Dinosaur fossil donor affiliated with hate group

Well, the end justifies the means, I suppose.

That's in the Bible somewhere, right? Right? Probably close to "Am I my brother's keeper?"?

There are claw marks on the Ark that precisely match this dinosaur's claws, settling the matter for all time. So the only thing left to do is find the Ark.

Karen S. said: There are claw marks on the Ark that precisely match this dinosaur's claws, settling the matter for all time. So the only thing left to do is find the Ark.

Er, how could claw marks on the Ark be known prior to having found the Ark in the first place? :D

Henry J said: Er, how could claw marks on the Ark be known prior to having found the Ark in the first place? :D

Who wonders? Monotheism is supremacism, after all.

Er, how could claw marks on the Ark be known prior to having found the Ark in the first place? :D

At the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, teenagers above a certain age can volunteer to clean fossils (with supervision). Although chipping dirt from old bones might not sound like Real Research, it involves a lot of careful observation, and that's how research begins.

Great job, Dan.

I'm always intrigued by the mental gymnastics it must take any self-respecting creationist to deal with any dinosaur in the first place.

Here's a creature that literally doesn't exist in the creationist pantheon.

Really, it's pretty hard to argue with a straight face that these things were running around just a few thousand years before Jesus and nobody saw fit to write it down.

And the time they are from literally doesn't exist in the creationist pantheon.

But still, there are the bones to deal with and the kids want dinosaurs, and claiming they're some sort of communal hallucination isn't going to fly so... let's put em' in the garden and feed em' on coconuts.

You know - for the kids.

I still say we missed the opportunity to pull the all time worlds best prank on AIG. All we had to do was sneak into the warehouse where they were cleaning the think, drill a hole into the sandstone, and cement in a couple of rusty saddle buckles.

stevaroni said: I'm always intrigued by the mental gymnastics it must take any self-respecting creationist to deal with any dinosaur in the first place.

Ken Ham supports racism. He says there are two races, Christian and non-Christian. His race is superior and must be propped up with a political system based on racial supremacy. Race hatred is justified and interracial marriage is strictly banned.

This is actually a fairly serious thread topic.

I hate to sound like the guy who always says the same thing all the time, but since the obvious hasn't been commented on, I'll make the point.

Creationism is part of the religious right which is part of the US mainstream right wing coalition, represented by the Republican party.

Within the coalition, there is something of a spectrum. Not all individuals take the most extreme view, and the very most extreme views, it is understood, must be hinted at with coded language, rather than expressed directly. For example, on race, an extreme view, which is quite common, is that black people are inherently inferior and that discrimination against black people should be encouraged, and this includes defending the idea that people should be able to use extremely inflammatory racial epithets directed toward black people without being subjected to any business or social disadvantage. (While simultaneously expressing thin skinned outrage at even the mildest critical comment directed toward them, I should note.) Note that these ideas form a cluster, but don't logically follow from one another. However, they are associated with one another. This idea cluster is routinely expressed openly in comments sections, and at sites like World Net Daily. (Note, however, that overt vulgar racism, as by prison white supremacist gangs, is not accepted as part of the mainstream right wing coalition, but that it is the lack of coding, not the idea content, that is the main objection.)

A far less extreme, and also common, idea, is that black people would be perfectly okay if only they would not bring up topics like slavery, segregation, and entrenched inequality, and would all adopt rigid authoritarian right wing Christianity, and reject all social programs and favor Ebeneezer Scrooge economics. People who hold this view are arguably not racist at all, since that's also what they think white people should do. Ken Ham seems likely to be a member of this group of people. Note that these people may appear very racist as they are callous about human suffering and totally deny obvious disadvantage or unfairness, an attitude which disproportionately attacks black people due to US history. However, they actually tend to be equal opportunity self-absorbed hypocrites rather than racists.

But here's the problem. Both types of people I described above are members of the same coalition. Now, I happen to like dogs, and I hate to say something bad about them, but yes, when you lie down with dogs who have not been adequately treated for flea prevention, you yourself will wake up with fleas.

Michael Hill said: Just so there’s no chance that you’ll confuse The League with the GOP or any other “conservative” group, here’s what we stand for: The survival, well being, and independence of the Southern people. And by “the Southern people,” we mean White Southerners who are not afraid to stand for the people of their race and region.

Here is a photo of Michael Peroutka, who donated the allosaurus fossil to Ken Ham's creation museum, wearing a shirt with the racist Confederate battle flag on it. Ken Ham wouldn't have a creationist museum without all the contributions, ideological and financial, of racist creationists. No racism, no creationism.

Maybe this is a better image of Peroutka.

diogeneslamp0 said: Here is a photo of Michael Peroutka, who donated the allosaurus fossil to Ken Ham's creation museum, wearing a shirt with the racist Confederate battle flag on it. Ken Ham wouldn't have a creationist museum without all the contributions, ideological and financial, of racist creationists. No racism, no creationism.

diogeneslamp0 said: Maybe this is a better image of Peroutka.

diogeneslamp0 said: The President of the League of the South, Michael Hill, has made numerous over-the-top racist speeches. Here's one of his milder quotes.

Michael Hill said: Just so there’s no chance that you’ll confuse The League with the GOP or any other “conservative” group, here’s what we stand for: The survival, well being, and independence of the Southern people. And by “the Southern people,” we mean White Southerners who are not afraid to stand for the people of their race and region.

These are the people who gave Ken Ham his dinosaur.

Scott F said: I've just never understood the whole mindset that Life is a zero sum game: I can only do well at your expense...

Scott F said: I've just never understood the whole mindset that Life is a zero sum game: I can only do well at your expense, or I succeed only when you fail. It sounds very, Darwinian. Isn't the whole concept of civilization, of cooperation, that we all do better individually when we all do better together? That I can be enriched by enriching you?

Scott F said:

Scott F said: I've just never understood the whole mindset that Life is a zero sum game: I can only do well at your expense...

Says the unabashed carnivore.

Rikki_Tikki_Taalik said:

Scott F said:

Scott F said: I've just never understood the whole mindset that Life is a zero sum game: I can only do well at your expense...

Says the unabashed carnivore.

Take it easy on yourself Scott. I'm sure you eat the occasional salad .. or potato .. or potato salad even. Protip: Your canines are for opening coconuts (h/t Ken Ham)

Just curious... probably DSM knows: When God trotted all the animals past Adam, looking for "an help meet" and letting Adam name them, did that include marine creatures? They're not "beasts of the field" or "fowl of the air", but surely it wouldn't be beyond the capabilities of God Almighty to transport a few sharks and jellyfish into the Garden long enough for Adam to name them. Why should they be left out of the name game, when all land animals were so 'blessed'? It seems to me that a dolphin or giant Pacific octopus might be as likely to be a useful "help meet" as, say, a hummingbird or a koala (just not helpful with the same tasks).

Second question: It seems Adam bestowed names on animals and birds, which must be their TRUE, ORIGINAL names, sanctioned by God. So what were those names? Do fundagelicals or Hebrews or anybody have a list of the purported Adamic names of all creatures? It would seem that such names ought to have some totemic or commanding power, being the TRUE names.

diogeneslamp0 said: Here is a photo of Michael Peroutka, who donated the allosaurus fossil to Ken Ham's creation museum, wearing a shirt with the racist Confederate battle flag on it. Ken Ham wouldn't have a creationist museum without all the contributions, ideological and financial, of racist creationists. No racism, no creationism.

KlausH said:

diogeneslamp0 said: Here is a photo of Michael Peroutka, who donated the allosaurus fossil to Ken Ham's creation museum, wearing a shirt with the racist Confederate battle flag on it. Ken Ham wouldn't have a creationist museum without all the contributions, ideological and financial, of racist creationists. No racism, no creationism.

How does the racist Confederate battle flag differ from the regular, non racist one?

Just Bob said: When God trotted all the animals past Adam, looking for "an help meet" and letting Adam name them, did that include marine creatures? They're not "beasts of the field" or "fowl of the air", but surely it wouldn't be beyond the capabilities of God Almighty to transport a few sharks and jellyfish into the Garden long enough for Adam to name them. Why should they be left out of the name game, when all land animals were so 'blessed'? It seems to me that a dolphin or giant Pacific octopus might be as likely to be a useful "help meet" as, say, a hummingbird or a koala (just not helpful with the same tasks). Second question: It seems Adam bestowed names on animals and birds, which must be their TRUE, ORIGINAL names, sanctioned by God. So what were those names? Do fundagelicals or Hebrews or anybody have a list of the purported Adamic names of all creatures? It would seem that such names ought to have some totemic or commanding power, being the TRUE names.

So has anyone tried summoning or controlling animals using their TRUE Edenic and/or Hebrew names? And does anyone claim that it works?

KlausH said: How does the racist Confederate battle flag differ from the regular, non racist one?

david.starling.macmillan said: What language were their names in? Well, Edenic, supposedly. Edenic was lost at Babel. Or was it? Lots of fundies will say that Hebrew was the real pre-Babel language. At one point, I was told (and believed) that speaking in tongues happened in Hebrew and that someone who speaks Hebrew would be able to understand me if I was really doing it properly. Obviously that makes no sense in comparison to the New Testament usage, but hey, who cares?

CREATION MUSEUM TO UNVEIL DINOSAUR FOSSIL FROM ORGANIZATION WHOSE LEADER IS AFFILIATED WITH HATE GROUP

Daniel Phelps, president of the Kentucky Paleontological Society, said in a release Thursday that the Creation Museum “has decided, without doing research, that the dinosaur fossil is evidence of Noah’s flood.”

Just Bob said: It's like the swastika. Once it was just an interesting geometric figure. Not anymore.

Even Hebrews used it, I believe, in temple decoration long ago. The common story is that Hitler first saw it in some Amerindian decoration.

The swastika (and its counter-wise pointing counterpart) is one of those motifs that shows up damn near anywhere people wrote, drew, or carved anything the world over. It really is a shame that something like that can become utterly toxic to modern audiences. Such is the power of guilt by association. If only some of that shaming force could be brought to bear in other situations, e.g. League of the South and anything they try to do.

Rikki_Tikki_Taalik said:

Scott F said:

Scott F said: I've just never understood the whole mindset that Life is a zero sum game: I can only do well at your expense...

Says the unabashed carnivore.

Take it easy on yourself Scott. I'm sure you eat the occasional salad .. or potato .. or potato salad even. Protip: Your canines are for opening coconuts (h/t Ken Ham)

Just Bob said: Even Hebrews used it, I believe, in temple decoration long ago. The common story is that Hitler first saw it in some Amerindian decoration.

Obligatory potato salad reference - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CICv6xV-lSE

diogeneslamp0 said: I've never seen swastikas per se in Amerindian art. Spirals yes, but not swastikas.

I also very much doubt that Hitler saw the sign in Native American art, and I think it very likely that he would have dismissed it if he had.

It is true that he might have remembered it from his youth. He sang in the monastery choir at Lambach when he was aged eight and nine, and would have seen the swastika there, in an upright form. (He was not, however, educated at any monastery. He completed Volksschule, (elementary) between ages six and eleven at three different schools, then attended Realschule (middle school) in Linz until age fifteen, but he did not graduate.)

But it's more likely that Hitler became conscious of the swastika when he read the tawdry racist pamphlets of the self-styled Georg Lanz von Liebenfels (aka Adolf Lanz, Dr Georg Lanz, Georg Lancz von Liebenfels. The name on his birth certificate reads "Adolf Josef Lanz"). "Liebenfels" was Viennese. Like most racists of that generation, he was fascinated by symbols. In his prodigious output of racist tracts and pamphlets from 1907-1910, (interlarded with some pretty perverse "erotica") he used a swastika of exactly the same form as adopted by the Nazis, that is, with the arms bent 90 degrees to the right and the whole rotated 45 degrees. Hitler certainly was in Vienna during this period, and he certainly read this form of "literature". Liebenfels later fiddled with his symbol, but most likely Hitler saw it in 1907-1910.

Technically, in heraldry, the Nazi swastika is called "a dexter fylfot saltirewise". It should come as no surprise that the College of Heralds both of the United Kingdom and, interestingly, of the Society for Creative Anachronism will not grant it as a device for the arms of anybody.

Swastika symbols are used even now to indicate Buddhist temples on Japanese maps. They're pretty much the exact opposite of the tilted, counter-clockwise-spinning Nazi one, though.

example and a bit of commentary

Oh, and to get back on topic, or at least closer to it, let's remember the last time the AIG did business with someone with a questionable background.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/06/adam-and-aigs-s.html

There is an article in Wikipedia which claims that there was a fad for the swastika symbol in the West before its adaptation by the Nazis:

Western use of the swastika in the early 20th century

Its (real) association with (real) Aryan culture fit the Nazis' imaginary Aryan race.

Matt Young said: Adam named the animals in Hebrew, the common ancestor of all languages. But that is not the question. The question is: Why did Dylan Lovan and the Associated Press (as well as anyone else who may have received Mr. Phelps's press release) completely ignore the major content of the press release, which was that the donor of the fossil is intimately connected with a group that SPLC calls a hate group? The title of the press release could not have been more clear:

CREATION MUSEUM TO UNVEIL DINOSAUR FOSSIL FROM ORGANIZATION WHOSE LEADER IS AFFILIATED WITH HATE GROUP

Yet Mr. Lovan quotes only the innocuous sentence,

Daniel Phelps, president of the Kentucky Paleontological Society, said in a release Thursday that the Creation Museum “has decided, without doing research, that the dinosaur fossil is evidence of Noah’s flood.”

In other words, a latter-day secessionist who wears a shirt with a Confederate flag donates a fossil to a religious organization, and the press is nowhere to be found. Why not? What gives? Mr. Phelps has done all their homework for them; where are they?!

TomS said: There is an article in Wikipedia which claims that there was a fad for the swastika symbol in the West before its adaptation by the Nazis:

Hmm... all this swastika stuff arose with an analogy to the Confederate battle flag. I see no one has elected to defend the CSA flag as a NON-racist symbol. I guessed that KlausH was implying that, but maybe not.

stevaroni said:

TomS said: There is an article in Wikipedia which claims that there was a fad for the swastika symbol in the West before its adaptation by the Nazis:

I was in Pasadena many times and never noticed that. I miss Pie 'n Burger. I remember my amusement when I casually glanced at some old cast-iron lampposts in downtown Pasadena and realized they had an very prominent a band of swastikas running around base. I can only assume they were placed before 1939, but, as Ken Ham always notes, I wasn't there.

stevaroni said:

TomS said: There is an article in Wikipedia which claims that there was a fad for the swastika symbol in the West before its adaptation by the Nazis:

I remember my amusement when I casually glanced at some old cast-iron lampposts in downtown Pasadena and realized they had an very prominent a band of swastikas running around base. I can only assume they were placed before 1939, but, as Ken Ham always notes, I wasn't there.

diogeneslamp0 said: I miss Pie 'n Burger.

Just Bob said: Just curious... probably DSM knows: When God trotted all the animals past Adam, looking for "an help meet" and letting Adam name them, did that include marine creatures? They're not "beasts of the field" or "fowl of the air", but surely it wouldn't be beyond the capabilities of God Almighty to transport a few sharks and jellyfish into the Garden long enough for Adam to name them. Why should they be left out of the name game, when all land animals were so 'blessed'? It seems to me that a dolphin or giant Pacific octopus might be as likely to be a useful "help meet" as, say, a hummingbird or a koala (just not helpful with the same tasks). Second question: It seems Adam bestowed names on animals and birds, which must be their TRUE, ORIGINAL names, sanctioned by God. So what were those names? Do fundagelicals or Hebrews or anybody have a list of the purported Adamic names of all creatures? It would seem that such names ought to have some totemic or commanding power, being the TRUE names.

So he was actually looking for a help-meat.

Helena Constantine said: Don't forget, that passage means, according to the Talmud, that since Adam was testing each one with the idea of finding his wife, he had sex with each one, including, as you say, the vampirotoothus squid (why isn't that lamidens?) and the Portuguese man-of-war. Must have been quite tricky. They were named in Hebrew, so Cymothoa exigua was given whatever the paleo-Hebrew name for that animal was (presumably Adam refrained form kissing it)--I'ms sure its well known from its many mentions in the Bible.

fnxtr said: So he was actually looking for a help-meat.

Helena Constantine said: Don't forget, that passage means, according to the Talmud, that since Adam was testing each one with the idea of finding his wife, he had sex with each one, including, as you say, the vampirotoothus squid (why isn't that lamidens?) and the Portuguese man-of-war. Must have been quite tricky.

Helena Constantine said: Don't forget, that passage means, according to the Talmud, that since Adam was testing each one with the idea of finding his wife, he had sex with each one

innerfish said: Obligatory potato salad reference - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CICv6xV-lSE

Helena Constantine said:

Just Bob said: Just curious... probably DSM knows: When God trotted all the animals past Adam, looking for "an help meet" and letting Adam name them, did that include marine creatures? They're not "beasts of the field" or "fowl of the air", but surely it wouldn't be beyond the capabilities of God Almighty to transport a few sharks and jellyfish into the Garden long enough for Adam to name them. Why should they be left out of the name game, when all land animals were so 'blessed'? It seems to me that a dolphin or giant Pacific octopus might be as likely to be a useful "help meet" as, say, a hummingbird or a koala (just not helpful with the same tasks). Second question: It seems Adam bestowed names on animals and birds, which must be their TRUE, ORIGINAL names, sanctioned by God. So what were those names? Do fundagelicals or Hebrews or anybody have a list of the purported Adamic names of all creatures? It would seem that such names ought to have some totemic or commanding power, being the TRUE names.

Don't forget, that passage means, according to the Talmud, that since Adam was testing each one with the idea of finding his wife, he had sex with each one, including, as you say, the vampirotoothus squid (why isn't that lamidens?) and the Portuguese man-of-war. Must have been quite tricky. They were named in Hebrew, so Cymothoa exigua was given whatever the paleo-Hebrew name for that animal was (presumably Adam refrained form kissing it)--I'ms sure its well known from its many mentions in the Bible.

bigdakine said:

Helena Constantine said:

Just Bob said: Just curious... probably DSM knows: When God trotted all the animals past Adam, looking for "an help meet" and letting Adam name them, did that include marine creatures? They're not "beasts of the field" or "fowl of the air", but surely it wouldn't be beyond the capabilities of God Almighty to transport a few sharks and jellyfish into the Garden long enough for Adam to name them. Why should they be left out of the name game, when all land animals were so 'blessed'? It seems to me that a dolphin or giant Pacific octopus might be as likely to be a useful "help meet" as, say, a hummingbird or a koala (just not helpful with the same tasks). Second question: It seems Adam bestowed names on animals and birds, which must be their TRUE, ORIGINAL names, sanctioned by God. So what were those names? Do fundagelicals or Hebrews or anybody have a list of the purported Adamic names of all creatures? It would seem that such names ought to have some totemic or commanding power, being the TRUE names.

Don't forget, that passage means, according to the Talmud, that since Adam was testing each one with the idea of finding his wife, he had sex with each one, including, as you say, the vampirotoothus squid (why isn't that lamidens?) and the Portuguese man-of-war. Must have been quite tricky. They were named in Hebrew, so Cymothoa exigua was given whatever the paleo-Hebrew name for that animal was (presumably Adam refrained form kissing it)--I'ms sure its well known from its many mentions in the Bible.

So... what do you do all day?

Matt Young said: Adam named the animals in Hebrew, the common ancestor of all languages. But that is not the question. The question is: Why did Dylan Lovan and the Associated Press (as well as anyone else who may have received Mr. Phelps's press release) completely ignore the major content of the press release, which was that the donor of the fossil is intimately connected with a group that SPLC calls a hate group? The title of the press release could not have been more clear:

CREATION MUSEUM TO UNVEIL DINOSAUR FOSSIL FROM ORGANIZATION WHOSE LEADER IS AFFILIATED WITH HATE GROUP

Yet Mr. Lovan quotes only the innocuous sentence,

Daniel Phelps, president of the Kentucky Paleontological Society, said in a release Thursday that the Creation Museum “has decided, without doing research, that the dinosaur fossil is evidence of Noah’s flood.”

In other words, a latter-day secessionist who wears a shirt with a Confederate flag donates a fossil to a religious organization, and the press is nowhere to be found. Why not? What gives? Mr. Phelps has done all their homework for them; where are they?!

harold said:

bigdakine said:

Helena Constantine said:

Just Bob said: Just curious... probably DSM knows: When God trotted all the animals past Adam, looking for "an help meet" and letting Adam name them, did that include marine creatures? They're not "beasts of the field" or "fowl of the air", but surely it wouldn't be beyond the capabilities of God Almighty to transport a few sharks and jellyfish into the Garden long enough for Adam to name them. Why should they be left out of the name game, when all land animals were so 'blessed'? It seems to me that a dolphin or giant Pacific octopus might be as likely to be a useful "help meet" as, say, a hummingbird or a koala (just not helpful with the same tasks). Second question: It seems Adam bestowed names on animals and birds, which must be their TRUE, ORIGINAL names, sanctioned by God. So what were those names? Do fundagelicals or Hebrews or anybody have a list of the purported Adamic names of all creatures? It would seem that such names ought to have some totemic or commanding power, being the TRUE names.

Don't forget, that passage means, according to the Talmud, that since Adam was testing each one with the idea of finding his wife, he had sex with each one, including, as you say, the vampirotoothus squid (why isn't that lamidens?) and the Portuguese man-of-war. Must have been quite tricky. They were named in Hebrew, so Cymothoa exigua was given whatever the paleo-Hebrew name for that animal was (presumably Adam refrained form kissing it)--I'ms sure its well known from its many mentions in the Bible.

So... what do you do all day?

My understanding is that she is a historian with special expertise in Late Antiquity.

Helena Constantine said: I also write a lot of literary criticism for high school students; you actually get paid for that.

Just Bob said:

Helena Constantine said: I also write a lot of literary criticism for high school students; you actually get paid for that.

I hope you mean you criticize what they write, not that you ghost-write assignments for them ;)

Helena Constantine said: What I actually so is teach Latin at a high school run by heretical Catholics who would fire me in 1 second if they thought I was an atheist…

They wouldn't be Lefebvrists, would they? Or from one of the other Tridentine traditionalist groups?

Not only was this fully articulated dinosaur found laying [sic] in a bed of leaves and plant debris, but there is wood from trees mixed in among the bones, some of which contains petrified and non-petrified elements in the same piece of wood. If this creature were millions of years old, the evidence would look quite different.

Yea, I'm sure they would have to objection at all to someone using radio carbon dating on the remains. :)

I strongly recommend that Rachel Maddow video.

The shabbiness and transparent greed of so many creationists just can't be understated.

"But wait, Harold, aren't you always saying that creationists usually aren't directly conscious liars, that they have intense self-serving bias, and that they deal with cognitive dissonance by consciously doubling down on reality denial?"

Well, yes, I am always saying that, and it's true, but it doesn't change the fact that their behavior is shabby, tawdry, and pathetically transparently self-serving, often in blazingly unethical ways.

The world would be a simple place if everybody who sold $1000 a pop dinosaur hunting trips and DVD's to sucker in home-schooled kids and take their parents' money, and who was subsequently involved in legal disputes over the rights to finds (presumably with other creationists, including, perhaps some of the $1000 a pop kids), and who was subsequent to that caught in an extramarital affair, was a cackling Snidely Whiplash.

Just remember something that the Biblical character Jesus tends to note on numerous occasions (whether the character is "historically real" is not relevant here) - hypocrisy is a powerful thing.

Wow, that video was even better than I had imagined.

But it's Rachel Maddow! She's a liberal and a communist and a LESBIAN. So nothing she says can possibly be true. Even if a Republican said the same thing yesterday. She makes it untrue, just by saying it. So from here on, we'll deny it. Because she said it.

(The exact reverse applies to anything Rush Limbaugh says.)

Just Bob said:

Helena Constantine said: I also write a lot of literary criticism for high school students; you actually get paid for that.

I hope you mean you criticize what they write, not that you ghost-write assignments for them ;)

Dave Luckett said: They wouldn't be Lefebvrists, would they? Or from one of the other Tridentine traditionalist groups?

david.starling.macmillan said: Wow, that video was even better than I had imagined.

Helena Constantine said: They belong to an obscure Polish order which I won't mention here. They were about to be excommunicated but Ratzinger begged off. But like the Lefebvrists, they're mostly concerned with Church authority. Their clergy demand absolute authority,of course, but don't want to acknowledge much above them.

Scott F said:

david.starling.macmillan said: Wow, that video was even better than I had imagined.

I do like Rachel Maddow, but she often takes a small idea, and keeps repeating it to fill up time. Here she filled a 9 minute segment with 2 minutes of ideas, but couldn't find a guest to rebut any of the specific claims. I'm glad that she tackled the subject at all, but it was fairly superficial. It was not one of her best. Or maybe I've just grown accustomed to the concise and articulate debunking here. :-)

david.starling.macmillan said:

Scott F said:

david.starling.macmillan said: Wow, that video was even better than I had imagined.

I do like Rachel Maddow, but she often takes a small idea, and keeps repeating it to fill up time. Here she filled a 9 minute segment with 2 minutes of ideas, but couldn't find a guest to rebut any of the specific claims. I'm glad that she tackled the subject at all, but it was fairly superficial. It was not one of her best. Or maybe I've just grown accustomed to the concise and articulate debunking here. :-)

I'm just saying, it was enjoyable to watch.

"Additionally, Mr. Phelps points out that the Creation Museum will not perform scientific research on the specimen because its employees are required to take an oath of biblical literalism that precludes open-minded scientific research".

Thanks for this unbiased, not misleading, open-minded, not smarmy, fully researched and factual statement. The same kind of no nonsense, just-the-facts science and magnanimous character that helped us see all soft tissue finds are contamination.

John Stell said: "Additionally, Mr. Phelps points out that the Creation Museum will not perform scientific research on the specimen because its employees are required to take an oath of biblical literalism that precludes open-minded scientific research". Thanks for this unbiased, not misleading, open-minded, not smarmy, fully researched and factual statement. The same kind of no nonsense, just-the-facts science and magnanimous character that helped us see all soft tissue finds are contamination.

Just Bob said:

John Stell said: "Additionally, Mr. Phelps points out that the Creation Museum will not perform scientific research on the specimen because its employees are required to take an oath of biblical literalism that precludes open-minded scientific research". Thanks for this unbiased, not misleading, open-minded, not smarmy, fully researched and factual statement. The same kind of no nonsense, just-the-facts science and magnanimous character that helped us see all soft tissue finds are contamination.

Umm, CAN actual science be done by those who swear to NOT believe any results that conflict with Ken Ham's interpretation of the Bible? Especially in areas in which the findings just might indicate, say, an Earth older than ~6K years?

Dan Phelps tells us that Michael Peroutka considered reburying the fossil rather than allowing someone with a "millions of years" philosophy display it (22:30 into the video).

Meanwhile, and slightly off the present task, Joe Sonka, a reporter for the newspaper LEO Weekly, notes that the Ark Park will not receive the $43 million from Kentucky because they did not start construction within 3 years. They have applied for $18 million in tax incentives, but Mr. Sonka doubts that they will get that either. He is confident that the Ark will never be built.

I wish we could be as confident that it never will be built as we are that the Ark never was built.

Good evening, Mr. Phelps. Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to...

Oh, and the evidence will self destruct in 189,341,712,000 seconds. (More or less.)

John Stell said: "Additionally, Mr. Phelps points out that the Creation Museum will not perform scientific research on the specimen because its employees are required to take an oath of biblical literalism that precludes open-minded scientific research". Thanks for this unbiased, not misleading, open-minded, not smarmy, fully researched and factual statement. The same kind of no nonsense, just-the-facts science and magnanimous character that helped us see all soft tissue finds are contamination.

- The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer, and Judge. - The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the gospel of Jesus Christ. - The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science. - The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself. - The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the earth, and the universe. - The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since creation. - The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect. - The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind. - Death (both physical and spiritual) and bloodshed entered into this world subsequent to and as a direct consequence of man’s sin. - The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into secular and religious, is rejected. - By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

John Stell said: "Additionally, Mr. Phelps points out that the Creation Museum will not perform scientific research on the specimen because its employees are required to take an oath of biblical literalism that precludes open-minded scientific research". Thanks for this unbiased, not misleading, open-minded, not smarmy, fully researched and factual statement. The same kind of no nonsense, just-the-facts science and magnanimous character that helped us see all soft tissue finds are contamination.

The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer, and Judge. The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. … It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.

The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

xubist said:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

"By definition". Any evidence, no matter how voluminous, no matter how strongly confirmed, no matter how solid… any evidence whatsoever which godless heathens might regard as proving that Noah's Flood did not, in fact, occur… well, all of that evidence is worthless crap. Just because. I dunno 'bout you, john stell, but given AiG's Statement of Faith, it sure seems like the assertion you quoted is just plain true in every particular.

TomS said: Except, of course, things which, according to them, are not really supposed to taken seriously. Things like the Sun goes around a fixed Earth.

Beginning June 14, you may see a real paleontological exhibit, Cincinnati under the Sea, at the Cincinnati Museum Center, thanks in part to Dan Phelps.

The big "documentary" produced by Doug sex-offender Phillips and his group, Raising the Allosaur, was apparently one big long lie. The fossil was, it seems, discovered in 2000. Here's more....

Apparently AiG got really upset about Rachel Maddow's segment on MSNBC.

Unrelated: this is perhaps one of the most painful butcherings of statistics I have seen in quite some time, and will be excellent pre-reading for my post on genetics and probability in a couple of weeks.

The raisingthetruth corpus is painful to examine.

Feh.

John Stell said: the same kind of no nonsense, just-the-facts science and magnanimous character that helped us see all soft tissue finds are contamination.

david.starling.macmillan said: The big "documentary" produced by Doug sex-offender Phillips and his group, Raising the Allosaur, was apparently one big long lie. The fossil was, it seems, discovered in 2000. Here's more.... Apparently AiG got really upset about Rachel Maddow's segment on MSNBC.

But didn’t the Ark project already get hunderds [sic] of thousands of dollars straight from the taxpayers of Petersberg, KY?

The main problem with Ham’s overtly religious pet project is it seems to be a magnet for taxpayer dollars. First, Kentucky officials committed more than $40 million in tax incentives to the Ark Park.Sadly that was just the beginning. Later, the Kentucky legislature planned to spend $2 million on a road project in a rural area, seemingly for the sole benefit of the proposed Ark Park. But even those generous incentives weren’t enough for misguided lawmakers. The city of Williamstown, which had already granted a 75 percent property tax break for the park, decided last year that it would sell $62 million in municipal bonds on behalf of AiG affiliates. All told, various government entities in Kentucky have planned to give the Ark Park, which was originally supposed to cost about $175 million, an astounding $100 million (or more) in various types of public support. Recent reports, however, cast serious doubt on just how much of that money, if any, will reach the project.

There is also some mystery surrounding the $62 million in municipal bonds that supposedly rescued Ham’s project. The Louisville Courier-Journal reported in January that while $26.5 million in bonds had been sold, the city needed to sell an additional $29 million by Feb. 6 or else those who already bought bonds would be able to collect on their investment immediately. The city would not say exactly how much money was raised, the Courier-Journal reported in late February, but AiG’s website claims the bonds actually yielded $73 million. AiG also claims it has raised $15 million on its own

Ham will surely keep his con going for as long as he can, but Kentucky has no reason to stick with this sinking ship.

That's great, but I seem to recall reading at PT a year or two ago that the city of Williamstown had quietly given Ark Encounter a few hundred thousand dollars-- not a tax break, just a straight gift. I'm sorry I don't have a reference.

Ark Encounter’s original tax incentive application for potentially $43 million was approved by a Tourism board in May of 2011. This gave them three years to start construction, and whatever Ark Encounter spent on construction, they would be eligible for up to 25 percent of that amount once the park opened in rebates, assuming that the project was an economic success and passed benchmarks. However, that three year period ended this month, and Ark Encounter construction has not yet started, which would mean that they are not eligible for any tax incentives unless they amended or resubmitted an application. And in March, that’s exactly what they did. Tourism Cabinet spokesman Gil Lawson tells LEO that on March 28, Ark Encounter representatives withdrew their original application for a $172 million project and resubmitted a new application for a dramatically scaled back $73 million project. If this application is approved — and if Ark Encounter is actually built and meets economic benchmarks — they would only be eligible for a maximum of $18.25 million in tax incentives. But that remains a big “if.”...

david.starling.macmillan said:

Henry J said: Er, how could claw marks on the Ark be known prior to having found the Ark in the first place? :D

YOU MUST HAVE FAITH

tedhohio said:

david.starling.macmillan said:

Henry J said: Er, how could claw marks on the Ark be known prior to having found the Ark in the first place? :D

YOU MUST HAVE FAITH

Actually the claw marks is a Prediction . . . and once the ark is found . . . Oh I am so sorry . . . and once The Ark is found, the presence of claw marks will be proof of the inerrancy of the Bible and the incredible predictive power of creation science . . . damn, I did it again . . . the incredible predictive power of Creation Science.

Scott F said:

Rikki_Tikki_Taalik said:

Scott F said:

Scott F said: I've just never understood the whole mindset that Life is a zero sum game: I can only do well at your expense...

Says the unabashed carnivore.

Take it easy on yourself Scott. I'm sure you eat the occasional salad .. or potato .. or potato salad even. Protip: Your canines are for opening coconuts (h/t Ken Ham)

Coconuts?? Heck, my canines can't even open walnuts. Perhaps shark teeth were for sawing through tough seaweed, or something equally tasty.

So this Ark thing didn't get quite the Deluge of Donations that Ham wanted?

That's no way for Ham to bring home the Bacon!

tedhohio said: Did sharks even have teeth before The Fall? I do find it funny that on my one trip to the Creation Museum Kennie had a simple display right out in the ticketing area of a few kids playing with a couple of dinosaurs . . . velocirators if memory serves. They did have teeth and, IMHO, the only thing that would have been going on in their minds if the scene was in any way a reflection on reality was "Lunch!"

TomS said:

tedhohio said: Did sharks even have teeth before The Fall? I do find it funny that on my one trip to the Creation Museum Kennie had a simple display right out in the ticketing area of a few kids playing with a couple of dinosaurs . . . velocirators if memory serves. They did have teeth and, IMHO, the only thing that would have been going on in their minds if the scene was in any way a reflection on reality was "Lunch!"

Aren't shark teeth "Intelligently Designed"? Aren't there fossils of animals captured in the act of eating other animals? Aren't there bones found in coprolites? If we can trust our ability to detect design in features designed to capture prey - or in the design to defend against predators -aren't able to see predation when we see it?

Henry J said: Er, how could claw marks on the Ark be known prior to having found the Ark in the first place? :D

JJ said:

Henry J said: Er, how could claw marks on the Ark be known prior to having found the Ark in the first place? :D

You do not get sarcasm, do you?

JJ said:

Henry J said: Er, how could claw marks on the Ark be known prior to having found the Ark in the first place? :D

You do not get sarcasm, do you?

Peroutka’s web of influence shows that he is more than, as one libertarian scholar put it, a solitary "wackypants anti-gay crusader.” Peroutka's activism and philanthropy illuminate the connections between the Creationist movement, the Christian-Nation philosophy of people like Judge Moore, anti-choice agitators, fringe anti-gay extremists like Daubenmire and Klingenschmitt, and the network of Confederate nostalgists that can never quite hide its racist roots. All are striving for a biblical and constitutional purism that exists only in the minds of those who adhere to it, and a return to an imagined past where dinosaurs stowed away on Noah’s ark, the Constitution mandated an exclusively Christian nation, and the Civil War didn't turn out quite right.

"Since civil government is ordained by God in order to protect God-given rights, then the function of civil government is to obey God and to enforce God’s law – PERIOD." "It is not the role of civil government to house, feed, clothe, educate or give heath care to…ANYBODY!" “There is a God. Our rights come from him. The purpose of civil government is to protect and defend God-given rights. This is the American view of law and government. It also happens to be the biblical view of law and government. America was founded upon the biblical view of law and government….” “All men are created equal, they are not evolved equal, get it? So evolution is anti-American.”

Republicans in Maryland are seeking clarification from Mr. Peroutka regarding his affiliation with the League of the South, according to the Maryland Gazette. The gubernatorial candidate, Larry Hogan, has more guts: He has "disavowed" Mr. Peroutka, and his spokesman reiterated that Peroutka's views have no place in the Republican Party.