Creation Museum
Andrew Arensburger
Creation Museum:
http://www.ooblick.com/text/creation-museum/
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
Advertising is the science of arresting human
intelligence long enough to get money from it.
Ye Old One
<arensb.no-...@umd.edu> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
> For those who are interested, I've written up my trip to AIG's
>Creation Museum:
>http://www.ooblick.com/text/creation-museum/
Thanks, that was very good.
--
Bob.
phillip brown
wrote:
> For those who are interested, I've written up my trip to AIG's
> Creation Museum:http://www.ooblick.com/text/creation-museum/
>
> --
> Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
> Advertising is the science of arresting human
> intelligence long enough to get money from it.
"Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis's Creation Museum lies about 20 miles
from downtown Cincinnati, in northern Kentucky."
It seems that it lies a lot more than that.
phillip brown
Steven J.
s...@umd.edu> wrote:
> For those who are interested, I've written up my trip to AIG's
> Creation Museum:http://www.ooblick.com/text/creation-museum/
>
I don't think the design of the "museum" (which forces visitors to see
the exhibits in a particular order, rather than wander freely and see
them in any order they choose) reflects authoritarian tendencies,
particularly. Compare the Creation Museum not to an entire natural
history museum, but to some particular "black box" exhibition (perhaps
the most apposite example, from the pro-science side, would be the
"Evolving Planet" permanent exhibition at the Field Museum in Chicago;
like the Creation Museum, it has an entrance, an exit, and pretty much
forces you to see the exhibits in a particular order). Of course,
this comparison makes the price of admission more remarkable; $20 is
quite a bit to pay when you only get to see one exhibit gallery.
You mention the various displays contrasting the version of Earth
history derived using "human reason" with the version AiG finds in
Genesis (apparently, they avoid being reasonable in their
interpretations), and note that, e.g. if a YEC timeline is six feet
long, then the corresponding mainstream timeline should be 2500 miles
long. But I've seen plenty of geological timelines in which, e.g. the
PreCambrian, Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic are all represented by
about equally long lines, despite the vast disparity in their lengths,
simply because the timelines represent the amount of evidence we have
from them rather than just their length (insert joke here about how
the creation timeline, then, should be approximately one angstrom unit
long). There's a long tradition, even in mainstream science, for the
length of parts of a timeline not correlating perfectly with the
actual length of the time involved.
On the other hand, you make excellent points about the inconsistency
with which AiG applies its assumptions (e.g. decrying the idea that
the present is the key to the past, and yet using Mt. Saint Helens'
new canyon to illustrate how the Grand Canyon supposedly formed).
Oh, and the answer to how one can go from _Hyracotherium_ to zebras,
donkeys, and horses in a few centuries, but could not go from monkeys
to humans even given millions of years, is that evolution of new
"kinds" requires an "increase in information," whereas evolution
within a "kind" does not. I'm sure that somewhere in the museum there
was a plaque explaining how "information" is defined and measured for
the purpose of distinguishing between evolution within kinds and
(impossible) evolution between kinds. I mean, surely such a plaque
was there, somewhere, wasn't it?
>
> --
> Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
> arensb.no-bloody-s...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
> Advertising is the science of arresting human
> intelligence long enough to get money from it.
-- Steven J.
John Wilkins
I think it lies between reality and wishfulfilment, myself.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Martin Kaletsch
> phillip brown <pjb...@people.net.au> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 26, 2:32 am, Andrew Arensburger <arensb.no-bloody-s...@umd.edu>
>> wrote:
>> > For those who are interested, I've written up my trip to AIG's
>> > Creation Museum:http://www.ooblick.com/text/creation-museum/
>> >
>> > --
>> > Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
>> > arensb.no-bloody-s...@umd.edu Office of Information
>> > Technology
>> > Advertising is the science of arresting human
>> > intelligence long enough to get money from it.
>>
>> "Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis's Creation Museum lies about 20 miles
>> from downtown Cincinnati, in northern Kentucky."
>>
>> It seems that it lies a lot more than that.
>>
> I think it lies between reality and wishfulfilment, myself.
I'd say it lies about reality!
--
"It was the laugh of the Elder Gods observing their creature man and noting
their omissions, miscalculations and mistakes." Fritz Leiber
The Last Conformist
wrote:
> For those who are interested, I've written up my trip to AIG's
> Creation Museum:http://www.ooblick.com/text/creation-museum/
Tangential, but what's the difference between "poisons" and "venoms"?
Ron O
> On Jun 25, 11:32 am, Andrew Arensburger <arensb.no-bloody-s...@umd.edu> wrote:
> > For those who are interested, I've written up my trip to AIG's
> > Creation Museum:http://www.ooblick.com/text/creation-museum/
>
> Oh, and the answer to how one can go from _Hyracotherium_ to zebras,
> donkeys, and horses in a few centuries, but could not go from monkeys
> to humans even given millions of years, is that evolution of new
> "kinds" requires an "increase in information," whereas evolution
> within a "kind" does not. I'm sure that somewhere in the museum there
> was a plaque explaining how "information" is defined and measured for
> the purpose of distinguishing between evolution within kinds and
> (impossible) evolution between kinds. I mean, surely such a plaque
> was there, somewhere, wasn't it?
I recall the version that hyracotherium were also the ancestors of
other mammals like rhinos.
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fhc/hyraco3.htm
QUOTE:
Some scientists believe that species of Hyracotherium are not only
ancestral to the horse, but also to the horse's other perissodactyl
(hoofed mammals with an odd number of toes) relatives like the rhinos,
tapirs, and some interesting extinct animals. These extinct animals
include the strange clawed chalicotheres, enormous horned
titanotheres, and the "Beast of Baluchistan," the largest land mammal
that ever lived.
END QUOTE:
Hyracotherium were so general, in terms of odd toed hoofed mammals,
that they are thought to be the progenitors of a lot of extant species
not just equids. They have three toes on the hind foot (four on the
front) and equids have reduced the number to one toe. Rhinos have
three toes on each foot.
They probably have to account for even more evolution than they
think. Of course the number of animals on the Ark keep getting
smaller, but rhinos are one of the few mammalian mega fauna left.
Hyracotherium was only the size of a dog.
Ron Okimoto
Ye Old One
A venom kills or hurts by being injected into the body. A poison,
which includes venoms, can enter by any route.
--
Bob.
loua...@yahoo.com
> "Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis's Creation Museum lies about 20 miles
> from downtown Cincinnati, in northern Kentucky."
>
> It seems that it lies a lot more than that.
It's a perfectly legitimate verb usage to cover both what someone does
and where he does it. John teaches at X High School, Jane works at Y
building, the museum lies 20 miles from Cincinnati.
Harry K
I'm sure it was. Probably right next to the plaque containing the
Creation Theory.
Harry K
Andrew Arensburger
> In half-hearted defense of some aspects of the Creation Museum:
> [...] Compare the Creation Museum not to an entire natural
> history museum, but to some particular "black box" exhibition (perhaps
> the most apposite example, from the pro-science side, would be the
> "Evolving Planet" permanent exhibition at the Field Museum in Chicago;
> like the Creation Museum, it has an entrance, an exit, and pretty much
> forces you to see the exhibits in a particular order).
Yes, I was thinking of something like this myself (in fact,
later during that same vacation, I wound up taking the wrong path at a
different museum and seeing Winston Churchill's life in reverse order
:-) ). A single-path layout makes sense if the exhibits follow a
natural progression (e.g., the evolution of whales at the Smithsonian;
Churchll's life at the Churchill museum).
It seems to me that "Creation" (which is what the museum is
supposedly about) is as large a topic as "Natural History". It makes
sense to have "Life After the Curse" come after "Life Before the
Curse", but topics like "The Building of Noah's Ark", "Flood Geology",
and "Evidence of Design in the Natural World" are disparate enough to
warrant separate galleries. If it had been up to me, I would have made
them accessible from the main entrance hall.
As it is, the whole thing is set up as a single presentation,
much like a sermon or a Hovind video, except that you walk through it
instead of sitting through it. Hm. Maybe that's it: they're used to
talking in sermons instead of free-ranging conversations. I've
noticed, in particular, that people like Kent Hovind and Ray Comfort
seem to have trouble answering a question directly: they'll start
answering, then utter a phrase that appears in their stock spiel, and
get derailed (enrailed?) onto the stock lecture.
Another problem with this layout is that it doesn't scale: if
they do really well and expand to size of the Smithsonian or the AMNH,
then there's no way people will be willing to spend twelve hours going
through the exhibits. It'll be necessary to break them up so that
people can see one part one day, and another part another day.
[...]
> You mention the various displays contrasting the version of Earth
> history derived using "human reason" with the version AiG finds in
> Genesis (apparently, they avoid being reasonable in their
> interpretations),
Oh, yeah. You betcha.
> and note that, e.g. if a YEC timeline is six feet
> long, then the corresponding mainstream timeline should be 2500 miles
> long. But I've seen plenty of geological timelines in which, e.g. the
> PreCambrian, Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic are all represented by
> about equally long lines, despite the vast disparity in their lengths,
> simply because the timelines represent the amount of evidence we have
> from them rather than just their length
Sure. Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned Edward Tufte, because
I wasn't really suggesting that this would be a more reasonable
display.
I was simply trying to provide a sense of just how wrong these
people are: it's not as if you and I disagree on whether such-and-such
oak tree is 30 years old or 70. It's more as if one person is saying
the oak is 70 years old while another says it wasn't there an hour ago.
[...]
> On the other hand, you make excellent points about the inconsistency
> with which AiG applies its assumptions (e.g. decrying the idea that
> the present is the key to the past, and yet using Mt. Saint Helens'
> new canyon to illustrate how the Grand Canyon supposedly formed).
I was more amused by the way they ignore the Bible when it
doesn't fit in with their preconceptions, but maybe that's just me.
> Oh, and the answer to how one can go from _Hyracotherium_ to zebras,
> donkeys, and horses in a few centuries, but could not go from monkeys
> to humans even given millions of years, is that evolution of new
> "kinds" requires an "increase in information," whereas evolution
> within a "kind" does not. I'm sure that somewhere in the museum there
> was a plaque explaining how "information" is defined and measured for
> the purpose of distinguishing between evolution within kinds and
> (impossible) evolution between kinds. I mean, surely such a plaque
> was there, somewhere, wasn't it?
It must've been locked up in the room with the dozen locks
that you can see in the reflection in one of the photos.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
Barbie doesn't come with Ken, she comes with GI Joe.
She just fakes it with Ken.
Walter Bushell
"Steven J." <stev...@altavista.com> wrote:
I think we need to bring up my good friend Shirley Knot.
Andrew Arensburger
> I recall the version that hyracotherium were also the ancestors of
> other mammals like rhinos.
> http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fhc/hyraco3.htm
So after the flood, Noah's Hyracotheria first had to
hyper-evolve into the first rhino, which then evolved into 200-300
species of rhino (as explained by the rhino in the entrance hall),
right?
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
Maybe the meek will inherit the earth, but if they do, they'll
be inheriting it from me.
Ernest Major
Last Conformist <andr...@gmail.com> writes
toxic substances; a venomous organism is one that injects toxic
substances into you. (Tobacco is poisonous, but not venomous;
rattlesnakes are venomous, but not poisonous.)
The distinction between poisons and venoms isn't so clear; venoms are a
subset of poisons defined by the way they're used.
--
alias Ernest Major
Shane
It lies no matter what its location.
Ron O
s...@umd.edu> wrote:
> Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > I recall the version that hyracotherium were also the ancestors of
> > other mammals like rhinos.
> >http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fhc/hyraco3.htm
>
> So after the flood, Noah's Hyracotheria first had to
> hyper-evolve into the first rhino, which then evolved into 200-300
> species of rhino (as explained by the rhino in the entrance hall),
> right?
>
> --
> Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
> Maybe the meek will inherit the earth, but if they do, they'll
> be inheriting it from me.
It also means that 55 million years of sedimentary layers of rock are
post flood, and not laid down during the flood.
They also have some human and ape phylogeny that claims that one ape
kind on the ark gave rise to all the apes except humans. Lucy and her
relatives evolved post flood from the one ape kind. I haven't
confirmed it but it looks like Homo erectus and Homo habilis also
evolved from the ape kind.
Ron Okimoto
LSR
This may not fit with the original context (not sure if that was even
stated) but surely all venoms are organic - in the chemical sense - and of
biological origin, whereas poisons can be inorganic and naturally occuring
(eg HCN, H2S, chlorine, arsenic, heavy metals such as lead or mercury etc)
--
LSR
Ernest Major
writes
inorganic?), but HCN as a venom is not beyond the bounds of imagination.
A number of plants sequestrate cyanide precursors (cyanogenic
glycosides) in compartments in various tissues, which give rise to
cyanide when tissue damage occurs, exposing the contents of those
compartments to enzymes which release cyanide from its precursors. One
could imagine a two reservoir (binary venom) system, one reservoir
containing a cyanide precursor, and the other an enzyme causing release
of cyanide from the precursor; but the question then arises as to
whether the venom is the HCN, or precursor(s).
For a more clearly inorganic venom, consider a similar system with H2O2
instead of HCN.
--
alias Ernest Major
hicoo...@gmail.com
That great
Ye Old One
this group when s/he wrote:
Yes, that is true.
--
Bob.
Robert Carnegie
Andrew Arensburger wrote:
> For those who are interested, I've written up my trip to AIG's
> Creation Museum:
> http://www.ooblick.com/text/creation-museum/
O..kay.
Zaphod Beeblebrox: quote mine ;-) The next sentence explains that he
was in an artificial universe!
"Why do I suffer?" Because you paid $20 to Answers In G...
Seriously, I was going to go at you because a religion can make up
stuff that isn't in the book, then I realised, "Answers in Genesis.
In Genesis. Duh."
Apparently why you suffer is because of the apple thing.
"Nice" to see that Terri Schiavo lives on in the memory of A i G.
And... they have porn you can surf online?? Is it broadband - better
be... uh, never mind. ;-)
Genesis again presumably justifies the Wonders Of Creation Room.
You know the part where you weren't going to venture to speculate?
You vent and speculated, Sharlee. That comes over as dishonest, or
maybe there's something wrong with /me/?
I forget, does the bible say anything about Methuselah besides "Jiminy
he's old"?
Pangea came and went and never was above the water level??
Hypercanes, earthquakes, volcanoes: not in the btble? Okay. Too bad
again about that "Answers In Genesis" thing. Since the answer aren't
in Genesis.
Was the kill-a-lamb-for-Easter lady from the first or the twenty-first
century C.E., would you say?
And This Way To The Egress.
Steven J.
>
-- [snip]
>
> I forget, does the bible say anything about Methuselah besides "Jiminy
> he's old"?
>
results), he died the year of Noah's Flood (assuming no gaps in the
genealogies). The etymology for his name preferred by most scholars
is "man of the javelin," but there are arguments for "when he dies, it
is sent," implying that the Flood came immediately after his death,
and that he was, in a sense, a warner of coming divine judgment.
>
-- [snip]
>
-- Steven J.
Andrew Arensburger
> It also means that 55 million years of sedimentary layers of rock are
> post flood, and not laid down during the flood.
If sedimentary layers are laid down even when there isn't a
flood, shouldn't there be two such layers, one for hyperevolution
before the flood, and one after?
Now, maybe large parts of this layer was destroyed by Ye
Floode, but perhaps parts of it were preserved, the same way as the
four rivers mentioned in Genesis were.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
d;naveornv. Oops, Sorry, fell asleep on the keyboard.
Ozan Türky lmaz
s...@umd.edu> wrote:
> For those who are interested, I've written up my trip to AIG's
> Creation Museum:http://www.ooblick.com/text/creation-museum/
>
that was one good review. add 1% lie to truth and noone really
reliaze.
richardal...@googlemail.com
It's a pity that creationists add 50% lie to truth, so that anyone not
brainwashed by their propoganda realises that it's a bunch of lies
JAlexander
wrote:
> For those who are interested, I've written up my trip to AIG'sCreationMuseum:http://www.ooblick.com/text/creation-museum/
>
> Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
> intelligence long enough to get money from it.
Disrespect can easily develop into a two-way street. One should keep
this idea firmly in mind when taking on a majority.
Noelie S. Alito
> On Jun 25, 9:32 am, Andrew Arensburger <arensb.no-bloody-s...@umd.edu>
> wrote:
>> For those who are interested, I've written up my trip to AIG'sCreationMuseum:
http://www.ooblick.com/text/creation-museum/
>>
<sigsnip>
>
> Disrespect can easily develop into a two-way street.
Yes, Andrew. You *know* how much respect AIG fans have
for people who don't share their beliefs. You wouldn't
want to lose that.
> One should keep
> this idea firmly in mind when taking on a majority.
Especially when that majority has a history which
includes killing people accused of witchcraft,
burning alive (in their houses) families who refuse
to convert, stripping the humanity from conquered
peoples in their native lands, using their scripture
to justify the owning of slaves and terrorizing the
descendants of those slaves by lynching them and
burning crosses in front of the survivors' homes.
Noelie
--
There are two religions called Christianity: a religion
of love and redemption and a religion of hate and pride.
If someone won't give you a straight answer about which
one he belongs to, it's probably the second.
--Louann Miller