NCSE-sponsored review of the Creation Museum
Some interesting excerpts from a review of the Creation Museum that I ran across the other day:
A December 15, 2003 posting on the AIG website went into considerable detail about what the museum would have to counter traditional natural history museums and eventually christened the "Creation Museum" with the far more appropriate name of "The Anti-Museum." Hence the title of this review.
This reminds me of that "What's Your Anti-Drug?" campaign. The Bible is my Anti-Museum.
In front of the ticket booth is a very nice composite wooly Rhino fossil from Siberia on loan to AIG from two of its supporters. I thought this was merely a cast when I first saw the skeleton, because only a thin strip of cloth blocked it off. This cavalier attitude towards a valuable specimen is rather remarkable for a museum, even this one. The mannequins of various biblical characters that appear much later in the museum tour were much more protected by railings and other security.
That's really scary. I suppose they either don't realize the value of the fossil, or they assume that their guests will all behave like good Christians and look but not touch.
About the planetarium show:
The closing credits listed Dr. Jason Lisle as the writer of the program. Dr. Lisle has a Ph.D. in Astrophysics from the University of Colorado, Boulder. He moved to Kentucky after his graduation to work for Answers in Genesis. He has yet to publish his claims about Blue Supergiants and time dilation of light in peer reviewed journals.
Man, what a loophole. If you want to get your claims 'legitimized' the easy way -- without submitting to peer review -- just give them a Creationist spin and send 'em on over to the Hamster.
If fish could scream, the ocean would be loud as shit. (Thanks Mitch.)
Some actual text from the Museum:
Views about fossils have come and gone. But fossils do not tell us where these creatures came from or how they died.
Um. Sometimes they do. Go check out a children's paleontology or archaeology book from the library. You'll find plenty of examples there.
Genesis also gives an eyewitness account of a catastrophic, worldwide Flood, about 4,350 years ago
This got me thinking. What was happening worldwide at around that time, according to "secular" scientists? Has anybody ever made parallel timelines? I'm just wondering what that flood is supposed to have been interrupting. Not that the AIGers would agree -- they already know what was going on at the time because they've read the bible.
Most fossils are a silent testimony to God's worldwide judgement.
So fossils are God's way of saying, "If you don't listen to me, this is what'll happen." How...merciful. I've thought it for many years, but this emphasizes the fact that the Christian god (as a literary character, of course) is a complete asshole.
POV switch! Back to the reviewer:
The display also included a really poorly reconstructed Iguanadon eating a cycad tree model. The artist must have read that Iguanadon had pebbly skin texture and gave him giant platy pebbles unlike what skin impressions really reveal about this dinosaur. The cycad plant is so bad that it looks like a giant pineapple.
People, do your research. You knew you were gonna be scrutinized by unsympathetic viewers. It's not rocket science. Give the job to a Bible college intern or something. Make sure they've got an internet connection and a library card, throw a few bucks their way for some journal subscriptions, and you're done.
Re: the Ark display:
I really loved the animated figure with the Yiddish accent.
Oh no. Where's Mel Gibson and his historical linguistics team when you need him?
Paleozoic sedimentary rocks are depicted as forming catastrophically in underwater environments, although many terrestrial environments, including tidal flats, soils, and desert dunes are well represented in the Paleozoic. Another biggie in Flood geology is having Pennsylvanian coals form from floating forests that are catastrophically buried. There is a really nice mural of a "floating forest" on one wall. Most Mesozoic terrestrial and marine environments are also depicted as forming under water. One plaque reads "as the sea level rose, flood waves reached farther and farther inland. Ecosystem after ecosystem of plants and animals were carried out to sea and buried." An accompanying cartoonish diagram depicts a dinosaur walking underwater with its mouth open and leaving footprints.
I just don't think I get this. Terrestrial ecosystems form underwater? I have to be missing something. Please let it make more sense than this.
The presence of a marsupial-dominated vertebrate fauna in Australia must really worry the creationists. A most remarkable explanation is given: "marsupials, which have pouches, can nurse their young while moving. That may explain why on each continent [marsupials] were the first mammals buried and preserved after the Flood."
Uh. Is that true? Are marsupials the earliest mammals found on every continent? And when they say "first mammals buried and preserved," do they mean those that are farthest down in the strata? That are dated as being the oldest? Do they buy into "secular" dating methods for fossils/artifacts at all? Is that statement based on anything factual or was it pulled out of their asses (and/or their bibles)?
Races apparently begin with Noah's sons and are dispersed after the Confusion of Tongues at the Tower of Babel. After Babel, Ham's descendants go to Africa, Shem's to Arabia and Asia, and Japheth's go to Europe. This is basically insane, outdated 19th Century quack anthropology, but no one else seemed to notice. Homo erectus, Neanderthals, and Cro-Magnon are claimed to originate from these refugees from Babel and became cave dwellers.
Erectus originated from Noah's sons? Were they Homo sapiens? So they evolved backwards?
It was most fascinating and disturbing to see religion sold in the same way as diet pills, male enlargement creme, baldness cures, and the Bass-O-Matic ™.
Heh.
The walls had a number of fossil displays, but most were not yet labeled.
I wonder if they use any of the fossils for specific, fact-based displays? I hope the "yet" above is correct and they will label them as time permits. Otherwise, it's sounding to me like they just threw in a few fossils here and there to make the place look credible. Which is a huge waste.
According to artwork in the film, children in ancient Japan even had pet Stegosaurs.
Man. Japanese kids get all the cool toys.
The special effects consisted of the chairs vibrating every time the angels flew by and water being squirted from a hole in the back of the seat in front of you every time there was a water scene (like the Ark floating in the violent Flood).
You've got to be kidding me.
From a distance it was apparent there were several outdoors dinosaur models there including an outdated tail-dragging Tyrannosaurus.
Again. Research. Please.
Okay. I looked up a bit of AIG's thoughts on fossils, and here's what I found:
Of course, species is a man made term used to describe many variations of the same kind. There are several species of dog, but really they are all part of the same kind.
There aren't many species of dog, if they mean domesticated dogs. And I hope they do, because that's how the lay reader will interpret it. If they don't mean what the average reader will get out of their text, it's dishonest of them to publish it without clarification.
Anyways, all domesticated dogs fall under a subspecies (Canis lupus familiaris), not a species. Poodles, German Shepherds, and Labradors are not species. They're breeds, further subdivisions under the subspecies Canis lupus familiaris.
If you're gonna attack the concept of species and/or naming, at least be clear (and correct) about what you're attacking.
Of course, there is evidence of variation within the kind in the fossil layers. But they obviously didn’t change into each other, since the vast majority of the fossils in the fossil record died together.
They did?? Evidence? Who did the dating/stratigraphy?
Imagine this illustration of bad science:
In 300 years, people began digging in a human graveyard that was from a battle in WWII and find human bodies. They began lining them up by arm length and say that over long periods of time, the arms of people began to get longer!
But this is what evolutionists are doing
*headdesk*
I can't even summon a response to that. If they're that ignorant/deceitful, it's not even worth my admittedly worthless time and effort to refute them.
There is a predetermined age for certain fossils (once again based on assumption), and when they are found in a certain rock layer, that rock layer is given that age. Interestingly enough, the fossils are dated by the rock layers they are in, an example of circular reasoning.
How about some absolute dating methods? I know the good folks at AIG aren't ignorant of the existence of them:
Before we get into the details of how radiometric dating methods are used, we need to review some preliminary concepts from chemistry. Recall that atoms are the basic building blocks of matter.
But that's Just A Theory!
Anyways, this accusation of circular reasoning is dishonest -- they know it's not circular logic if it's correlated with absolute dating. Even if they don't agree with the 'Darwinist's' interpretation of said dates, they can't call the logic circular.
Interesting that Lucy is used as a evidence, considering the fossils reveal that it was a male, as anatomist Dr. David Menton points out.
Wow. Just...wow. Has he tried to publish this information? Is Johanson aware of it? Do any paleoanthropologists agree with him (you'll notice that his degree is in cell biology, not paleoanthropology or even anatomy, though he did teach the latter)?
[Dr. Menton's bio reveals that he's a Brown alum. Nooooooo!!! *Platoon-esque-fists-raised-heavenward*]
A December 15, 2003 posting on the AIG website went into considerable detail about what the museum would have to counter traditional natural history museums and eventually christened the "Creation Museum" with the far more appropriate name of "The Anti-Museum." Hence the title of this review.
This reminds me of that "What's Your Anti-Drug?" campaign. The Bible is my Anti-Museum.
In front of the ticket booth is a very nice composite wooly Rhino fossil from Siberia on loan to AIG from two of its supporters. I thought this was merely a cast when I first saw the skeleton, because only a thin strip of cloth blocked it off. This cavalier attitude towards a valuable specimen is rather remarkable for a museum, even this one. The mannequins of various biblical characters that appear much later in the museum tour were much more protected by railings and other security.
That's really scary. I suppose they either don't realize the value of the fossil, or they assume that their guests will all behave like good Christians and look but not touch.
About the planetarium show:
The closing credits listed Dr. Jason Lisle as the writer of the program. Dr. Lisle has a Ph.D. in Astrophysics from the University of Colorado, Boulder. He moved to Kentucky after his graduation to work for Answers in Genesis. He has yet to publish his claims about Blue Supergiants and time dilation of light in peer reviewed journals.
Man, what a loophole. If you want to get your claims 'legitimized' the easy way -- without submitting to peer review -- just give them a Creationist spin and send 'em on over to the Hamster.
If fish could scream, the ocean would be loud as shit. (Thanks Mitch.)
Some actual text from the Museum:
Views about fossils have come and gone. But fossils do not tell us where these creatures came from or how they died.
Um. Sometimes they do. Go check out a children's paleontology or archaeology book from the library. You'll find plenty of examples there.
Genesis also gives an eyewitness account of a catastrophic, worldwide Flood, about 4,350 years ago
This got me thinking. What was happening worldwide at around that time, according to "secular" scientists? Has anybody ever made parallel timelines? I'm just wondering what that flood is supposed to have been interrupting. Not that the AIGers would agree -- they already know what was going on at the time because they've read the bible.
Most fossils are a silent testimony to God's worldwide judgement.
So fossils are God's way of saying, "If you don't listen to me, this is what'll happen." How...merciful. I've thought it for many years, but this emphasizes the fact that the Christian god (as a literary character, of course) is a complete asshole.
POV switch! Back to the reviewer:
The display also included a really poorly reconstructed Iguanadon eating a cycad tree model. The artist must have read that Iguanadon had pebbly skin texture and gave him giant platy pebbles unlike what skin impressions really reveal about this dinosaur. The cycad plant is so bad that it looks like a giant pineapple.
People, do your research. You knew you were gonna be scrutinized by unsympathetic viewers. It's not rocket science. Give the job to a Bible college intern or something. Make sure they've got an internet connection and a library card, throw a few bucks their way for some journal subscriptions, and you're done.
Re: the Ark display:
I really loved the animated figure with the Yiddish accent.
Oh no. Where's Mel Gibson and his historical linguistics team when you need him?
Paleozoic sedimentary rocks are depicted as forming catastrophically in underwater environments, although many terrestrial environments, including tidal flats, soils, and desert dunes are well represented in the Paleozoic. Another biggie in Flood geology is having Pennsylvanian coals form from floating forests that are catastrophically buried. There is a really nice mural of a "floating forest" on one wall. Most Mesozoic terrestrial and marine environments are also depicted as forming under water. One plaque reads "as the sea level rose, flood waves reached farther and farther inland. Ecosystem after ecosystem of plants and animals were carried out to sea and buried." An accompanying cartoonish diagram depicts a dinosaur walking underwater with its mouth open and leaving footprints.
I just don't think I get this. Terrestrial ecosystems form underwater? I have to be missing something. Please let it make more sense than this.
The presence of a marsupial-dominated vertebrate fauna in Australia must really worry the creationists. A most remarkable explanation is given: "marsupials, which have pouches, can nurse their young while moving. That may explain why on each continent [marsupials] were the first mammals buried and preserved after the Flood."
Uh. Is that true? Are marsupials the earliest mammals found on every continent? And when they say "first mammals buried and preserved," do they mean those that are farthest down in the strata? That are dated as being the oldest? Do they buy into "secular" dating methods for fossils/artifacts at all? Is that statement based on anything factual or was it pulled out of their asses (and/or their bibles)?
Races apparently begin with Noah's sons and are dispersed after the Confusion of Tongues at the Tower of Babel. After Babel, Ham's descendants go to Africa, Shem's to Arabia and Asia, and Japheth's go to Europe. This is basically insane, outdated 19th Century quack anthropology, but no one else seemed to notice. Homo erectus, Neanderthals, and Cro-Magnon are claimed to originate from these refugees from Babel and became cave dwellers.
Erectus originated from Noah's sons? Were they Homo sapiens? So they evolved backwards?
It was most fascinating and disturbing to see religion sold in the same way as diet pills, male enlargement creme, baldness cures, and the Bass-O-Matic ™.
Heh.
The walls had a number of fossil displays, but most were not yet labeled.
I wonder if they use any of the fossils for specific, fact-based displays? I hope the "yet" above is correct and they will label them as time permits. Otherwise, it's sounding to me like they just threw in a few fossils here and there to make the place look credible. Which is a huge waste.
According to artwork in the film, children in ancient Japan even had pet Stegosaurs.
Man. Japanese kids get all the cool toys.
The special effects consisted of the chairs vibrating every time the angels flew by and water being squirted from a hole in the back of the seat in front of you every time there was a water scene (like the Ark floating in the violent Flood).
You've got to be kidding me.
From a distance it was apparent there were several outdoors dinosaur models there including an outdated tail-dragging Tyrannosaurus.
Again. Research. Please.
Okay. I looked up a bit of AIG's thoughts on fossils, and here's what I found:
Of course, species is a man made term used to describe many variations of the same kind. There are several species of dog, but really they are all part of the same kind.
There aren't many species of dog, if they mean domesticated dogs. And I hope they do, because that's how the lay reader will interpret it. If they don't mean what the average reader will get out of their text, it's dishonest of them to publish it without clarification.
Anyways, all domesticated dogs fall under a subspecies (Canis lupus familiaris), not a species. Poodles, German Shepherds, and Labradors are not species. They're breeds, further subdivisions under the subspecies Canis lupus familiaris.
If you're gonna attack the concept of species and/or naming, at least be clear (and correct) about what you're attacking.
Of course, there is evidence of variation within the kind in the fossil layers. But they obviously didn’t change into each other, since the vast majority of the fossils in the fossil record died together.
They did?? Evidence? Who did the dating/stratigraphy?
Imagine this illustration of bad science:
In 300 years, people began digging in a human graveyard that was from a battle in WWII and find human bodies. They began lining them up by arm length and say that over long periods of time, the arms of people began to get longer!
But this is what evolutionists are doing
*headdesk*
I can't even summon a response to that. If they're that ignorant/deceitful, it's not even worth my admittedly worthless time and effort to refute them.
There is a predetermined age for certain fossils (once again based on assumption), and when they are found in a certain rock layer, that rock layer is given that age. Interestingly enough, the fossils are dated by the rock layers they are in, an example of circular reasoning.
How about some absolute dating methods? I know the good folks at AIG aren't ignorant of the existence of them:
Before we get into the details of how radiometric dating methods are used, we need to review some preliminary concepts from chemistry. Recall that atoms are the basic building blocks of matter.
But that's Just A Theory!
Anyways, this accusation of circular reasoning is dishonest -- they know it's not circular logic if it's correlated with absolute dating. Even if they don't agree with the 'Darwinist's' interpretation of said dates, they can't call the logic circular.
Interesting that Lucy is used as a evidence, considering the fossils reveal that it was a male, as anatomist Dr. David Menton points out.
Wow. Just...wow. Has he tried to publish this information? Is Johanson aware of it? Do any paleoanthropologists agree with him (you'll notice that his degree is in cell biology, not paleoanthropology or even anatomy, though he did teach the latter)?
[Dr. Menton's bio reveals that he's a Brown alum. Nooooooo!!! *Platoon-esque-fists-raised-heavenward*]
Labels: anthropology, archaeology, atheism, Brown, fundamentalism, language
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home