Judge Jones, eat your heart out! Museum of supernatural history opens
An AOL news article about the new Creation Museum in Kentucky says,
LOL
Other articles about the museum are here, here, and here.
.
Here exhibits show the Grand Canyon took just days to form during Noah's flood, dinosaurs coexisted with humans and had a place on Noah's Ark, and Cain married his sister to people the earth, among other Biblical wonders.
Scientists, secularists and moderate Christians have pledged to protest the museum's public opening on Monday. An airplane trailing a "Thou Shalt Not Lie" banner buzzed overhead during the museum's opening news conference . . . .
. . . "Teachers don't deserve a student coming into class saying 'Gee Mrs. Brown, I went to this fancy museum and it said you're teaching me a lie,"' Dr. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, told reporters . . . .
LOL
Other articles about the museum are here, here, and here.
.
Labels: Judge Jones (1 of 2)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 5/27/2007 07:00:00 PM
16 Comments:
The Grand Canyon being formed in a few days! I don't think this exhibit will do much to strengthen the fundies case.
This has confirmed a suspicion that I have long held. There was a mixup in the hospital. Somewhere out in the jungle something is picking fleas off of my real baby brother.
Larry(?), what does it mean when you slide effortlessly from promoting Intelligent Design as "science", to fluffing this ridiculous museum? Can you kindly explain the connection?
BTW, I have hiked down to the bottom of the Grand Canyon (certainly beats any cockamamie museum!). Since about a billion years of Earth history are recorded there, six days are on the order of a millionth of an inch. That would be consistent with my personal observation.
Incidentally, you ought not to reference the treasonous ABC News -- at least, not without a disclaimer.
Note that I am referencing, approvingly, WND's Joseph Farah, despite his being on the (IMO) wrong side of the evolution argument. As I have stated before (on this blog), I do not do ad hominem.
There were four comments here and I come back and there are three. Was it "gossip", Larry?
hector said...
>>>>> There were four comments here and I come back and there are three. Was it "gossip", Larry? <<<<<<
I have not deleted anything. I checked my email records (I receive copies of comments posted on this blog) and found only three comments in this thread, not counting your above comment.
If you still think that a comment is missing, can you describe it? Is it one of your comments? If so, just re-post it.
If you folks wouldn't gossip about me, you wouldn't have to worry about your comments being censored as gossip.
What is the connection here with Judge Jones? Since no one is compelled (i.e., forced) to attend, this is not a constitutional issue (he acknowledged this point in his decision when he wrote that the truth of intelligent design was not an issue in the Dover case).
Another loser Larry! You might want to consider erasing irrelevant posts like your pals at uncommondescent. Oh -- but your blog would be empty!
Manuel
If Larry ever made a serious post it would take away the entertainment value of this blog.
Thanks VIU for stepping in for me. You guessed right.
This museum should be taken with slightly less credibility than the National Enquirer articles titled "Elvis is Alive". "Little Green Men Publishing the Los Angeles Times" or "Boy 9 Gives Birth to Own Grandmother"!
I don't think that the evolutionists could be any happier than for something like this museum showing the anti-evolution anti-science people for the nuts that they are.
Anonymous (Manuel) said,
>>>>>What is the connection here with Judge Jones? <<<<<
The connection is that Judge Jones is a stupid, crooked judge who reminds me of too many judges whom I had the misfortune to encounter in my lawsuits. I feel that I am getting just a little revenge against those other judges by joining the big chorus that is calling Jones a stupid, crooked judge. This blog has 39 posts that are just about Judge Jones, and that doesn't count the dozens of posts that are about his Dover decision. For example, just look at his asinine statement about the "true religion" of the founding fathers (BTW, that statement is a plagiarism):
. . . this much is very clear. The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry. At bottom then, this core set of beliefs led the Founders, who constantly engaged and questioned things, to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state.
Jones above statement showed great hostility towards organized religions by saying that they are not "true" religions. And even Ed Brayton conceded that Jones' above statement is too broad.
And in a desperate attempt to dodge and discredit legitimate criticisms of his Kitzmiller v. Dover rulings, Jones claimed in a speech at Bennington College that critics of the rulings are against judicial independence:
What all of them had in common -- all of these criticisms -- was that they omitted to note the role of precedent, how judges work, the Rule of Law. Trial judges carefully find the facts in a case and apply existing precedent as handed down by higher courts -- most notably, in this case, the Supreme Court of the United States. There was simply no attempt [in these media criticisms] to illuminate those issues or educate the public.
Anonymous (Manuel) said,
>>>>>What is the connection here with Judge Jones? <<<<<
> The connection is that Judge Jones is a stupid, crooked judge <
In other words, there is no connection.
> who reminds me of too many judges whom I had the misfortune to encounter in my lawsuits. <
It looks like you had competent judges. That is why you lost all of your cases.
>>>>>>>>>The connection is that Judge Jones is a stupid, crooked judge who reminds me of too many judges whom I had the misfortune to encounter in my lawsuits.
So are you saying that the museum is put on by stupid, crooked people? Otherwise (as seconded by ViW) there is no connection that any sane person can make.
Be sure to mention this to your psychotherapist, as it may help.
Manuel
Manuel drivels,
>>>>> So are you saying that the museum is put on by stupid, crooked people? Otherwise (as seconded by ViW) there is no connection that any sane person can make. <<<<<
And there is a connection that no sane person cannot make, and that connection is obviously that since Judge Jones was trying to suppress what he thought was creationism, this museum is a sort of revenge. You asked a stupid question, so you got a stupid answer.
BTW, what I said about Jones is only the tip of the iceberg of his misdeeds. For example, he also virtually entirely copied the Dover opinion's ID-as-science section from the plaintiffs' opening post-trial brief while completely ignoring the defendants' opening post-trial brief and the plaintiffs' and defendants' answering post-trial briefs. And my first major post on this blog is a list of his errors in the Dover case.
ViW drivels,
>>>>>It looks like you had competent judges. That is why you lost all of your cases. <<<<<
ViW shows again that he is in favor of a grossly unconstitutional tax, the California smog impact fee, and that he favors crooked judges and other crooked government officials over the little guy. The jerk can't help making a piece of crap out of himself.
> And there is a connection that no sane person cannot make, and that connection is obviously that since Judge Jones was trying to suppress what he thought was creationism, this museum is a sort of revenge. You asked a stupid question, so you got a stupid answer. <
That is indeed a stupid answer.
> he also virtually entirely copied the Dover opinion's ID-as-science section from the plaintiffs' opening post-trial brief <
...Which is not unusual or unethical.
> while completely ignoring the defendants' opening post-trial brief and the plaintiffs' and defendants' answering post-trial briefs. <
Because they were drivel. They lost, remember?
> And my first major post on this blog is a list of his errors in the Dover case. <
Your post only shows your complete misunderstanding of that case.
>>>>>It looks like you had competent judges. That is why you lost all of your cases. <<<<<
> ViW shows again that he is in favor of a grossly unconstitutional tax <
I didn't say that and I am not. Can't you stop lying? It seems pathological.
> and that he favors crooked judges and other crooked government officials over the little guy. <
You haven't mentioned any crooked judges, only the honest ones who rightly found against you. Some times the little guy is just wrong, as you have been.
You just can't keep from making a fool out of yourself.
A few days ago I asked the following question:
Larry(?), what does it mean when you slide effortlessly from promoting Intelligent Design as "science", to fluffing this ridiculous museum? Can you kindly explain the connection?
I think this question deserves an answer. Perhaps you can even try to answer on behalf of Joseph Farah, who seems hell-bent on provoking me to an ad hominem reaction.
Not to put too fine a point on it, do you believe that evidence has any bearing on truth, or not? And, if you assert that evidence may be ignored, distorted, or even (as in this case) manufactured, then why should I or anyone respect your credibility?
Fake Dave said,
>>>>> A few days ago I asked the following question:
Larry(?), what does it mean when you slide effortlessly from promoting Intelligent Design as "science", to fluffing this ridiculous museum? Can you kindly explain the connection?
I think this question deserves an answer. <<<<<<
Well, I think that my question to Kevin Vicklund as to whether or not he thought that Hector was responding to him also deserves an answer, but I still haven't gotten it.
I don't even know what you mean by "fluffing."
>>>>> Perhaps you can even try to answer on behalf of Joseph Farah, who seems hell-bent on provoking me to an ad hominem reaction. <<<<<<
Joseph Farah? The article that you linked to was written by Jonathan Falwell. Anyway, I can't speak on behalf of anyone else -- I can only speak for myseif.
>>>>>> Not to put too fine a point on it, do you believe that evidence has any bearing on truth, or not? <<<<<<
IMO, part of Darwinism is not adequately explained by the evidence, particularly the notion that the mechanisms of natural selection and random mutations (the main mechanism of natural genetic variation) adequately explain evolution. And ID is not the only scientific (or pseudoscientific, if you prefer) criticism of these mechanisms -- there are also non-ID scientific criticisms, e.g., criticisms concerning co-evolution and the propagation of beneficial mutations in sexual reproduction.
Anyway, you are trying to read into this blog article more than I intended -- I intended it mainly to be a news item and a kind of joke.
> I intended it mainly to be a news item and a kind of joke. <
We always take what you post as a joke.
Post a Comment
<< Home