Friday, December 3, 2010

Kentucky will soon have a Creationist Theme Park

From MSNBC.com 
I don't make any of this stuff up.  I just copy and paste. 

FRANKFORT, Ky. — A huge replica of Noah's Ark and an 800-acre creationist theme park reportedly are coming to Grant County, Ky., according to NBC station WLEX.


Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear and Answers in Genesis, builders of the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., are expected to unveil plans Wednesday for the $150 million northern Kentucky attraction, WLEX and other area news outlets reported.
The ark and theme park are expected to attract 1.6 million visitors annually, WLEX said. The operation is expected to create 900 jobs. That doesn't count employment at new restaurants and hotels expected to complement the park.

We are now doomed to see every new car wash, taco stand and whorehouse in terms of "jobs created and saved", thanks to our economically illiterate Porker In Chief.  Here's a hint: Prosperity isn't created by increasing the number of jobs.  It is created by saving time.  But I digress.... 

..The museum and private investors have been looking at several spots around the county, but efforts to place the park in Grant County have been under way at least for 18 months, officials told WLEX.

The Creation Museum, opened in May 2007 about seven miles from the Cincinnati-northern Kentucky airport, was estimated to draw about 250,000 visitors per year but surpassed 1 million visitors in less than three years, the Cincinnati Enquirer reported.
Exhibits represent the views of Apologetics Ministry, including the belief that the Earth is only about 7,000 years old and that dinosaurs were among the creatures on Noah’s ark.


Heavy, heavy sigh....This is what happens when you start taking metaphors and parables literally.  You get backed into these ridiculous corners where Bronze Age story characters can build boats with enough compartments to keep the T-Rex family from devouring the poodles. 

The Creation Museum is directly or indirectly responsible for bringing 2,100 jobs to the area and has an economic impact of $65 million per year, according to a study it commissioned.

Joining Beshear at Wednesday’s announcement in the State Capitol will be Mike Zovath, senior vice president of Answers in Genesis and head of the Creation Museum project, and Grant County Judge/Executive Darrell Link, the Enquirer said.

The project will be a joint development of Answers in Genesis and for-profit partner Ark Encounter LLC of Springfield, Mo., according to the Louisville Courier-Journal.
The developers are seeking state tax incentives under the Kentucky Tourism Development Act, which allows up to 25 percent of the cost of a project to be recovered, Courier-Journal said.

Atheist groups and church-state separation advocates noted that state involvement in the project may not appear to be right, but it does appear to be legal as state tax breaks are used to support tourism projects.

“It might not be discrimination, but it might not be a good idea,” Edwin Kagin, a Northern Kentucky attorney who is also the national legal director for the group American Atheists, told the Courier-Journal.

The existing 70,000-square-foot Creation Museum "brings the pages of the Bible to life, casting its characters and animals in dynamic form and placing them in familiar settings," says the Creation Museum website. "Adam and Eve live in the Garden of Eden. Children play and dinosaurs roam near Eden’s Rivers. The serpent coils cunningly in the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil."

Among other museum exhibits are a planetarium showing "the amazing 'Created Cosmos,'" four theaters including a special effects auditorium featuring "Men in White," a Dinosaur Den, Noah's Ark construction site, and a cave about "Natural Selection Is Not Evolution."
The pics came from this guy, who is probably going to enjoy the park as much as I will. 
Please note the section of the park where "The Ground Is Cursed - Adam Must Toil For Food".  Well, I gotta go to work.  Hope everybody can find a way to cope with this condemned, cursed, fallen, miserable world.  Remember....Eve ate an apple.  Therefore, you must be punished. 

15 comments:

Cedric Katesby said...

Answers in Genesis.
Oh yes.
Their understanding of science is WONDERFUL.


You can tell it's legit because the guy who wrote it has the four big things that count in the science world:

1) He put it up on the Internet.
2) He's got a degree
3) He refuses to engage in group-think and blindly follow any dumb 'ol "consensus".
4) He's retired.

Say, you don't suppose he signed the famous Oregon Petition, do you?
The list of "32,000 scientists"?
Everybody remembers that "special" list, yeah?

(...types in Michael Oard...)
(...types in Oregon Petition...)

My, oh my. What a coincidence.
:)

Say, who actually runs that impressive-sounding Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine?
Ladies and Gentlemen: Art Robinson.
He's special.
I love "Institutes".
Don't we all? They are very popular around here.
Absolutely anyone can set one up.
And so, of course, absolutely anybody does.

Climate deniers put out "lists of scientists" for the same reasons that creationists put out "lists of scientists".
They fool the gullible.
They rely upon trust to be effective.
Trust in the tribe.

If you trust in the tribe, then you won't bother to fact-check and then you won't discover fraud.
Funny how that always seems to work. Again and again and again.

That particular piece of propoganda has been amazingly effective.
Simply amazing.

Welcome to the people who tell you what to think.

To put it simply, you would have to be either a fool or a liar to suggest that this exercise had any credibility. Yet as far as I can tell, Jim Manzi is the first person on the right to offer overt criticism of this exercise, and the reaction he received suggests he will probably be the last. But the reactions Manzi received certainly give us some insight into the agnotological processes at work on the right. Essentially no-one (feel free, as always to point out exceptions) cared at all about the facts of the matter: are there really 31 000 scientists who dispute mainstream global warming theory? Rather, most of the responses amounted to circling the wagons in one form or another.

(Present company included)

Creationists "do science" just like climate deniers "do science".

The tactics used to trash climatology are the same that are used to trash biology.


People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Liberty said...

So I have to say: I believe in the literal account of creation. Yeah. I don't have science to back it up. It's just what I believe. You can believe it came about because of millions of years of random chance. That's cool, too.

I have a problem with these people though. I mean, really. $150 million on a museum when there are people who are starving, and Christians are called to be a "servant to the least of these". Yeah. Real...Christian there.

So yes. I have beefs with the AiG people, and I suppose we can agree on that. XD

Anonymous said...

I've been known to have a 'wild-hair' on more than one occasion but I've never had the opportunity to indiscriminately spend other peoples' money.

Cedric Katesby said...

Money, and lot's of it.

"...the state is giving the creationists a tax incentive to bring jobs to the cash strapped region. Up to $37.5 million of the $150 million total cost could go to the creationists in the form of tax breaks under Kentucky’s Tourism Development Act. Apparently, the theme park can withhold 25% of the sales tax it collects up to 25% of the total cost for building the park under the Tourism Development Act."

So how did it all come about?
Glad you asked...

"Ken Ham commissioned a company named "America's Research Group" to produce a feasibility study for the construction of his theme park for biblical literalists — I'm sure its conclusion that the park would bring in 1.5 million visitors and $200 million in revenue was a factor in convincing the Governor of Kentucky to embrace the idea.
Only there's a catch...."


Remember people:
The science isn't settled.

NickM said...

So they are justifying a cosmological in terms of employing hotel receptionists and waitresses. That is lame. I mean wouldn't a casino do the same?

Cedric,
Are you heavily involved in arable farming? Only way I reckon you could muster a straw man of that magnitude.

Liberty,
Random mutations are part of this but... The key element is selection. Do you know what a "shooting method" in numerical analysis is? You guess the result but you can tell if it's high or low. You rapidly zero in on the solution. The guess might be random(ish) but the process of convergence isn't. It's a *bit* like that. Of course evolution doesn't always converge but the point is the process of whittling down the contenders is equally as efficient.

If you don't believe otherwise I have a 386SX I can let you have at a very agreeable price.

The Whited Sepulchre said...

Nick,
You owe me a laptop cleaning. The arable farming thing just caused me to blow espresso all over my laptop....

Cedric Katesby said...

Only way I reckon you could muster a straw man of that magnitude.

Then you need to change your reckoning.
I have the facts on my side.
If all you have is just a "Nuh uh", then it just displays the weakness of your position.

If you are going to claim that I am inventing a strawman, then you have to do two things.

1) Understand what a strawman is.

and

2) Explain how comparing creationists to climate deniers is indeed a strawman.

Poke almost any creationist and ask 'em about climate change and they will recite all the standard PRATTs perfectly.
That's not because they suddenly understand good science.

The reverse, however, is not always true. Being a climate denier doesn't mean that you will also reject biology too but...you might as well.
The methodology is the same.

It's very easy to mix and match creationist PRATTs and climate denier PRATTs. They differ only in the labeling.

Go ahead.
Tell me how I've got it all wrong.

Explain the super-duper differences between this and this, for example.

Muster up a coherent argument against it if you can.
"Nuh Uh" doesn't count.

Before you get started, let me give you a head-start on how a strawman is constructed.

Check it out and then come back when you're ready.

Cedric Katesby said...

I've been banging this drum for years. Evolution is totally unfalsifiable. Not how when any fossil oddity can be laid at the “theory”s door.

Hence the retreat of the Darwinists to the fortress of "millions of years” and “punctuated equilibrium”.

Look, if it's a "and then some random chance thing happened" then clearly they don't have a clue what they are actually saying do they? They are just making stuff up.

It's all profound bollocks. It's typical atheist nonsense which is almost always (whether it's something they want to ban or implement) dressed up in the cloak of stuff that sounds scientific - like there's fossils and isotopes and graphs and stuff so it must be true. Car salesmen do the same but they fiddle will winding back the odometer and not ice-core samples.

The only honest answer to the question of life’s origins is "We don't know!"

I've studied enough science to know that some questions are best met with a Gallic shrug. That's not to say we ought to give up on these things because we might crack 'em one day.

I blame the relationship between the media and science. Scientists always feel the need to simplify and present "truths". It's been going on since science attained it's present position as a repository of truth. It's a work in progress and I'm sorrry media guys but if you can't hack that then the science community should have the balls to tell 'em they just don't know.



Remind you of anybody?
;)
Let's play "Guess the Crank".

Cedric Katesby said...

Nick?
Hello?

Look, let me make this easier for you.
Really, really easy.

We don't have to talk about the highly successful Oregon List put out by a dodgey Institute and how that is wildly different and much more sciencey than the highly successful Intelligent Design Creationism List put out by a different dodgey Institute.

If you like, we can compare other fraudulent denier lists.
Totally, totally different ones.

For example, which list is more sciencey?

The HIV denier list or the Great Fluoride Conspiracy list
or the 9/11 Troofer list?

What's wrong with comparing those lists or denialist groups to each other? How are they not the same?
Where's the strawman here?

Bogus "lists of scientists" that "prove" that there's no consensus are just propoganda.
Orginally it was just creationists churning out lists but science deniers of all stripes caught on quick and then produced their own versions.

Since the early Twentieth Century, evolution deniers have been fond of creating lists of "scientists" who do not accept evolution. This tactic is an attempt to give the erroneous impression that, among scientists in general, support for evolution is in decline or that evolution is a "theory in crisis."

Same motivation, same methodology, same effect.

Scientists don't approve of them at all. It's not how science is done. Yet the problem is, how can the scientific community educate the public that it's wrong?
Use comedy

NickM said...

Cedric,
Oh, where to start...

First:

"I have the facts on my side."

A magisterial argument sir! You might as well say, "I am right and you are wrong" but instead you cite NASA (motto: "Porkulus Maximus"*). NASA are of course always right especially when it comes to completely ignoring Thiokol engineers about the effective low temperatures on rubber rings. They were right about that weren't they?

"Poke almost any creationist and ask 'em about climate change and they will recite all the standard PRATTs perfectly."

So what? That is a Wurzle Gummidge of a Straw Man. You are seriously arguing that because they are dead wrong on one scientific question they are also dead wrong on another unrelated one and that furthermore because some numpties are wrong on one thing that anyone who's totally independent enquiries leads them to the same conclusion on something totally different means that they are also wrong on that as well? The creationists are probably right about AGW. That they are right for the wrong reasons doesn't make their conclusion wrong or mean that my different approach to this is wrong either.

"Being a climate denier doesn't mean that you will also reject biology too but...you might as well.
The methodology is the same."

No it isn't. "Believing" something because it says so in the Bible is not the same as believing something from a scientific angle. That's my angle. If I draw similar conclusions on AGW as do many creationists then It's because I travelled a totally different route to them.

Practically speaking you seem to assume that the scientific method is a universal royal road to truth. It isn't that simple. The techniques of climatology are not those of evolutionary biology. If they were you could get folks to swap labs and everything would carry on tickety-boo.

Anyway, I am by training a fluid dynamicist (astrophysical compressible flow - computational) and that is my objection to the absurdly OTT claims of granite truth by the AGW hysteriacs. I also know science from the inside. It is a human activity with the same venality as all other human activities. Those are the reasons I call 'em. They are (a) conflating computer models with empirical experiment (do we have a control Earth here? Do we f*&%!) and (b) climatology has gone from being a backwater to where the money is. Yeah, my attack is because I'm not scientifically convinced and I can see the psychology as to why the lies continue.

You do of course know that perfectly correct math and physics can construct universes that have nothing to do with reality? That might sound woo-woo but it isn't. I can demonstrate it with a Wii-Wii.

Essentially your argument is some people believe nonsense on one thing and therefore their beliefs on everything are daft and moreover anyone else who concurs in conclusion with their beliefs on anything whatsoever, however they got there, must also be wrong is...

Maybe it isn't technically a straw man but it is certainly utter bollocks.


*NASA are still expanding into space... office space.

Cedric Katesby said...

NASA (motto: "Porkulus Maximus"*).

The “They are in it for the money” gambit.
Deniers use this one all the time from the HIV deniers to the Moon-Landing deniers.
Claim CA321.1 at talkorigins.
and
We never went to the moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle.-Bill Kaysing.

NASA are of course always right especially when it comes to blah, blah, blah. They were right about that weren't they?

This is the “scientists were wrong before so they’re wrong now” gambit.
Works for all science deniers of all shapes and sizes.
Creationists love it.
As do AIDS deniers.

"Scientific creationists" are not impressed that they are in the minority. After all, they note, the entire scientific community has been wrong before. That is true. For example,(...)However, when the entire scientific community has been proved to be wrong in the past it has been proved to be wrong by other scientists, not pseudoscientists."

plus...

"We know that drugs companies make huge profits, and that scientists rely on research grants and can be fallible. This does not mean there is a global conspiracy to misrepresent the science. AIDS researchers and the pharmaceutical industry, believe it or not, are in it to save lives.


You are seriously arguing that because they are dead wrong on one scientific question they are also dead wrong on another unrelated one.

Strawman.
Won't work with me.
I am saying that the methodology and tactics that creationist use and that climate deniers use are interchangeable.
This goes for deniers in general.

Your very own comments are a wonderful example.
Just swap the labels around.
Works well for any other denialism.

...some numpties are wrong on one thing that anyone...

Numpties that go around denying a science topic have the same problems as other numpites denying a science topic.
That’s why they sound so very, very similar. They are obliged to use the same shonky methods.
One size fits all.

If I draw similar conclusions on AGW as do many creationists then It's because I travelled a totally different route to them.

Well, yeah but that’s exactly what they can say too.
(shrug)

...you seem to assume that the scientific method is a universal royal road to truth. It isn't that simple. The techniques of climatology are not those of evolutionary biology. If they were you could get folks to swap labs and everything would carry on tickety-boo.

Everything is tickety-boo between biology and climatology and all the other physical sciences. They get along just fine.

Anyway, I am by training a fluid dynamicist....

Oh, so you're an...expert?

(..hushed awe from the audience...)

Creationists try this dishonest crap all the time.
Get of your lazy ass and enter the scientific arena.
Less talky-talky and more worky-worky.
Don’t waste your valuable time talking to strangers on a blog when you could be out there collecting your Nobel Prize.
(yawn)

Maybe it isn't technically a straw man…

Damn straight.
Explain the super-duper differences between this and this, for example.

Muster up a coherent argument against it if you can.

Cedric Katesby said...

(apologies if this is a re-post)

NASA (motto: "Porkulus Maximus"*).

The “They are in it for the money” gambit.
Deniers use this one all the time from the HIV deniers to the Moon-Landing deniers.
Claim CA321.1 at talkorigins.
and
We never went to the moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle.-Bill Kaysing.

NASA are of course always right especially when it comes to blah, blah, blah. They were right about that weren't they?

This is the “scientists were wrong before so they’re wrong now” gambit.
Works for all science deniers of all shapes and sizes.
Creationists love it.
As do AIDS deniers.

"Scientific creationists" are not impressed that they are in the minority. After all, they note, the entire scientific community has been wrong before. That is true. For example,(...)However, when the entire scientific community has been proved to be wrong in the past it has been proved to be wrong by other scientists, not pseudoscientists."

plus...

"We know that drugs companies make huge profits, and that scientists rely on research grants and can be fallible. This does not mean there is a global conspiracy to misrepresent the science. AIDS researchers and the pharmaceutical industry, believe it or not, are in it to save lives.


You are seriously arguing that because they are dead wrong on one scientific question they are also dead wrong on another unrelated one.

Strawman.
Won't work with me.
I am saying that the methodology and tactics that creationist use and that climate deniers use are interchangeable.
This goes for deniers in general.

Your very own comments are a wonderful example.
Just swap the labels around.
Works well for any other denialism.

...some numpties are wrong on one thing that anyone...

Numpties that go around denying a science topic have the same problems as other numpites denying a science topic.
That’s why they sound so very, very similar. They are obliged to use the same shonky methods.
One size fits all.

If I draw similar conclusions on AGW as do many creationists then It's because I travelled a totally different route to them.

Well, yeah but that’s exactly what they can say too.
(shrug)

...you seem to assume that the scientific method is a universal royal road to truth. It isn't that simple. The techniques of climatology are not those of evolutionary biology. If they were you could get folks to swap labs and everything would carry on tickety-boo.

Everything is tickety-boo between biology and climatology and all the other physical sciences. They get along just fine.

Anyway, I am by training a fluid dynamicist....

Oh, so you're an...expert?

(..hushed awe from the audience...)

Creationists try this dishonest crap all the time.
Get of your lazy ass and enter the scientific arena.
Less talky-talky and more worky-worky.
Don’t waste your valuable time talking to strangers on a blog when you could be out there collecting your Nobel Prize.
(yawn)

Maybe it isn't technically a straw man…

Damn straight.
Explain the super-duper differences between this and this, for example.

Muster up a coherent argument against it if you can.

Cedric Katesby said...

There are moments.

Moments on the Internet where, suddenly, as if propelled by invisible forces, it all comes together.

"The linkage of evolution and global warming is partly a legal strategy: courts have found that singling out evolution for criticism in public schools is a violation of the separation of church and state. By insisting that global warming also be debated, deniers of evolution can argue that they are simply championing academic freedom in general."

NickM said...

I'm sticking with what I said on NASA.

Lots of people are in lots of things for the money. Al Gore has made a heap out of selling indulgences. NASA is an epic money pit. Compare and contrast SpaceX or Vigin Galactic and NASA.

The HIV thing is a desperately cheap shot Cedric. That is abysmal.

You are still arguing that science is holy writ and everything scientists say has to be believed or nothing. It isn't even like that in the lab or at the chalkboard.

Science without debate is meaningless. It is exactly the same as creationists. Denying AGW is not the same. I just don't think it's right scientifically. It was the AGW boosters who declared the "debate is over". Did Neils Bohr do that to Einstein over the Copenhagen Interpretation of Q Mech? No, they corresponded for years over it. Indeed people still debate it. The only way to truly end a scientific debate is to do so by fiat. That is what the AGW mob are up to because they have been rumbled.

C'mon. Climatology was a scientific backwater until they invented this hoax.

Your tactics of conflating creationism with climate change skepticism are dismal. Indeed self-defeating. I know more regard the Bible as an infallivble text on biology than anything the CRU at East Anglia produced. You clearly disagree and regard the former as clearly nonsense but the latter as the complete truth.

Which one of the two of us is more dogmatic?

Anyway, I'm not a creationist so why do you keep on trying to tar me with that brush? Why Cedric? Why?

Cedric Katesby said...

I'm sticking with what I said on NASA.

Yes, the gambit is called "They're in it for the money".

It's a denialist standard.
Ho hum.

The HIV thing is a desperately cheap shot Cedric. That is abysmal.

Then I look forward to your rebuttal. Or is this just you yelling "Strawman" for no good reason and then running bravely away again?

Deniers argue that because scientists receive grant money, fame, and prestige as a result of their research, it is in their best interest to maintain the status quo. This type of thinking is convenient for deniers as it allows them to choose which authorities to believe and which ones to dismiss as part of a grand conspiracy. In addition to being selective, their logic is also internally inconsistent. For example, they dismiss studies that support the HIV hypothesis as being biased by “drug money,” while they accept uncritically the testimony of HIV deniers who have a heavy financial stake in their alternative treatment modalities.

You are still arguing that science is holy writ and everything scientists say has to be believed or nothing.

This is a strawman.
Focus on my argument.
Don't just make stuff up.
It's a fatal sign of weakness.

Science without debate is meaningless. It is exactly the same as the climate deniers. Denying Darwinism is not the same. I just don't think it's right scientifically. It was the Darwinist boosters who declared the "debate is over". Did Neils Bohr do that to Einstein over the Copenhagen Interpretation of Q Mech? No, they corresponded for years over it. Indeed people still debate it. The only way to truly end a scientific debate is to do so by fiat. That is what the Darwinistas are up to because they have been rumbled.

Yep. Switch the labels around.
Works every time.

Anyway, I'm not a creationist...

Never said you were.
Focus.
Read what I have written.
Stop creating a strawman.

Why Cedric? Why?

Because you have nothing except the tactics and methodology of a bog-standard science denier.

Everything you say fits in the mouth of an HIV denier or a 9/11 troofer or a creationist or a fluoride conspiracy theorist.
People have noticed.

You are employing dishonest, stale arguments. Only the labels are different.

Shall we now discuss the creationist list and the climate denier list or did you want to avoid it some more, Mr "I am by training a fluid dynamicist so-whoopdy-bloody-doop?"