"Adam" and AiG's Strange Bedfellows

Posted 8 June 2007 by Wesley R. Elsberry

In more news of the weird concerning the Answers in Genesis Creation Museum, it seems that the actor who played "Adam" in one of the museum's videos has had other scantily-clad appearances. Eric Linden is the owner and sometime star of a pornographic website, "Bedroom Acrobat". Linden's reply when asked about this was:

Linden tells the AP that he is no longer affiliated with the site.

A check of "whois", though, says otherwise:

Registrant: Eric Linden [...] Los Angeles, California [...] United States Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com) Domain Name: BEDROOMACROBAT.COM Created on: 30-Jan-06 Expires on: 30-Jan-08 Last Updated on: 26-Jan-07

Note that "Last Updated" date: five months ago. This is in Linden's "past" just like while you are screaming in pain from stubbing your toe that injury is in your "past".

56 Comments

Miguelito · 8 June 2007

In other news, Ted Haggard was in charge of casting the part of Adam for the creationism museum.

harold · 8 June 2007

A person naive to this issue could be forgiven for thinking that this isn't relevant to questions such as how old the earth is, etc.

But as I've mentioned before, a significant proportion of people who inexplicably insist that the earth is much younger than it actually is, etc, are motivated by what seems to be not just (or even) a "religious" agenda, but a social and political agenda.

They're more interested in fantasies of forcing brutal harsh "Biblical Law" on other people than in living up to it themselves, and every time that's demonstrated, it's beneficial.

One of the many parts of the Bible they don't take literally is that bit about "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone".

James McGrath · 8 June 2007

They are going to hold him up to a Biblical standard on sexuality? What does that mean - he can rape someone, but then must marry her?

Peter Henderson · 8 June 2007

They're more interested in fantasies of forcing brutal harsh "Biblical Law" on other people than in living up to it themselves, and every time that's demonstrated, it's beneficial. One of the many parts of the Bible they don't take literally is that bit about "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone".

You're quite correct Harold. Here's one of their responses to the Defcon leaflet which was handed out during the opening ceremony of the creation museum: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/06/04/reason-three-fossils

For a person to make the claim that humans and dinosaurs did not coexist, they would have to be able to see all history at exactly the same time, which would make that person omniscient and omnipresent, qualities of God. So, when someone says emphatically that humans and dinosaurs did not exist together in the past, that person is claiming to be a god, while calling God Himself a liar, or, at best, deceptive.

It's the second part of this statement that interested me. i.e. someone who claims that humans and dinosaurs didn't exist together (and that would include many Christians) is in fact calling himself a God ????? That's a new one on me and I can't see what the scriptural justification is for this.

Henry J · 8 June 2007

So, when someone says emphatically that humans and dinosaurs did not exist together in the past, that person is claiming to be a god

That "argument" can be used against their position just as easily as for it. Henry

harold · 8 June 2007

that person is claiming to be a god, while calling God Himself a liar, or, at best, deceptive.

Besides being crazy, illogical nonsense that argues more against their position (because the Bible most certainly does not mention dinosaurs in clear terminology), this has a very threatening tone, to put it mildly. After all, if someone is "calling God Him a liar"...

brightmoon · 8 June 2007

actually creationists ARE calling God a liar

God's creation itself has no evidence of this dino-human fantasy

on a theological basis alone this is why i refused to even consider YEC as a valid belief for a christian ...i really think this is blasphemy

the pro from dover · 8 June 2007

Since birds are dinosaurs why is this such a big deal?

Sherry Konkus · 8 June 2007

I say amen to that brother! :-)

raven · 8 June 2007

For a person to make the claim that humans and dinosaurs did not coexist, they would have to be able to see all history at exactly the same time, which would make that person omniscient and omnipresent, qualities of God.

That is a false statement. The history of the earth is accesible to us through geology, paleontology, astronomy, and indirectly through biology. What they are saying is that the fossil record and dating methods etc.. don't prove anything which is nonsense. By their argument, anything beyond living memory could also not exist or be known or be valid. There are books but you know maybe they are just made up stories. Were you there when Mayans rose and fell?

brightmoon · 8 June 2007

Since birds are dinosaurs why is this such a big deal?

they dont mean birds they mean long extinct giants like stegosaurus

its a big deal because they are trying to discredit the real age of the earth (along with physics and geology)& they can't do that if the big dinos died out 65 mya

Sherry Konkus · 8 June 2007

actually creationists ARE calling God a liar God's creation itself has no evidence of this dino-human fantasy on a theological basis alone this is why i refused to even consider YEC as a valid belief for a christian ...i really think this is blasphemy

I say "Amen!" to that, Brother. :-)

normdoering · 8 June 2007

You guys mock the Answers in Genesis people, but have you read what Chris Hedges has said in his debates with Harris and Hitchens?

If not, here's a bit of an introduction:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/06/chris-hedges-new-face-of-anti-atheism.html

Chris Hedges told Sam Harris that biblical literalists didn't exist. Perhaps a version of the Answers in Genesis flyer argument would work on him?

The assault on reason isn't necessarily worse on the right.

Gerry L · 8 June 2007

From post: Note that "Last Updated" date: five months ago. This is in Linden's "past" just like while you are screaming in pain from stubbing your toe that injury is in your "past".

If you believe in a 6000-year-old Earth, five months probably seems like a long time.

Wesley R. Elsberry · 8 June 2007

If you believe in a 6000-year-old Earth, five months probably seems like a long time.

Telling kids that some experts think the earth is 4.55 billion years old, and others think it is 10,000 years old is like telling them that some historians think the American Revolutionary War took place two hundred and some years ago, and other historians disagree, saying it happened about four and a half hours ago.

harold · 9 June 2007

Norm Doering

The assault on reason isn't necessarily worse on the right.

Historically, assaults on reason have come from extremes on the political left and on the political right. The current situation in this country is that there is no mainstream representation of the extreme political left. Of course, there are surely Marxists, Maoists, and so on out there, but they aren't represented by the Democratic or even Green party to any serious extent. Even very liberal Democrats like Dennis Kucinich or Barney Frank are by no means ideological "leftists" or science-deniers. To suggest such a characterization of figures like Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama would be comical. On the other hand, the extreme right is well-represented in the Republican Party, even as multi-term representatives who are running for president (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Tancredo). Hence, we see the major current assaults on reason - denial of evolution, denial of climate change, gross manipulation of national security intelligence, claims that we can have a "war" against abstract ideas, claims that we should provide "abstinence only sex education" to enhance public health, etc - coming mainly from the right. Some Democrats have certainly supported some of these things passively after the fact, but they originated from, and have more support on, the right. Chris Hedges, whoever that is, may have just been factually wrong, or he may have been making a point that I often make - "Biblical literalists" are nothing of the sort, they publicly claim to take Genesis (and when they think they can get away with it, Leviticus, Exodus, and Deuteronomy) "literally", but ignore and distort much of the Bible, including most of the Old Testament, and most of the four major Gospels of the New Testament. Whatever he meant, and whatever one's personal opinions on social or economic policy, the assault on reason in the United States, at this point in history, is overwhelmingly coming from the right. Even if you're a "libertarian" or "science-supporting Republican", that's how it is.

Gary Hurd · 9 June 2007

BEDROOMACROBAT.COM has been closed and they have a statement up that Linden is not associated. Oh, and that it was nothing about porn anyway.

Sir_Toejam · 9 June 2007

By their argument, anything beyond living memory could also not exist or be known or be valid. There are books but you know maybe they are just made up stories. Were you there when Mayans rose and fell?

that's what you get when raised on Ken Hammy's "Were you THERE?" (TM) philosophy.

scytale · 9 June 2007

Did he show a navel?

George Cauldron · 9 June 2007

Linden's not the same person as Jeff Gannon, is he?

Sir_Toejam · 9 June 2007

Linden's not the same person as Jeff Gannon, is he?

as silly as it sounds, these days it wouldn't actually surprise me if they were.

FL · 9 June 2007

actually creationists ARE calling God a liar God's creation itself has no evidence of this dino-human fantasy

No time to wade into the human-dino coexistence issue, but I couldn't help noticing that you seem to assume that "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". Is that what you are assuming?

Flint · 9 June 2007

FL:

Is that what you are assuming?

You have at least produced a very creative interpretation of what has been said. In fact, there is an enormous amount of evidence, from many different sources, all consistent with one another, to place both dinosaur and human evolution into the context of geological history. So the assumption being made here is that evidence matters. I'm aware from your many posts that you don't regard this assumption as valid in any cases where you find it inconvenient to your religious requirements. But you might at least correctly identify the assumption with which you're having problems.

FL · 9 June 2007

I figured it wouldn't be long before somebody jumped in there to help out a little, Flint.

Still, I was hoping to hear Brightmoon's answer to the question, rather than any "rescue attempts", so to speak.

Btw, we all agree that "evidence matters." No problem.
(And the "interpretation of said evidence" matters equally as much, as I'm sure you'll agree.)

However, that's not the question on the table at this time.
Given what Brightmoon said there, it's entirely reasonable and relevant to ask, direct & upfront, the particular question that I asked.

So, I am content to wait for Brightmoon's direct & upfront answer to that question.

Sir_Toejam · 9 June 2007

"rescue attempts"

uh, sorry to say, but he doesn't need rescuing from your misinterpretations. I rather think Flint was attempting to come to your rescue, if anything. I wouldn't have bothered, but hey, that's just the kind of guy Flint is.

raven · 9 June 2007

No time to wade into the human-dino coexistence issue, but I couldn't help noticing that you seem to assume that "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". Is that what you are assuming?

It's OK to believe Ham's fairy tale that Jewish people used to ride around on dinosaurs a few thousand years ago. The evidence for this is nonexistent but fairy tales, whatever. There is a huge amount of evidence from geology, astronomy, paleontology, and biology gathered over centuries by many scientists, many of whom were christian that dinosaurs and humans are separated by at least 65 million years. But you have to expect the reality accepting community to laugh out loud once in a while. So creo guy, all terrestrial animals got on the Big Boat and presumably got off. We also know that 99% of all known life is now extinct. So where are our dinosaurs!! What did you do with them? I do believe this was a monumental Iraq class case of poor post deluge planning.

harold · 9 June 2007

FL -

No time to wade into the human-dino coexistence issue, but I couldn't help noticing that you seem to assume that "absence of evidence is evidence of absence".

Actually, it takes relatively little time to admit that every dinosaur fossil ever found, dated by any scientically acceptable method, is much, much older than every hominid fossil ever found. Of course, I'm not counting birds as dinosaurs, but neither are you. I could add a bunch of scientific links or references, and someone else probably will, and that would only take about five minutes. I could add theological links saying that unsophisticated or, as I believe, deeply disingenuous and politically/economically motivated (this is an understatement of very sinister implications), creationists claim that a few Biblical lines, referring to "Leviathan" or whatnot, "may" refer to dinosaurs, but that serious Christian and Jewish Biblical scholars don't think so, and that, too, could probably be done in five minutes. Although your statement could be literally true if you didn't even have a few minutes as you wrote it, more likely it's a dodge. Now that the factual assertion has been shown to be false with a high degree of probability, let's move on to shred the flawed logic. In fact, absence of evidence is often evidence of abscence. It simply depends, as you actually already know, on how hard evidence has been sought. In the case of hominids and dinosaurs, we are talking about categories of fossil remains that have attracted very intense study. Therefore, evidence of absence is obviously absence of evidence. If a dinosaur lineage (not counting modern birds) lived on to the time of hominids, that would be a major find indeed. It hasn't been found yet.

CBG · 9 June 2007

For a person to make the claim that humans and dinosaurs did not coexist, they would have to be able to see all history at exactly the same time, which would make that person omniscient and omnipresent, qualities of God. So, when someone says emphatically that humans and dinosaurs did not exist together in the past, that person is claiming to be a god, while calling God Himself a liar, or, at best, deceptive.

Sure, if you believe in a "god" who is omniscient and omnipresent then those are qualities of that god. However, to have (some of) the same qualities as something or someone else does not mean you are it or them. I have 2 eyes and a nose, so does my dog - are they saying that I am my dog?

mclaren · 9 June 2007

Cue the gay hooker crystal meth addict in...three...two...one...

meme · 10 June 2007

"No time to wade into the human-dino coexistence issue, but I couldn't help noticing that you seem to assume that "absence of evidence is evidence of absence".
Is that what you are assuming?"

Silly thing, absence of evidence _is_ evidence of absence _when_ we can expect presence of evidence.

hoary puccoon · 10 June 2007

This is the famous Sherlock Holmes conumdrum of the 'curious' incident of the dog barking in the night.
Dr. Watson-- But the dog did not bark in the night.
Holmes-- THAT was the curious incident.
Apparently the dinosaurs did not bark in the night, either; our shrew-like ancestors of the time were prudently nocturnal.

demallien · 10 June 2007

This article makes me laugh: I mean, you just can't make this stuff up! Only the AiG could create a museum, and then use a porn star for one of the exhibits...

The possibility of parodying creationists without hitting reality diminishes yet again.

Shaun Apple · 10 June 2007

It still relates to now.

haceaton · 10 June 2007

BEDROOMACROBAT.COM has been closed and they have a statement up that Linden is not associated. Oh, and that it was nothing about porn anyway.
— Gary Hurd

You are about to enter the domain of the sexually advanced. This is a site that the underground community of Bedroom Acrobat's call home. A place where people from all walks of life go for News, Guidance, Information, Reviews, Toys, Killer T-Shirts, Laughs and Sexy Amazement.
— bedroomacrobat.com

May 22, 2006 bedroomacrobat.com

Gary Hurd · 10 June 2007

"Adam's" other gig is as ambassador for the clothing and design industry star,

SIRFUXALOT INTERNATIONAL.

Seriously, I hope that none of this hassels Linden, after all, a gig is a gig. But gud ol' Ken Ham sure is a wanker.

raven · 10 June 2007

I wonder if Linden is going to put his Creation Museum gig on his CV? After all that could ruin his reputation.

Guy isn't too bright or he doesn't care. It is very easy to register a website offshore anonymously in such a way that it is virtually impossible to ID. I vote for he didn't care.

Chris Andrews · 10 June 2007

This Eric Linden?

http://sfxinternational.com/aboutus_ericlinden.php

Oh Jesus, funny! His t-shirt, I admit, does seem to imply that he's ready to populate a planet.

Robin · 11 June 2007

Perhaps the museum is trying a different angle to draw non-believers...

From the Economist: (31 May 2007) The debate about the origins of everything is presented even-handedly. Some people trust God, accept that the universe is 6,000 years old and will go to heaven. Others trust human reason, think the Big Bang happened 14 billion years ago and, having abandoned God, are quite likely to start browsing the internet for pornography or commit genocide. Visitors are spared graphic examples of porn, but there are some nasty pictures of lynched black Americans and of Nazi concentration camps.

Adam and Eve... barely legal teens!

Raging Bee · 11 June 2007

Adam and Eve... barely legal teens!

Not if they were created with only the appearance of age.

Not if they were created with only the appearance of age.

With or without memories?

Gary Hurd · 11 June 2007

Linden has the Creation Museum listed in his credits, and I don't see why not. Like I said, "a gig is a gig."

Mike Shields · 11 June 2007

Does it truly matter? He could've sold the site, and forgotten to take his name off of it....

Moses · 11 June 2007

For a person to make the claim that humans and dinosaurs did not coexist, they would have to be able to see all history at exactly the same time, which would make that person omniscient and omnipresent, qualities of God.

And this comes from the "Watchmaker" argument people? It's a wonder their heads don't explode from the constant internal contradictions.

chunkdz · 12 June 2007

Thank you, Dr. Elsberry, for defending science education.

harold · 12 June 2007

chunkdz -

Your implication is that Elsberry should not have commented at all on the situation; that he should have simply let it go unmentioned.

That's wrong, for two reasons.

First of all, as I pointed out above, nobody just "believes" in creationism in isolation, without a larger agenda (this isn't the case for the theory of evolution, which is based on neutral evidence and is accepted across many religious, philosophical, and political boundaries).

Forcing creationism into taxpayer funded schools is part of an agenda to make the world a "better" place by enforcing outward observation of a narrow version of Christianity.

Yet we see that literally within days of its opening, the Creationism Museum is beset by lawsuits and scandals that appear to reflect a failure to live up to the morals it ostensibly preaches.

Although I would be in favor of teaching science honestly even if enforcing creationism would make people morally better, that might be a difficult choice. When we see time and time again that fundamentalist creationism is both false, and apparently unrelated to moral superiority (not surprising given that it is fundamentally dishonest), the already overwhelming case for honesty is further strengthened.

Second of all, it's a free country, and Elsberry has every right to draw attention to this amusing story.

Wesley R. Elsberry · 12 June 2007

Does it truly matter? He could've sold the site, and forgotten to take his name off of it....

Let's see... The whois data was updated late in January. That means that Linden either changed something or at least confirmed the accuracy of the data at that time. The Creation Museum opened late in May. That's a spread of four months. However, the exhibits for the Creation Museum have been in preparation for several years now. The odds are good that the video that Linden acted in for AiG was produced well before January 2007, and may even predate the "Bedroom Acrobat" domain registration of January 2006. What matters here is what AiG is making of it. They could have simply said that their ministry was relevant even to workers in the pornography industry, and pitched Linden's disavowals of the website as evidence that they had made a difference in Linden's life. Instead, they've sided with Mrs. Grundy and yanked the video from their museum and are talking up "investigating" the claims. "Chunkdz"

Thank you, Dr. Elsberry, for defending science education.

Hey, no problem. Of course, this little piece is one I filed under the "Humor" category. For something with a bit of meat on the bones, check out my thread on Dry Rot, Not Arson: National Park System and Science. You seem to have missed the opportunity to make this comment there. Or any comment there, as it turns out.

Peter Henderson · 12 June 2007

Yet we see that literally within days of its opening, the Creationism Museum is beset by lawsuits and scandals that appear to reflect a failure to live up to the morals it ostensibly preaches.

Their vetting procedures seem to have gone awry !

wrpd45 · 12 June 2007

Check out ericlinden.com. He praises the Creation Museum and says it "they show you another point of view that needs to be heard."
I would question why anyone would buy the domain name of bedroomacrobats. He also says the other organization he is associated with, SFXI, is just a new line of clothing. The full name of the group, Sirfuxalot International, somehow just doesn't seem spiritually inclined, but I would love to see Bev LaHaye in one of their tee shirts.

Peter Henderson · 13 June 2007

Found this today: http://www.columbusdispatch.com/dispatch/content/local_news/stories/2007/06/09/z-apoh_creationmuseum1_0608.ART_ART_06-09-07_B4_T36VNMD.html

Linden, who now lives in Los Angeles, said his modeling work for the clothing line is just one of the many jobs that make up his career. "They're just like a kind of hip, trendy clothing line," he said. He said he learned of the opportunity to play Adam through a childhood friend, and has great respect for the founders of the Creation Museum and their vision. "For the Creation Museum, I did what I did as an actor. It doesn't necessarily mean I believe in evolution or I believe in creation," Linden said. "I'm hired to get a point across. On the flip side, if I was hired to play a murderer, that doesn't mean I'd go out and kill somebody. It's make-believe." Linden said he was selected for the role from a lineup of contenders because his looks were sufficiently generic. "I'm very proud to be Adam," he said. "But just because I'm Adam on the screen, that doesn't mean I'm Adam off the screen. What I do shouldn't have anything to do with who they think Adam is."

Apparently, AiG have withdrawn the offending video !

Inthepew · 15 June 2007

Evangelical Right found the drag queen snapshots. Classic. Creation Museum Drag Queen Photos

Martha · 16 July 2007

AIG has also stopped showing that film. Please get your information straight before pointing an accusing finger. Get the beam out of your own eyes before you get the mote out of AIG or even Eric Linden's eye. "Judge not lest ye be judged." The real "stange bedfellows" is the merging of creation with evolution.

The people at AIG are not stupid; they are scientists, and very educated men and women. They've gone to the very same schools as secular scientists, and have studied the exact same evolutionary theories as all the other students.

AIG is not the only ministry that has disproven evolution. In his attempt to disprove creation, Roger Oakland of http://www.understandthetimes.org realized creation was true and turned his life over to Christ. He has several videos on the subject and he includes his observations on those videos. So, it's not some "fantasy" that people are believing. It takes more faith to believe evolution than the creation account. Evolution is nothing more than a "cunningly devised man-made fable" to rebel against a loving God who wants a relationship with His creation.

Why is it so hard to believe the creation account when that has more supported evidence that the hoax of evolution? Historians have said that, after studying the human eye, Darwin himself denounced his own theory, because he knew it was a lie, and he turned his life over to Jesus Christ. The human eye is too complex of an organ to "just evolve". There is an intelligent being behind the creation of man. But I bet none of you have the guts to face Ken Ham, or Roger Oakland in a debate over this subject.

The Scripture says, "God's ways are higher than man's ways". "A way that seems right to a man is the way of death". God uses "the foolish things of this world" (or what seems foolish in the eyes of unregenerated man) "to confound those who profess to be wise", such as yourselves. "Professing yourselves to be wise, you become fools." And "a fool has said in his heart, 'there is no God.'"

This gossip is all part of the last days attack on the true believers. The kingdom of God is at hand, therefore repent your own selves of the heresy (any and all forms of evolution) you are believing, and turn to the Lord -- the one in the Bible, not "another Jesus" that the cults (including Catholicism) preach.

Wesley R. Elsberry · 16 July 2007

What part of,

"Instead, they've sided with Mrs. Grundy and yanked the video from their museum and are talking up "investigating" the claims."

did you find unclear?

Wesley R. Elsberry · 16 July 2007

Of course, it's tough to tell whether the fulsome comment from "Martha" is the usual bottom-of-the-ignorance-barrel antievolution rant, or a trollish parody. I mean, the whole Lady Hope thing is sooooo 1980s.

raven · 16 July 2007

Martha the cultist: Why is it so hard to believe the creation account when that has more supported evidence that the hoax of evolution? Historians have said that, after studying the human eye, Darwin himself denounced his own theory, because he knew it was a lie, and he turned his life over to Jesus Christ.

That is a lie. One that even most creos don't bother to repeat because it is easily disproven. Talkorigins has the truth in simple language you may even understand. Got any more lies? I'm sure you have collected them all. A veritable mountain of them. Do look in your bible at the ten commandments again. There is one about not lying. Good advice IMO.

PUMA-MAN · 16 July 2007

It's the second part of this statement that interested me. i.e. someone who claims that humans and dinosaurs didn't exist together (and that would include many Christians) is in fact calling himself a God ?????

EACH MAN IS A GOD! EACH MAN IS FREE!

neo-anti-luddite · 16 July 2007

Ah, it's always good to see another MST3K fan...