Jump to content

Creation Museum


Recommended Posts

And another local article just went from 800 jobs to 14,000 jobs. MATH!
So putting out optimistic projections of future jobs is grounds to discount their integrity?Cool, I was feeling conflicted about hating democrats but you have now confirmed that I am right to hate them.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 962
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I actually believe that, and it's one of the reasons that I've always been a very big fan of yours. You're sincere, and the rarity of sincerity never ceases to amaze me. More importantly, though: you

I looked up that passage and didn't see where it said "salvation is by good works." 14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save t

I think it's more like, "Without faith, it doesn't matter what you do." Meaning you can't just be a good person to get into heaven.Regarding the first point, if you're standing in the middle of the r

So putting out optimistic projections of future jobs is grounds to discount their integrity?Cool, I was feeling conflicted about hating democrats but you have now confirmed that I am right to hate them.
Ken Ham is a profiteering joke and the fact the state is subsidizing him and his non-profit anti-science campaign it ridiculous and embarrassing for Kentucky and well, people in general.
A lot of left-wing media and bloggers have reacted very negatively, writing a lot of false information.They only represent a minority of the people in this nation. The majority of people in this area and across the nation are supportive. The statistics show about 200 million people would want to come if the ark were rebuilt. Locally, the majority of people are really thrilled because it's family-friendly and it would bring hundreds of jobs to the region.
The current US population is a bit over 300 million…so Ken Ham is waving around two thirds of the population of the country as prospective customers, if only the state will give him some support? Does anyone believe this guy?Imagine you're a tourist visiting the Cincinnati area. You've got the choice of taking the family to Kings Island, a major recreational park nearby, or the equivalent of Heritage USA, an evangelical Christian park with no rides, presided over by a creepy Australian dude who demands that you obey his 'literal' interpretation of the Bible or burn in hell.Do you think the creepy dude actually has a realistic business plan? This is all cronyism and good ol' buddy politics.Even the Wall Street Journal is weighing in...Rebuilding Noah's Ark, Tax Free http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...=googlenews_wsj
What is more interesting about Ark Encounter is what it tells us about the paradoxes of American evangelicalism, a non-worldly belief system with a restlessly entrepreneurial and commercial spirit. The term "fundamentalism" generally denotes a comprehensively anti-modern movement. But this is only partly true. Far from being a counter to modernity, American fundamentalism often embraces it with far greater enthusiasm and finesse than its mainline competition. Look at the effectiveness with which conservative evangelicalism has made use of television, radio and the Internet. Or consider the eagerness of "creationism" to claim the mantle of science, which is quite a different matter from rejecting modernity altogether. In commercial enterprises like the Christian music industry, or Ark Encounter, the packaging of products is the same as it is in the most successful secular businesses; only the content is different. Evangelicals assume that all such modern techniques can be redeemed through certain proper uses. The medium, in this view, is not the message.
And PZ Myers nails it,
That's the striking thing about the Creation "Museum": it is not a reverent place. It does not exhibit any of the serious religious solemnity of the so-called sacred: it is a place dedicated to making money, and to aping the trappings (but not the substance!) of modern science. It's as if a church opened a gift shop, and the shop was so successful that it grew and grew, and people stopped coming for the church and instead came for the sales, and eventually the church part was quietly demolished and nobody noticed.When you go through it, too, the way it slickly copies the façade of a real museum — a rather cheesy and commercialized children's museum — is weird and disturbing. They will put on a display of some detail of the construction of the ark, for instance, and present it as a real museum would a collection of ancient tools, but it's all fake, completely made up, a model of an imaginary effort. As the op-ed states, this is a capitalist enterprise that has fully embraced modern packaging and marketing.I suggest a compromise. If the state wants to recognize the Ark Encounter as a commercial effort to bring money into the state, fine; but then Answers in Genesis should be stripped of its tax exempt status and recognized as a beard for a profit-making enterprise. Alternatively, if they get to keep their status as a church-like entity, yank any attempt by the state to prop up their shell game with government support.And anyone ought to recognize their phony legal games as a sham. They've set up multiple entities, some that are claiming religious status, others that are the admitted for-profit commercial arm, but all of them are funneling money in to support the promotion of a religion.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Reminds me of the whole Baker fiasco. He was accused of overbooking his hotels and charging a lot in his Bible land park or something.Meanwhile Disney reported 400X the profit margin. And every hotel and airline in the country overbooks.But he's a Christian...get him.He got greedy with $40 million, 'stolen' from people who donated it never expecting any monetary returns at all. He was sentenced to 20 years.In the same year, Milkin was found guilty for stealing $200 million from people who expected all their money back with interest. He was sentenced to 2 yearsHypocrisy; thou knowest no shame.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Reminds me of the whole Baker fiasco. He was accused of overbooking his hotels and charging a lot in his Bible land park or something.Meanwhile Disney reported 400X the profit margin. And every hotel and airline in the country overbooks.But he's a Christian...get him.He got greedy with $40 million, 'stolen' from people who donated it never expecting any monetary returns at all. He was sentenced to 20 years.In the same year, Milkin was found guilty for stealing $200 million from people who expected all their money back with interest. He was sentenced to 2 yearsHypocrisy; thou knowest no shame.
That's a nice whitewashing of what Bakker did. He told people he was raising money to build a hotel. People who gave him money were supposed to have memberships that gave them a hotel room in the hotel. He raised twice as much money as he needed to build the hotel, kept the rest of the "donations" for himself, and then... never built the hotel. He defrauded thousands of people. Some of that money was also used to keep his secret lover quiet. We wanted to "get him" not because he was a Christian, but because he was a hypocrite, preaching morality while embezzling and philandering. (Also he was only in jail for five years.)
Link to post
Share on other sites
Reminds me of the whole Baker fiasco. He was accused of overbooking his hotels and charging a lot in his Bible land park or something.Meanwhile Disney reported 400X the profit margin. And every hotel and airline in the country overbooks.But he's a Christian...get him.He got greedy with $40 million, 'stolen' from people who donated it never expecting any monetary returns at all. He was sentenced to 20 years.In the same year, Milkin was found guilty for stealing $200 million from people who expected all their money back with interest. He was sentenced to 2 yearsHypocrisy; thou knowest no shame.
Your ignorance knows no bounds
Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a nice whitewashing of what Bakker did. He told people he was raising money to build a hotel. People who gave him money were supposed to have memberships that gave them a hotel room in the hotel. He raised twice as much money as he needed to build the hotel, kept the rest of the "donations" for himself, and then... never built the hotel. He defrauded thousands of people. Some of that money was also used to keep his secret lover quiet. We wanted to "get him" not because he was a Christian, but because he was a hypocrite, preaching morality while embezzling and philandering. (Also he was only in jail for five years.)
How long was Milkin in jail?And how much did he bilk people out of?And who was expecting a return on their 'donation?
Link to post
Share on other sites
How long was Milkin in jail?And how much did he bilk people out of?And who was expecting a return on their 'donation?
Why are we comparing a noted philanthropist (Milken) to a slimy charlatan (Bakker)? As part of Milken's plea deal he paid back the investors, and paid a huge fine to the SEC, that's why his sentence was reduced. He paid out over 1 billion dollars. Bakker paid back no one. He actually still owes millions in personal income taxes.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Why are we comparing a noted philanthropist (Milken) to a slimy charlatan (Bakker)? As part of Milken's plea deal he paid back the investors, and paid a huge fine to the SEC, that's why his sentence was reduced. He paid out over 1 billion dollars. Bakker paid back no one. He actually still owes millions in personal income taxes.
Again...Where did this money come from?And what was the implied purpose of every penny given to him, now compare that to the purpose of the money given to Baker.And he's dead, so only a democrat can get his money now.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Again...Where did this money come from?And what was the implied purpose of every penny given to him, now compare that to the purpose of the money given to Baker.And he's dead, so only a democrat can get his money now.
Jim Bakker is not dead. The money people gave to Bakker was intended as hush money for Jessica Hahn?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim Bakker is not dead. The money people gave to Bakker was intended as hush money for Jessica Hahn?
At least she was hot.And pretty sure he is dead, I know Tammy is. She lived out here for the remainder of her Mascara laden life.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...
The "creation museum" is embarrassingly un-scientific.
Did you see this line in Seanbaby's last article?"It all started with Amir's takedown attempt. He got close to Gary and tried a basic judo hip throw. Gary countered it by ignoring physics and falling right on top of him. The hip throw went so unaccording to plan that Christian scientists show it to their students to disprove levers."
Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you see this line in Seanbaby's last article?"It all started with Amir's takedown attempt. He got close to Gary and tried a basic judo hip throw. Gary countered it by ignoring physics and falling right on top of him. The hip throw went so unaccording to plan that Christian scientists show it to their students to disprove levers."
Ha! No I actually just skimmed through that article. I might have read it more carefully had there been more videos.Edit: Apparently 4 of the 6 entries include a video. I guess I'm just not that into MMA.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this fuckin' park open yet? I want to combine it with a trip to Cleveland's R&R HOF (also a Creationist museum). I am stoked to see who I will be paired up with on the Ark.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is this fuckin' park open yet? I want to combine it with a trip to Cleveland's R&R HOF (also a Creationist museum). I am stoked to see who I will be paired up with on the Ark.
Id love to see the ark built, as long as the dimensions are accurate enuf to fit 2 of every animal in existence on board.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Reminds me of the whole Baker fiasco. He was accused of overbooking his hotels and charging a lot in his Bible land park or something.In the same year, Milkin was found guilty for stealing $200 million from people who expected all their money back with interest. He was sentenced to 2 yearsHypocrisy; thou knowest no shame.
That's a nice whitewashing of what Bakker did. He told people he was raising money to build a hotel. People who gave him money were supposed to have memberships that gave them a hotel room in the hotel. He raised twice as much money as he needed to build the hotel, kept the rest of the "donations" for himself, and then... never built the hotel. He defrauded thousands of people. Some of that money was also used to keep his secret lover quiet. We wanted to "get him" not because he was a Christian, but because he was a hypocrite, preaching morality while embezzling and philandering. (Also he was only in jail for five years.)
How long was Milkin in jail?And how much did he bilk people out of?And who was expecting a return on their 'donation?
Why are we comparing a noted philanthropist (Milken) to a slimy charlatan (Bakker)? As part of Milken's plea deal he paid back the investors, and paid a huge fine to the SEC, that's why his sentence was reduced. He paid out over 1 billion dollars. Bakker paid back no one. He actually still owes millions in personal income taxes.
Again...Where did this money come from?And what was the implied purpose of every penny given to him, now compare that to the purpose of the money given to Baker.And he's dead, so only a democrat can get his money now.
Jim Bakker is not dead.
This was quite an enjoyable exchange.
Link to post
Share on other sites
This was quite an enjoyable exchange.
I agree.BTW here's the hotel that never got builtDCAO0062.jpgAnd Milken did pay out $1.1 billion, problem is that he made over $2 billion, and his Drexel involvement etc probably cost some people a few more $billion and he only had to served 22 months of his 5 year termBakker stole $3-4 million and served over 5 years in jail of a 45 year term and still owes the IRS $6millionso the lesson is, if you are going to steal money, don't be a Christian, because they will get 10 times the punishment. But if you are not a Christian, then you can keep most of the money, serve very little time and be called a philanthropist even though all the money you donated came from illegal means.
Link to post
Share on other sites
so the lesson is, if you are going to steal money, don't be a Christian, because they will get 10 times the punishment.
You know, you should really be agreeing with vb here. As he said, someone who commits fraud under the guise of religion does get much more bad press, but it's for a good reason. It's because their fraud fucks with peoples' faith, not just their wallets. I have no idea why you, of all people, wouldn't be more angry at someone pretending to be religious in order to steal money from people just wanting to do right by god as opposed to just a random scam artist.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You know, you should really be agreeing with vb here. As he said, someone who commits fraud under the guise of religion does get much more bad press, but it's for a good reason. It's because their fraud fucks with peoples' faith, not just their wallets. I have no idea why you, of all people, wouldn't be more angry at someone pretending to be religious in order to steal money from people just wanting to do right by god as opposed to just a random scam artist.
The issue was that these two people were going to jail at the same time. The outcry over Bakker was disproportionate to the outcry over Milken.I get what you mean about him being a huge negative for the Christian message, but that's really only from a marketing perspective.Its funny but I was a young union heavy equipment operator at the time of this whole fiasco, and everyday at lunch I would get ribbed by the guys for 'giving money to Jim Bakker' since I had a Fish on my VW at the time. I didn't actually ever watch Jim Bakker or any of TBN and never have.I told them the same thing each time. I give my money to God, if someone like Jim Bakker diverted it somewhere else, that's on him. God isn't desperate for my money, He is desperate for my heart.Jim Bakker is a tiny nothing when it comes to the ability that God has to reach people who are willing to hear Him. So from that perspective I don't get worked up over the Bakkers or Swaggerts of the Christian faith. When a person seeks with an honest heart, they will find God because God wants to be found.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of honesty, this seems like a more honest picture of the Heritage Tower. Although it looks pretty nice from your side (and even looks pretty okay from mine, just in disrepair), it was apparently never actually finished. So whether or not we can accurately say that it has "been built" is, I think, debatable.DCAO0139.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
Speaking of honesty, this seems like a more honest picture of the Heritage Tower. Although it looks pretty nice from your side (and even looks pretty okay from mine, just in disrepair), it was apparently never actually finished. So whether or not we can accurately say that it has "been built" is, I think, debatable.
Ahh but what VB espoused was that the money went into PTLs coffers and as he said "They never built the hotel".The fact that the building was just short of finished shows that they did in fact build it, it just hadn't reached a point of occupancy yet. So technically you are right, it didn't open, but VB can't say they never built it now can he?
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it depends on our definition of "built." Do we consider it built when it comes to resemble the architectural plans (as it apparently does now)? Maybe. But do we consider it built when all they've done is laid the foundation? Or just built the steel structure for the first 3 floors? Probably not. So the fact that it appears from the outside to be a livable, complete building still leaves room for us to debate whether or not it has been "built." The only information I could get on it was that it was "unfinished." Looks finished outside, but maybe there are tons of walls missing inside and it has no wiring or plumbing? I'm just speculating on what "unfinished" could mean, and I'm also suggesting that it might be somewhat incorrect to call it "built" if it is lacking such necessities. I'm just nitpicking, but we might more accurately say that it has been "partially built."But I still think the picture I used is more accurate or "honest" than the one you used. Yours makes it look like it could be a sprawling, popular hotel. Mine shows that it is abandoned and run down.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it depends on our definition of "built." Do we consider it built when it comes to resemble the architectural plans (as it apparently does now)? Maybe. But do we consider it built when all they've done is laid the foundation? Or just built the steel structure for the first 3 floors? Probably not. So the fact that it appears from the outside to be a livable, complete building still leaves room for us to debate whether or not it has been "built." The only information I could get on it was that it was "unfinished." Looks finished outside, but maybe there are tons of walls missing inside and it has no wiring or plumbing? I'm just speculating on what "unfinished" could mean, and I'm also suggesting that it might be somewhat incorrect to call it "built" if it is lacking such necessities. I'm just nitpicking, but we might more accurately say that it has been "partially built."But I still think the picture I used is more accurate or "honest" than the one you used. Yours makes it look like it could be a sprawling, popular hotel. Mine shows that it is abandoned and run down.
Nit, meet pickvb made the case that they raised money, the money did not go to the construction of a hotel but to line the pockets of a single man.Do you agree with vb?I said they did build the hotel, you yourself posted a picture of a hotel that was much closer to finished than it is to not startedDo you agree with that?
Link to post
Share on other sites

I myself said I was nitpicking. I thought it was simply an interesting linguistic question: at what point is a structure considered "built?"My main and best point was that your image of the Tower was dishonestly pristine, and you failed to mention that it was never completed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...