There are creationist “museums” all over the place — I’ve been to ones in Kentucky, Washington state, and Missouri, and maybe a few others, but they’re all rather forgettable. I haven’t been to the the Big Valley Creation Science Museum in Alberta (how could I, what with the Royal Tyrrell right nearby?), but someone visited it and posted a summary. Harry Nibourg, the guy who runs it all, sounds like an enthusiastic glad-hander who is happy to give anyone a tour of his personal garbage heap. But I think these tourists summed it up well.
While I was there, a retired English couple had been making their way around the exhibits. As they reached the end, Harry asked them what their professions were. Turns out they’re retired biology teachers.
Harry asked,” Did you understand what you were looking at, and did it change your minds?
In the polite manner that only the English can achieve, the husband replied, “Well, you see, I think your museum is a crock of shit.”
Harry offered that they should “agree to disagree.”
That last line…is there any other phrase that is a better example of passive-aggressive truculence and an admission of a failure to defend one’s ideas than “agree to disagree”? Hate it.
Thanks for the howler! Always better to start a day with laughter instead of Drumfh’s latest jackassery.
I went to the linked site, read about the visit, and the 2nd comment is a classic. It explains that the curator is using some outdated creation “science” no longer espoused by more learned creationists. The comment includes “Or is the whole point of this just to mock ….”
Yes.
“Two of each”?
I looked up Noah in the family Bible once, and it said that he brought aboard (NIV) “seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate.” Harry at the museum isn’t even getting his Bible stuff right, let alone the science.
a new yorker would have been more kurt with simple “crock a’shit” without the quaint “well… you seeeee…. i think…. crock of shite”, being so erudite britishy.
— putting my self out on the limb to be funny, i hope. pardon me.
Carry on…
??
I think everyone should make creation museums. The dumber and uglier and more expensive the better. Then apply for state money and tax breaks.
From the linked page:
Seriously, rocks? How about a basic recap of how carbon dating works: cosmic rays ultimately interact with atmospheric nitrogen to form the carbon-14; the carbon-14 reacts chemically to become carbon dioxide; the carbon dioxide is metabolized by plants or other photosynthesizers; and from there the carbon-14 can enter the food web of the organisms that eat the plants, or eat the organisms that eat those organisms.
Since the organic matter in the fossil largely decayed away and was chemically replaced long ago, and the rocks never had any, then any carbon dating that gets results of “less than 4,500 years” must be of the bacteria that are on the rocks and fossils.
Another basic recap, just to emphasize why the above is true: The half-life of carbon-14 is about 5000 years. After one half-life, half the original carbon-14 remains. After two half-lives, one quarter of the original is left. After ten half-lives, only about 1/1024th of the original is left.
This is an embarrassing gaffe: Zircon is not an isotope! Zircon is a mineral, which preferentially absorbs uranium, and repels lead, when in a liquid state at thousands of degrees. It is the isotopes of uranium, and the isotopes that result from the decay of uranium to isotopes of stable lead, that are used for dating the geological strata in which fossils are embedded.
And yet none of those glory-seeking knights had the skulls mounted as trophies, or the skins flayed and preserved.
Because of course water can magically be lighter than air and heavier than rock.
So what do non-vegetarian Christians stress about?
If it’s so easy for God to keep animals calm, why does God want animals to be stressed, and therefore carnivorous, now? Does he hate them, or does he just think it’s funny?
I’d talk about fossil raindrop impressions, mudcracks, burrows, and nests, but I’m starting to feel Gish Galloped.
Senter, Phil. The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology RNCSE 31.3, 1.3 May-June 2011
I tried posting my comment @#5 to the original post, but it just disappeared.
Sigh.
re “carbon dating” @5:
I wonder if “carbon dating” has become a euphemism for any kind of method used to date ancient objects, having it seen so frequently used misappropriately. Rocks can be dated using “radiometric” data, comparing different isotopes of long half-life atoms, which can be found in rocks.
>idiots<
?
Tut, tut! You know that must of these Creation “Science” types know little-to-nothing about science, which is why they are on the stupid side of the knowledge divide!
I wouldn’t be surprised if Harry took an AiG “course” in The Science and/or got his materials from the Creationist Research Labs®
The ‘agree to disagree’ shtick is how vanishingly puny minds gratify themselves with total agreement. It’s rather similar to how chronic liars like a certain orange stain confront evidence that contradicts them. Amirite or amirite?
Kip T.W. @2: It’s better than that. Genesis 6 says it was two of everything; Genesis 7 is what you quoted. The Bible itself can’t keep its story straight.
re @10
*smiles*
you know “7 pairs of clean” does indeed include 2, so “two of everything” is correct, only adding “exclusively” onto it, makes it inconsistent.
*grin*
eamick @10: Okay, it’s a case of “A Ark” and “B Ark.”
Agreeing to disagree is fine for subjects like whether cream cheese belongs inside a donut. (It does, and if you disagree, you’re wrong.) But that’s about it.
Saying you’ll “agree to disagree” is pretty much admitting that you’ve just got your ass handed to you in a debate.
Even prior to the debate. Says “I surrender logic and evidence”….
Not necessarily. I’ve been known to use it to mean “you are a freaking idiot and totally wrong but I realize you’ll never listen to reason”. Of course, I probably more frequently say “You’re never going to listen to common sense” instead.
Actually, maybe I’ve never said “agree to disagree”… Okay, maybe I have when I dont like certain movies or themes in music….
I’ve driven by it coming back from Drumheller (it’s two minutes off of highway 56). It was winter and looked closed. If you ever wanted to go I’d jump at the opportunity.
Not always. To me it means the other side isn’t worth wasting any more of my time trying to convince them when facts haven’t worked, or the topic is a matter of opinion, or so trivial it doesn’t matter who thinks they won. I either don’t have the energy or am not in the mood for a battle, or don’t have the time to get embroiled in an endless quagmire with little at stake. Arguments with creationists tend to fall into the first category for the latter reason.
On further reflection, I guess I’ve never actually used that phrase for topics that actually matter or are of a facts-vs-opinion nature, like, say, creationism (though I probably would regarding religious belief in general).
I just checked, and my comment @#5 has in fact posted (and I see that so has Kip W.’s @2)!
Unfortunately, the site’s CSS is constructed so that the blockquote tag has no effect. Careful reading will show that I am citing material from the article, but it’s very annoying to have my text mangled so much.
Bah.
Owlmirror, the rich ambiguity of English leaves me unsure of which site’s CSS isn’t showing blockquotes. When I look at (for instance) your @5, I can see blockquotes in action. Are you not seeing them, or were you referring to something else that I’m not seeing? (Ambiguity again: this time ‘seeing’ means ‘getting.’)
@Kip W.: gigcity.ca, the site of the original post, was set up such that my first comment (and yours), did not appear at first (hence my comment @#6), and when they did show up, did so with blockquoted text looking exactly like non-blockquoted-text.
Yes, I see that now. Thanks for disconfusing me.
Been there, wearing the T-shirt right now! ^_^