[Closed] The creation museum

Just as scary are all the ads that show up in that link!

The fact that's a real place fills me with equal parts amusement, awe and dread. It seems like an abandoned episode of Look Around You.

Scary.
They used a picture of a lady in labour to portray suffering and sin, between an images of genocide and natural disaster.. nice[img] [/img]

I think what's most depressing is that we have learnt so much about biology, genetics, physics, giving us technology that's completely changed our lives
We've discovered a species of humans that have contributed to our own genomes from DNA from a handful of ancient teeth and a toe bone.
We've got mini computers in our pocket that can access all of human knowledge, we've got images of the universe as it was 15bn years ago....

There's so much more amazing shit to be discovered.....

.....and people build museums to creationism 🙁

Never actually met a genuine believer in creationism, kinda glad I haven't as I guess I'd have to follow them about 24/7 whilst pointing my finger at them and shouting "you're a ****ing idiot.....you're a ****ing idiot.....you're a ****ing idiot" in a typical football chant sort of style, I imagine it'd get tedious rather quickly.

Went through the pics with a 😯 until..

[i]Skeletons read the Bible.
[/i]
😆

You don't need to go to America for this brand of bible literalism.

You can visit Noah's Ark Zoo Farm in Bristol:
http://www.noahsarkzoofarm.co.uk/pages/about-us/earth-history/

I'm all for free thought, but i would make this stuff punishable by death.

[img] [/img]

If you build it, they will come.
Plus, it gives you lot the opportunity to berate. Feel better about yourselves yet?

My girlfriend's grandparents went to this place for their 70th wedding anniversary. They had a lovely time. 🙂

[img] [/img]
Whats that 2 male lions created all the other lions.

GrahamS - Member
You don't need to go to America for this brand of bible literalism.

You can visit Noah's Ark Zoo Farm in Bristol:
http://www.noahsarkzoofarm.co.uk/pages/about-us/earth-history/

I genuinely despair for the future of humanity...

I'm confused by the flood. What happened to water salinity? And how did the fish survive the change in salinity.

Oh and komodo dragons that's a long old trek to Palestine.

Google Dr Dino. He has some wonderful talks on the subject. It is interesting to see how he builds his case. Very well done. It is a slick operation.

It is a odd world with preachers claiming to "cure" gays etc. Similar slick arguments to the flat world people that to someone who is not critical thinking minded seems feesable. Much like brexit.

There's good money to be made out of the ignorant and stupid. About time this sort of shite was outlawed.

Oh and komodo dragons that's a long old trek to Palestine.

Plus, it gives you lot the opportunity to berate. Feel better about yourselves yet?

No still worried how people can be so easily led to believe obvious bollox

I worked with a creationist once. He was a nice chap. The thing I couldn't reconcile was that he was a teacher of Geology!

Connected to this, a Young-earth creationist is suing the Grand Canyon for religious discrimination, because they won't allow him to remove rock samples that he says he needs to prove that the canyon is proof of sediment laid down by Noah's flood, while the Canyon authorities will only allow samples to be used for geological research.
I shit you not!
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/05/grand-canyon-creationism/526467/

How can anybody argue with evidence like this?

It's sad that someone can take suffering and pain (see photos in theDTs post) as proof of the existence of god.... that's just miserable!

[img] [/img]

The explanation for how animals ended up on different continents is that they used logs from trees knocked down by the great flood as rafts.

WTF?! Surely the people making this shit up know that this shit isn't real?

I can fully understand people following their 'faith', believing in higher beings, divine powers, and all the rest of it. But seriously... A whole plethora of animals crossed great oceans on rafts ready made by some flood? They just aimlessly floated across on a couple of logs for weeks on end without food and water?

Sounds legit.

@ GrahamS, I refuse to go there, the kids have been but I will not.

[b]Kimbers[/b]

No still worried how people can be so easily led to believe obvious bollox

Surely the people making this shit up know that this shit isn't real?

ah, well, there are examples where "oceanic dispersal" have probably happened. It's theorised that the common ancestor of Lemur got to Madagascar in this way some 50mya when it was closer to the African continent. There are quite a few examples of it.

So, take a theory, bend it to serve your own needs, while at the same time point at scientists who say (more or less) the same thing...

I genuinely despair for the future of humanity...

Really? Some tiny minority of fundamentalists makes you despair for the future of humanity?

What I find especially bizarre about these kinds of places, is that people in the mainstream of Christianity never even hear about them except when they appear on STW threads.

🙄

so the mainstream of Christianity dont believe the bible then?

is their a version that says which bits are true and false then ?

About time this sort of shite was outlawed

No. Outlawing faith in something is the worst thing you can do. Challenge it, show that there is not necessary a conflict with their entire core faith in God. Making a point of faith illigal just causes people to "dig in".

Whats that 2 male lions created all the other lions.

😆

But yes, religion is bollocks.

mainstream of Christianity

Yeah me too, and I'm not even Xtian, but then creationism isn't mainstream and unless you go looking for something you're not going to come across it are you? There are also branches of Christian faith that think homosexuality as a sin, that needs 'curing'. Just because your faith doesn't "see" something doesn't mean its not going on, or more importantly, needs challenging

creationism isn't mainstream ...There are also branches of Christian faith that think homosexuality as a sin, that needs 'curing'.

Fairly obvious that these are not the views of the majority of moderate Christians in the UK.

So yeah not "mainstream" in that regard, but mainstream enough for the Vice President of the US to have those views!

They used a picture of a lady in labour to portray suffering and sin

I think I remember reading somewhere that it's the fact childbirth is potentially so painful and dangerous is suffering and the consequence of sin, and not the way it was supposed to be, rather than childbirth itself. Which is, I suppose, a better way of looking at it.

How does that work for other mammals that face painful and dangerous childbirth?

Is God punishing them for our mistakes too?
Seems a bit of a dick move!

so the mainstream of Christianity dont believe the bible then?

is their a version that says which bits are true and false then ?

Many (probably most?) Christians don't look at the Bible in those terms, and nor was much of it written to be viewed in those terms. So it's not about whether something is necessarily "true or false" in the sense that you look at a news report and decide whether it's reporting objective fact or is "fake news" - it's a religious text, it's about sprituality and morality, not a Haynes Manual for a planet or a species.

So for many Christians the question doesn't arise in the way you've formed it. To take one example, that stuff about the death and resurrection of Christ is not really at its core about a David Copperfield style corpse resuscitation trick is it?

You can "believe the Bible" in the sense that you recognise a higher power, feel their love, conform to the outlook on the world that comes with it, without having to calculate all the "begats" and assert that the planet can only be a few thousand years old.

If people in Biblical times approached it all in the way this debate is now framed, there would have been hecklers when Jesus preached, asking for the name of the Samaritan, their hospital records, CCTV footage of the robbery and the others passing by and not helping. I.e. completely missing the point of the story.

I'm a 100% atheist, but I'm not arrogant enough to assert that everyone with religious faith is a blind idiot. The ones that miss the whole point and get tied up in knots about fossil records though, they are blind idiots imho.

My basic point is very few christians actually think the book is completely true and often ignore the actual clear teachings of the book so why on earth should i believe any of it when they do not even believe all of it ?

Its a strange position to be in as added to the no proof of god problem is the ah which bits of the word of god are true then problem.

nor was much of it written to be viewed in those terms.

I.e. completely missing the point of the story.

I'm not arrogant enough to assert that everyone with religious faith is a blind idiot.

Since it's a collection of writings by different authors over many centuries, why would it fit neatly into one of those categories?

IME there are two ways "christians" look at the bible - one as a series of allegories / parables / stories and the other for the evangelicals of 100% absolutly ture.

the former I have no issue with, the latter leads you into all sorts of nasty places

And as for Geology, well when God created the earth he had shells and driftwood on the beaches, living and dead trees, with rings, in the forests, and sphagnum moss alive and dead in the peat bogs. Naturally he included fossils in the rocks and the layering in the sediments.

All that crafty stuff with the isotopes and magnetism was a nasty wind-up though.

The Bible is basically a more pedestrian version of the Greek and Roman myths and legends, or any other collection of pseudo religious stories for that matter. If you claimed to believe in the former you would be laughed at. Somehow the latter, along with a select few others, is fine though. Just strikes me as all a bit daft really. Each to their own, but opening a museum of bullshit is a step too far.

tjagain

IME there are two ways "christians" look at the bible - one as a series of allegories / parables / stories and the other for the evangelicals of 100% absolutly ture.

the former I have no issue with, the latter leads you into all sorts of nasty places

There's infinitely more than two ways. People are individuals. As you say, some view the bible as parables, some take it literally. Some view some of it as parable, some literal. A biblical pick and mix. Some have never thought about it any level. Some flip their interpretations to suite their needs at a given time.

There's a weird cult of perceived piety which seems very popular here in Ireland among otherwise intelligent well educated people and they seem to prefer a pick and mix approach dismissing most of old testament as ancient nonsense but treating the new testament as both religious and historic truth.

so the point of the story is not whether it is true then? I also think your account is false. if i declared a miracle folk would ask for proof. this is not unreasonable.

Put simply.
"Faith."
It requires no proof. You claiming to have jumped over a bus (or three) That would also require faith on our part should we have miss the event.
The frustration and anger that someone elses choice of belief causes some of you reveals underlying issues.
If you don't want to see it or hear it, step away. If you don't want to visit, go somewhere else.
If you see the title of a thread and think. Ooo, just what I've been waiting for. A chance to put down someone. You need help.
The demeaning bravado is childish and pointless. You won't change someones mind by belittling them or their faith and I really don't get the impression the ranting here is trying to do that anyway.
As soon as the subject of religion is broacher here, along come the same old faces, droning on with the same old put downs. This post wasn't put up to encourage a debate, It was put up in order to laugh at someone. To put them down and to ridicule them.
Sad.

jimjam - Member

There's infinitely more than two ways. People are individuals. As you say, some view the bible as parables, some take it literally. Some view some of it as parable, some literal.

That's really only 2 positions, literal and not- as soon as you start picking and choosing, and taking some as metaphor, you can no longer claim is as the literal and unquestionable word of god- that's an all-or-nothing position.

(put it another way- it's not "all cars are red" or "all cars are not red"- it's "all cars are red" or "not all cars are red". You can't say "all cars are red. That car and that car are blue"

You could have a 3rd position, that absolutely none of it is literally true but that'd be pretty hard to distinguish from not being Christian.

The frustration and anger that someone elses choice of belief causes some of you reveals underlying issues.

as for faith that is fine what parts of the book do they have faith in and what parts do they not have faith in
How do i know what parts to have faith in and what parts to ignore ? is their a manual do i need faith in that or is it just accurate?

Faith does not why someone chooses to follow a book they know that parts of it are wrong

The reason I am so incredulous it is is literally irrational and when you choose this option you open yourself up to ridicule whether it is insisting in creation or the world being flat or any other number of factually incorrect accounts of reality.
In fact it is so irrational that the DSMV needs to put in a clause to exclude the religious from classification
as for ridicule i believe the book offers some advice on how to deal with that but i am not sure if that is one of the true bits or not 😉

Anyone is allowed to believe anything but that does not give them a special pass to avoid ridicule

Northwind

That's really only 2 positions, literal and not-

Technically, I suppose you are right. But in matters as complex as faith, it goes beyond A or B, black or white. I can believe a part of something, and disbelieve the other part of it. Perhaps I'm not explaining myself well but I think it's potentially very fluid for some people.

gears_suck -

The frustration and anger that someone elses choice of belief causes some of you reveals underlying issues.
If you don't want to see it or hear it, step away. If you don't want to visit, go somewhere else.
If you see the title of a thread and think. Ooo, just what I've been waiting for. A chance to put down someone. You need help.

What you see online vocalised by atheists is a reaction to all the times they were accosted in the street and told they were going to hell, or the years or decades of bullshit religious upbringing. Online, it's an even playing field where each side of a debate can (in theory) be presented and debated without group pressure, peer pressure, intimidation, shouting and where the cult of personality holds no sway.

I've never been stopped in the street by militant atheists telling me I would suffer eternal misery for not being an atheist, I've never been insulted or harassed by atheists. Atheist politicians don't discriminate against gays or lesbians because of imaginary voices in ancient texts.

Putting people down, in real life in public is the preserve of the religious. It's there that atheists politely walk on or step away.

The reason I am so incredulous it is is literally irrational and when you choose this option you open yourself up to ridicule whether it is insisting in creation or the world being flat or any other number of factually incorrect accounts of reality.

Can anybody who's actually read the Bible tell me how many people God killed? And how many people the devil killed?

Should make for an interesting if very simplistic bar graph.

Just to add, my personal beliefs are very simple, do what ever you want unless it will cause harm to others.

Religion doesn't generally fit into my belief.

I can grasp faith* you believe something incredulous that has no proof to back it up

to ridicule is a choice. Does the opportunity presented demand the act?

* Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen
I can also discuss Corinthians and through a glass darkly if you really want to . you seem like the scholarly type 😉

Farron as an evangelical christian "Christianity is not a bit true. It's either wrong or utterly compellingly true"

for me its all about consenting adults in private. Bring your faith into the public realm and you reap what you sew

Religion is like a penis. Its Ok to have one, its fine to be proud of it and to enjoy it but please don't wave it around in public and try to stuff it down my throat

Belief that the Old Testament is allegory and the New Testament factual seems to be fairly common amongst Christians I know (and I guess makes some logical sense on account of them being followers of Christ, not Moses etc)

I knew opening this thread was going to be a mistake.

May is a 'Christian' too, what's your point?

You can check out just what they really belive in by checking out thier voting history.

On a thing called the internet.

May is basically homophobic, and Tim has consistently voted in favour of Gay /trans whatever rights.

Look it up, it's not a secret.

The frustration and anger that someone elses choice of belief causes some of you reveals underlying issues.

That's all well and good when it's a choice taken by an adult. What about children who are indoctrinated in to faiths from a young age and not given a choice? I have no issues with anybody's beliefs I have issues with opening museums teaching those beliefs as fact, with no evidence to back them up.

It would also be nice for young women who choose to have abortions not to be harassed. Say what you will but people who need to push their beliefs on to others and spread lies regarding the age of the planet now they are the ones with some serious underlying issues.

Mattyfez - May is not an evangelical

the point I was making is to evangelical Christians every word of the bible is 100% true.

Farrons voting record is actually much worse than you think and so are his public utterances - however that debate has been had before on here.

[quote=scotroutes ]Belief that the Old Testament is allegory and the New Testament factual seems to be fairly common amongst Christians I know (and I guess makes some logical sense on account of them being followers of Christ, not Moses etc)

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (NIV, Matthew 5:17–18)

I do not disagree that they do all sorts of things unfortunately none of them make sense and often they are based on just ignoring what is in the book they follow/believe/have faith in.

Mattyfez - May is not an evangelical

the point I was making is to evangelical Christians every word of the bible is 100% true.

Farrons voting record is actually much worse than you think and so are his public utterances - however that debate has been had before on here.

I've read his and May's voting records.

The difference between Farron and may is he puts his personal belief behind, where as may is playing on whatever she thinks she can cash in on.

and i doubt she's even religious, she's just playing to a crowd.

All the info on what they've voted for is online, i suggest you do a comparison, and you perhaps can engage your brain.

The quicker religious indoctrination of children is be made illegal, the better, it's child abuse, deluded the lot of them.

Mattyfez sorry you are simply wrong on Farron. Voted to restrict abortion multiple times. Voted against equal rights for homosexuals multiple times, Abstained when it was party policy to support proposals for equal rights, signed a letter demanding the ASA allows adverts that state prayer can heal. Plenty of other examples but as I say we have done this to death on here

He can do no other as he believes every word of the bible to be true and he must adhere to its teachings.

You must have a different Internet to me.

[url= https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/11923/tim_farron/westmorland_and_lonsdale/votes ]https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/11923/tim_farron/westmorland_and_lonsdale/votes[/url]

jimjam - Member

Technically, I suppose you are right. But in matters as complex as faith, it goes beyond A or B, black or white. I can believe a part of something, and disbelieve the other part of it. Perhaps I'm not explaining myself well but I think it's potentially very fluid for some people.

I think I understand your point but it's 2 slightly different matters. Yes, most people of faith pick and choose the parts of their religion that they want to follow, and that's a personal choice (and to some extent a question of your sect, as well). So that's fluid. But believing it to be literally true is all or nothing.

I don't personally understand how people reconcile that; not so much the pick-and-choose thing (to me it's hypocrisy; but that's OK, most people are hypocrites about at least some things). But the fact that people expect other people to take their picking and choosing seriously. Like, I'm supposed to respect your religious stance on the sanctity of unborn life or the sin of homosexuality, and give it special consideration because it's a matter of faith, but not notice when you commit adultery, or stand in judgement over others, or store up for yourself the treasures of the earth

[img] [/img]

Mattyfez at the great risk of both raking up old ground, diverting this thread and pissing off folk who have heard this argument before

Even your link shows him voting agaisnt party policy and against equality but his common tactic is to abstain even when its party policy to vote for

direct quote from the man

“Take the issue of abortion. Personally I wish I could argue it away. Abortion is wrong,”
“wrong at any time” and that it was “too widely available” and needed “tighter restrictions”.

and he voted for those tighter restrictions including voting for a common tactic of anti abortion groups - insisting on a compulsory cooling off period and compulsory pre abortion counselling

He voted for allowing public servants to discriminate against gay people wanting to get married but abstained on the final vote

In 2007 Mr Farron voted against the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations, legislation which outlawed discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of goods and services.

Plenty more examples of this. Yes since becoming leader he has attempted to wriggle out of this with weasel words but his actions speak louder

How can anybody believe that the whole of the earth flooded? I mean surely all the water would just pour off the edges.

faith easily vanquishes your scientific concerns

aracer - Member

How can anybody believe that the whole of the earth flooded? I mean surely all the water would just pour off the edges.

The arctic ice walls.

Tj its frikin semantics, abortion is generally wrong, but you've provided no context.

I'll start you off..

Abort from a rape pregnancy? Is that OK?

I am not going to argue the point any more. Its clear from his public pronouncements and his voting record that his personal beliefs are worth more to him that party policy or equality

I do love that pic of two male lions going onto the ark. Thats a particularly good one. That and the pictures of Jesus riding dinosaurs.

Jesus as a blond northern european type is funny as well.

gears_suck -
The frustration and anger that someone elses choice of belief causes some of you reveals underlying issues.
If you don't want to see it or hear it, step away. If you don't want to visit, go somewhere else.
If you see the title of a thread and think. Ooo, just what I've been waiting for. A chance to put down someone. You need help.

I am not going to argue the point any more.

I'm not arguing, I'm asking you personally if you think someone who is raped, whether they should have that choice to abortion.

I would say yes, what do you say?

Of course I would say yes. I believe in a womans right to control her own body without any reservations or caveats. Same as I believe in equality of all without reservation and I believe public servants should not be allowed to discriminate because of their religious beliefs

Another aspect of the debate mikesmith / gears suck is having

i believe very strongly in that people should be allowed to die in a time and place of their own choosing. the religious are stopping this from happening.

If the religious don't want this for themselves fine. their choice. Why do they feel it needed to thrust their views on me and deny me and mine that choice.

this is where religion is simply wrong when religious folks try to use their beliefs to control others who do not share their beliefs

+1 Mikewsmith

The world will be a much better when we stop brainwashing our kids.

There really should be a law against teaching shit like that to kids like it's fact, it's disgraceful, it's child abuse.

If that's not a good enough reason for speaking out against religion I don't know what is.

I do love that pic of two male lions going onto the ark

Kinda blows the 'God hates fags' argument out of the water. Hahaha!

Is it me or does the lamb look worried? How did Adam get such a neat cheek and neckline for his beard? These are the questions I need answering.

[img] [/img]

funkmasterp

How did Adam get such a neat cheek and neckline for his beard? These are the questions I need answering.

He probably kept his beard so neat and tidy using an obsidian razor.

Or he may just have used magic. TBH Adam's grooming is probably the least troubling aspect of the museum to me.

 

got to admire the ignorance of religious nuts.