Instead they use other isotopes - potassium 40 -> argon 40, rubidium 87 -> strontium 87 and about a dozen others.
The creationists have got it in for C14 in particular because of the unique way it is made (by radiation bombardment of nitrogen), and like to point out (as if it wasn't originally discovered by scientists working on radiodating) that the recent mass consumption of fossil fuels, and the atmospheric detonation of nuclear weapons have screwed up C14 ratios in modern samples. HOWEVER, this has all been resolved by pinning C14 ratios to known dates recovered from samples of timber, lake sediments and so on.
However, the wackos still have one trump card. Pointing out (like it was new to the scientists who actually discovered it), volcanic emissions are depleted in C14, they say that it was obvious the Biblical Flood must have been accompanied by massive eruptions which would have screwed up the ratios - so you can't rely on C14 at all.
See how believing in one bit of nonsense allows them to dismiss almost anything. Creationism is an intricately woven web of lies with just enough mention of science to make it sound credible to a Panorama producer (sorry separate rant), but with actually no credibility whatsoever.
As for this museum, it's like 'The Flintstones' the themepark isn't it?
"Believing in the Bible as opposed reasoned response."
I can quote out of context and edit stuff too.
Similar, in some respects, to how the early
church edited the bible.
...we always hear the term "open-minded" in these discussions from both sides of the argument?
You do not know what happens to you when you die or before you are born.
Anyone who tells you that they know what happens to you when you die or before you were born is deluded.
One day you will die and then I'll respect your opinion on this subject. (honestly, I'd love to hear from you)
I'm an agnostic which doesn't mean I stand on the fence - it means that I accept the fact that I don't know the answer and never will until I die (maybe). It doesn't mean that I profess a belief in God to hedge my bets for an afterlife - any God who would require that of me wouldn't get my vote anyway.
I'm happy in my ignorance, why can't you be? After all, you are all ignorant on this subject and just need to admit it to yourselves. (This applies to Christians, Muslims, Jews, in fact any religious or spiritual group and athiests alike).
Anyone got any empirical evidence?
That's great Danny, I'm free most of next week except Monday. A lunch appointment would be good, would you mind if I brought the world's media with me, I think they'd like to film/photograph/write about the event.
If not I could pass my mobile number on to Jesus and he could give me a bell as to when he's free for a meeting (I promise I won't try and sell him anything, I'm not that sort of consultant).
Looking forward to meeting the lad, thanks for letting me know he has a corporeal form again, that one seems to have missed the world media and even the El Reg.
Danny: This would seem to imply that you regard the Bible as one coherent statement. I won't even try to explain to you why that's wrong - you either red it and managed to contort your mind to the point where you're so proficient in doublethink that O'Brien would be proud of you, or you haven't and are merely parroting soundbites hammered into you by others.
Joe Jones: You missed my point entirely. My point is religion, if it was nearly as tolerant as its believers claimed...could trump all science without disputing the science. However the church leaders (notice I didn't say spiritual leaders because most spiritual folks, even Christians actually agree with me) have decided to enforce and brace a collection of stories and claim them to be the final authority. Unfortunately that collection of stories has been rewritten so many times as to have diluted (IMHO) much of what it was teaching in the first place. I am not looking for a church of science...we supposedly have that already (ask Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes) and they are every bit as corrupt, and full of misinformation as the rest.
Do I believe in God...perhaps. I believe in something greater than myself and God is as good a label as anything else. Do I believe in evolution? I believe in its precepts. Obviously not having been there myself I have to rely on learned individuals smarter than myself (and you). Do I think the park is a bad idea? Yes because it is teaching and entertaining (beyond all reason and data) that people and dinosaurs walked about the planet 2000 years ago. Yet the oldest copy of the Torah is 2500 years old. Explain the discrepancy please. The theme park is bad but it is at least voluntary. Kansas was by far much worse for FORCING the Creationism doctrine in school.
It comes down to this...you shouldn't want creationism in science class anymore than I should want evolution in Church. Simple as that. Theme parks are okay but I have problems with anything religion themed that makes money for the sake of making money. You cannot get rich on religion and consider yourself spiritual.
That is nothing more than neo-Calvinism. And it is wrong.
Let me make one or two comments for thought.
While I was raised in a conservative religious tradition that taught that God created in 6 days, I have chosen to challenge all of those beliefs. I have read the comments and ideas by evolutionists. I have read the biblical interpretations by those who see the Bible as a fairy tale. Yet, I keep returning to the truths that I was taught (mostly).
Neither creationism nor evolution are science. They are philosophies upon which we interpret our scientific data. An evolutionist will approach an experiment from one perspective and will ask himself a certain set of questions. The creationist can approach the same experiment, perform it differently and ask different questions. The reason? They have different basis' for their understanding of the facts.
So is one more or less scientific than the other? No. Neither is scientific. Both are philosophical structures. (And I am creationist and I recognize that evolutionists have greatly impacted science for good.)
When it is all said and done, I believe that neither view can prove their case beyond "a shadow of a doubt." Both will require faith at some point to make up for the gaps in our knowledge. It is my belief that creationism answers the evidence around us more effectively.
And for all the snide comments on both sides of the debate? Both groups fail to respect the other. That is cruel (besides, it makes you look unintelligent). Learn to disagree peacefully and to foster beneficial conversation. You could learn from the other side (and it doesn't require changing you core beliefs).
God already left a message but it's not on your phone. I appreciate a good sense of humor but seriously I hope that you will take the time to read the Bible if you have not already. When all of the joking is over there is still a inescapable truth. Now, if you will excuse me I am late for my flat earth society meeting. <--- Sarcasm tag!
What design would be greater? One that describes the whole universe in a single function that could be a single tought or one that puts it together from various bits and pieces that couldn't fit together without help? Making something static is easy. Designing a system that would build itself up from it's basic element (pure energy) into the wanted result (the current universe) is much harder.
I'm asking because many scientists belive in God, but they think the whole universe could be described as one big 'wave function', but this could only be fully understood by someone outside (above) the universe. The strange thing is that even ancient greeks described something similar as the only logical structure of the universe. On the other hand there are creationists, who think everything was created piece by piece without any connection to each other.
When you look at the bible, you can see many things, first that the tale of creation is correct, but the time scale is not linear, but rather logarithmic. If we think as some scientists and assume that the whole current universe was already determined before the first moment of the big bang, that would mean God created the universe with a single 'tought' and that tought contained the 'algorithm' that would build up the universe (actually it's still running). First the time and space dimensions and pure energy (aka. light), then matter (earth), then various lifeforms and as we near the end of this algorithm (or preset function) we humans came around. If you look at scientific evidence then the timeline is correct, except the scale is different. But since we know that people of the old testament used moon cycles to count their age, we can assume that the scale wasn't the same in this case either. (if you take that literally that would mean Adam from the Bible was 77.5 years old when he died, sounds quite correct to me)
So what I'm trying to tell is that there is no collision between the Bible and science, but people tend to interpret both sides wrong. However scientists have to admit an error when someone finds one but creationists doesn't want to think and see. You don't have to belive in something when you can be sure and know the truth.
ps: Yes, i suggest that the universe is deterministic. It's something we don't know for sure, but current scientific results say it looks like it is. If that is true, that means God can see the whole universe as a flipbook and see all past present and future events as an at least 4 dimensional static structure. My favourite quote about this is that we are like the little cells in a game of life and the universe runs as a program (or 'wave function') created by God...
""What so "scientific" about interpreting data"
Need I say more?"
Yes please say more...
If I interpret Data on a book that has unverified facts (just like the Bible) I can come to alot of different conclusions
If you look at the works of the brothers grimm you can say that wolves are known to dress up like lil old ladys and eat children.
So therefor seeing I interpreted data (from a source unverified if it is true (just like the bible)) it is now scientific fact...
So no we can go take it one step further and discern that animals can dress up like people do to the "Truth" in the brothers grimm works so maybe the registers really ran by vultures just dressed up impersonateing people. Seeing wolves can do it, according to a book that I believe is factual that I extracted "data" from, why can't other species..
I hope you see how the based on data from 1 book theory is a pile of rubbish. and how its NOT scientific. But with your attitude I doubt its possible...
..what with T.Rex , a few velociraptors and a pair of diplodoci!
I find this topic quite interesting from a spectators point of view.
Me, I am not religious. But I have studied most of the major religions through general interest, and most of them seem to have something in common. They all seem to start with someone saying "Be nice to each other, treat others the way you wish to be treated yourself."
At the time these religions gained popularity, they became the central legal system for the towns and villages in which people lived. This is fine for small disputes, but it can cause trouble when scaled up. If changing the way a particular phrase is worded in the "holy text" can incite hatred, or be used to gain power over others, then human nature would dictate that this has happened at some point. (Unless EVERY person in every religious hierarchy was never motivated by peer pressure or personal gain.)
This is why the Catholic church objected to the printing press (not that I have anything against them, it's just history). If everyone has a copy of the "holy text" then it's a lot harder to change things.
Even changing a text from one language to another will cause inconsistencies, as there may be no equivalent phrase in the other language, without factoring in regional dialects or changing slang.
Anyway, I digress. I'm all for religion if it can make you a better person. I know a few people who's lives are led in a very religious way (not all the same religion), and they are nice people. (If a little strange)
I know some assholes who are very religious, who seem to think that being nice to others isn't necessary as they are not specifically told to be nice to anyone who wears a hat/ is tall/ looks different to me.
I don't think any of the religious texts are written now exactly as they were when conceived, and by now are just as fictional as whatever the Creationists / Scientologists/ teletubbies have managed to come up with. Think of it like newspapers, each has it's own slant on the story, and if the story is around long enough you could read two different papers and think they were two different events. And sensationalism sells, whether you are selling books, DVD's or religion.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017