Prof. Steve Steve posted Entry 3205 on June 24, 2007 08:20 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/3194

AdamandSteveStevesmaller.png

On June 17, I had the opportunity to return to Ken Ham’s House of (take your pick - Horrors, Thrills, Bible Stories) and really poke around the place. My friends Jason, Tara, and Wesley were there, along with some other great folk. I really learned a lot from the place, and I thought I would share some of my adventures with readers. Let’s take a look. (Warning - lots of images below the fold, may load slowly, especially for dial-up connections.)

The entrance to the parking lot was enticing – after all, who doesn’t like dinosaurs.

entrancesmall.png

As I was saying, there were lots of educational features in the museum. I can’t remember everything, but some things just, like, stuck in my brain. Like how dangerous human reasoning is.

learningsmall.png

Or how Pangea formed and broke up all while underwater.

Pangea%20underwater%20small.png

And I never knew the real story of weeds.

weedssmall.png

What with the dinosaurs on the prowl, I was sure relieved to learn about how they were plant eaters.

what%20animals%20eat%20small.png

Of course, I had to check it out for myself.

isittruesmall.png

But something must have gone wrong (I heard some screaming about some sort of fall) – talk about close calls!

ohhnooosmall.png

There were more attractions, of course. I was hoping that Adam would give me a really cool name in the Garden of Eden (not that Steve Steve is bad, but, I think, Grizzly Steve would be over the top).

Edensmall.png

And the Ark – I knew where I was staying on that boat. Upper level, off the floor with all that animal mess.

onthearksmall.png

Of course, there were some pretty powerful historical lessons. Like the Scopes Trial.

Scopessmall.png

And learning about the evils of evolution – that’s some bad stuff …

trashedsmall.png

Of course, with all that excitement, one is sure to work up an appetite. They’ve got that covered as well.

bamboo2.png

I have to admit that the best part was the company I was keeping.

creationmuseumgroup.png

All in all, it was quite a visit. I’m not sure I’d take the kids (I could swear that Mel Gibson designed and directed some of the displays and videos – definitely not for the squeamish), and I sorta think I’d rather spend my money for the privilege of petting sharks. But, hey, I’ve got an audience, and they need to know what’s inside (and what they’re not missing …).

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Post a Comment

Use KwickXML formatting to markup your comments: <b>, <i>, <u> <s>, <quote author="...">, <url href="...">, etc. You may need to refresh before you will see your comment.




Remember personal info?

  


Comment #184464

Posted by DL on June 24, 2007 7:08 PM (e)

Amazing! And besiders detractors they actually get people there? Unbelievable!

Comment #184465

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on June 24, 2007 7:11 PM (e)

I love the group picture at the end.

Comment #184468

Posted by IamSpartacus on June 24, 2007 8:12 PM (e)

I love the “Evils of Human Reasoning” theme.
Isn’t it funny that the creationists blast human reasoning–the language of science–yet turn around and use it when criticizing Evolution (with Intelligent Design)?

It’s not like you’ll ever hear a scientist talk about gravity in terms of good or evil–the language of religion. Using one type of language to talk about a wholly different concept would just be silly.

Comment #184470

Posted by Martin Wagner on June 24, 2007 8:59 PM (e)

Isn’t it funny that the creationists blast human reasoning–the language of science–yet turn around and use it when criticizing Evolution (with Intelligent Design)

I think you mean misuse it, but your point is taken.

What amuses me no end about fundies is that, on the one hand, they disdain science because of its annoying habit of throwing cold water on their precious superstitions. On the other hand, they recognize in science the necessary agent of prestige one needs to have one’s views accepted by the educated in a post-Enlightenment, rational society. So the gobbledygook they come up with in the act of mangling science to promote their ideologies is truly awe inspiring to behold.

Comment #184471

Posted by Jason Rosenhouse on June 24, 2007 9:26 PM (e)

They only got my eyes and nose? Is there no end to their treachery!

Comment #184475

Posted by Sir_Toejam on June 24, 2007 9:34 PM (e)

coulda been worse; Steve Steve might have been sitting on top of her head.

Comment #184491

Posted by dan on June 24, 2007 11:19 PM (e)

ya but, Jason….the rainbow ends at YOU

Comment #184495

Posted by lamuella on June 24, 2007 11:43 PM (e)

“Isn’t it funny that the creationists blast human reasoning–the language of science–yet turn around and use it when criticizing Evolution (with Intelligent Design)?”

I mist have missed the point where an intelligent design advocate used reasoning skills. Do you have a link?

Comment #184499

Posted by Richard on June 25, 2007 12:05 AM (e)

Was that Adam sculpture anatomically correct?

Comment #184505

Posted by FanBoy on June 25, 2007 1:20 AM (e)

Besides, Jason… you’re no Tara either.

Comment #184512

Posted by RBH on June 25, 2007 2:40 AM (e)

Something that’s not been mentioned in the various posts on the Creamuseum as far as I’ve seen is its organization. Rather than being able to wander pretty much ad lib, one was pretty much confined to a definite route. It was hard to freelance around in it out of that route. I haven’t thought about the organization and implications of that route much – anyone else?

Comment #184527

Posted by AJ on June 25, 2007 5:51 AM (e)

I just love the way that they admit in huge posters that they don’t give any credence to human reasoning. I mean, we know that’s how many of them think, but I laughed when I saw that they freely admitted it!!

Comment #184531

Posted by Ron Okimoto on June 25, 2007 7:06 AM (e)

So the AIG is in the camp where the continents moved during the flood, so how did all the animals get back to where they belonged? How did the marsupials get back to Australia where the fossils of their ancestors got burried? Where did all the heat go? How did the crust keep from melting and the water not boil off? Did they have any explanations?

There was some creationists claiming that the continents moved after the flood and took all the animals with them, but they must be in the minority.

What happened to the creationists that used to claim that continental drift was bogus? Weren’t Morris and Gish in that camp?

Comment #184535

Posted by pwe on June 25, 2007 7:42 AM (e)

RBH wrote:

Something that’s not been mentioned in the various posts on the Creamuseum as far as I’ve seen is its organization. Rather than being able to wander pretty much ad lib, one was pretty much confined to a definite route. It was hard to freelance around in it out of that route. I haven’t thought about the organization and implications of that route much – anyone else?

Well, I have no actual knowledge about the organization of the museum, but a fair guess is that the only route to choose among follows the biblical narrative. After all, you are told a story, and when you read a story-book, it won’t work to read the pages in just any order. The same heere, I guess. It is not science, you are supposed to come out feeling saved, not enlightened.

- pwe

Comment #184536

Posted by Gerard Harbison on June 25, 2007 7:45 AM (e)

Still, it must have been a relief for Steve Steve to find out his ancestors were Specially Created, and he’s not a cousin to those scuzzy and far less cute red pandas.

Comment #184539

Posted by Tim Tesar on June 25, 2007 8:12 AM (e)

Hey Steve, thanks for the report. Would you please explain how you were able to cavort about the displays so much without being harassed by museum staff? Thanks.

Comment #184543

Posted by nate on June 25, 2007 8:46 AM (e)

awesome museum… it is about time someone questioned the religion of evolution… amazing how scientists can criticize creationism and yet have so much faith to believe the pieced together mess that evolution is… I am glad you spent money and supported the museum though, take your kids back someday and let them know there are alternate theories on the origins of the earth and maybe when your religion will be exposed for what it is. You may find it won’t be accepted as scientific fact when people find out there are alternate theories out there and see the many holes and missing links in evolution.

How can evolutionists explain the nature that happened following the Mt. St. helens eruption? Coal being formed in a few years instead of millions of years, canyons with rivers down the middle created in seconds and not millions of years, fossilized trees in seconds… the list goes on and on

the normal response from “scientists”… “What eruption?”

Comment #184549

Posted by Kristine on June 25, 2007 9:02 AM (e)

Oh yeah, nate, I just put some dirt in my microwave and it forms charcoal in seconds. Yeah.

And I never knew the real story of weeds.

Forget that - what’s the real story of weed? I quit cold turkey years ago, but I’ll try what nate’s smoking. Does Hammie grow it?

Comment #184560

Posted by ckerst on June 25, 2007 9:55 AM (e)

What did dino’s eat? If they weren’t subject to death why would they eat anything? There would be no need to eat to sustain life if your could never end.

Comment #184563

Posted by IamSpartacus on June 25, 2007 10:48 AM (e)

No no, lamuella.
When I used “it” in my previous comment, I neglected to include the word “try”–as in “try to use [reasoning]” (Like the whole mess about the C-value paradox Intelligent Designers are currently espousing).

I just meant that it’s silly to hear them try and use reason-based scientific language to give support to non-scientific faith-based ideas

Also, Steve-Steve certainly gets around. Quite the popular Panda.

Comment #184566

Posted by David Stanton on June 25, 2007 10:59 AM (e)

Nate,

Got any references for any of that, (from the scientific peer-reviewed literature). Or did you (or someone else) just make all that stuff up?

Comment #184569

Posted by Glen Davidson on June 25, 2007 11:33 AM (e)

How can evolutionists explain the nature that happened following the Mt. St. helens eruption? Coal being formed in a few years instead of millions of years, canyons with rivers down the middle created in seconds and not millions of years, fossilized trees in seconds… the list goes on and on

They’re called “PRATTs” (point refuted a thousand times), and yes the list of PRATTs goes on and on, in more than one sense.

Coal can be formed in a relatively short period of time, while coal beds formed in progressions and/or regressions with interdeposited limestone facies, takes a very long time. Even limestone itself takes time to sediment out of the ocean, far longer than the year or so in which various chowderheads claim that virtually all limestone sedimented.

Canyons generally take a long time to form, which is the only way in which the Colorado could cut its v-shape into the dome of the Kaibab Plateau (after having produced meanders earlier). You have to explain how the river managed to go uphill to carve the Grand Canyon.

And nobody is really claiming any more that the world is old based upon processes of canyon-carving, fossil formation, coal formation, &tc. Converging lines of evidence (radiometric and other dating methods, evolution of the sun, cosmic ray dating, etc.) show the earth solar system to be much older than even the oldest dates suggested (based on the evidence) 75 years ago or so. That you can’t explain how the coal beds formed during a flood is just part and parcel of the impossibility of your “flood,” for which you are completely lacking in evidence in any case.

The sad thing about your PRATTs is that they wouldn’t even be evidence against the old earth even if they were true and relevant to known fossils, coal, and canyons. And the reason why you resort to attacks on our evidenced position is that no judge in the world could convict the flood of doing one thing, since there is no evidence for any worldwide flood within the last 20,000 years or so.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39o

Comment #184570

Posted by Peter Henderson on June 25, 2007 11:37 AM (e)

Got any references for any of that, (from the scientific peer-reviewed literature). Or did you (or someone else) just make all that stuff up?

The Mt St Helens claim is probably referring to this piece of nonsense David:

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/mt_st_helens_…

i.e. A rock that was formed during the Mt St Helens eruption in the 1980’s has been dated to “millions of years” using radiometric dating methods, thus rendering those dating methods unreliable and essentially useless. I’ve heard this claim made in numerous AiG talks.

Nice report Steve Steve. I liked the photo at the end and it sounds as if it was a nice day out.

Do NCSE still do the project Steve T- Shirts ? Since my son is called Stephen I’d love to get my hands on one !

Comment #184576

Posted by Science Avenger on June 25, 2007 1:13 PM (e)

Nate said:

You may find it won’t be accepted as scientific fact when people find out there are alternate theories out there and see the many holes and missing links in evolution.

You forget that creationism was the accepted model for hundreds of years until evolution came along. Then despite being resisted by all the powerful institutions, evolutionary theory came to be accepted, bit by evidenciary bit, while creationism was discared.

Why do you suppose that is? And has any hypothesis, in the history of human thought, been supplanted like that, only to rise again decades later to be reaccepted?

Comment #184577

Posted by Jedidiah Palosaari on June 25, 2007 1:16 PM (e)

Wow. There are a lot of pandas at the museum…

Comment #184584

Posted by deejay on June 25, 2007 2:36 PM (e)

“In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida baby, don’t you know I’ll always be true.”

Well, some will always be more true than others. ;)

Comment #184589

Posted by Glenn Branch on June 25, 2007 3:50 PM (e)

Peter Henderson wrote:

Do NCSE still do the project Steve T-Shirts? Since my son is called Stephen I’d love to get my hands on one!”

Yes. Steve 700 t-shirts are still available; Steve 800 t-shirts are probably going to appear over the summer.

Comment #184593

Posted by Peter Henderson on June 25, 2007 4:11 PM (e)

Thanks for the info. Glenn. I’ll have to order 2 or 3. One for myself, and a couple for the kids !

Stephen has been to the dinosaur display at the Ulster museum on at least one occasion with his school, so hopefully he’s grasped the concept of “millions of years”. The museum is closed for refurbishment at the moment, but when it re-opens I’ll take Michael (my other son) along as well. His teacher tells me in his school report that he’s a keen scientist !

Comment #184600

Posted by Art on June 25, 2007 5:23 PM (e)

RBH said:

Something that’s not been mentioned in the various posts on the Creamuseum as far as I’ve seen is its organization. Rather than being able to wander pretty much ad lib, one was pretty much confined to a definite route. It was hard to freelance around in it out of that route. I haven’t thought about the organization and implications of that route much – anyone else?

Two comments. First, it’s likely that the creators of the museum were hoping, or expecting, large crowds. This sort of arrangement is used in other places to keep things moving, so that everyone gets to have their fill, so to speak. The Newport Aquarium has a similar linear arrangement

Second, we must remember that it’s all about evangelism, converting, and collecting. The punch line for the museum is “The Last Adam” - that is the place’s altar call. And, not coincidentally, it’s at the end of the line of, um, exhibits. Ham may have his own schtick, but underneath the veneer it’s pretty standard revival fare. Some Bible, some fire and brimstone, and then the altar call. You see the same in your friendly neighborhood megachurch, at a Benny Hinn or a Billy Graham crusade, at yer summertime tent revival.

Make no mistake - this place is not about science. It’s about converting and collecting.

Comment #184614

Posted by Peter Henderson on June 25, 2007 6:40 PM (e)

They have a review of their own on their website today:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/06…

The museum’s replica of the Lucy skeleton is just one of the many similar displays that show very plainly how scientists’ presuppositions influence their conclusions. A scientist who believes the biblical account of creation would see nothing more than an “ape from southern Africa” (which is literally what its name means) in the assortment of bones now hanging in the display case. But a scientist who has been conditioned to see millions of years and evolution will probably find a missing link in those bones—despite the conspicuous lack of feet, hands, or even an intact hipbone.

Computer animations show how tectonic activity on the ocean floor and huge tsunami-producing earthquakes could combine to cover the earth in water in just over a month. Alongside these displays are placards that answer common questions about the Flood. Secular scientists claim that the geological strata show less complex organisms at the bottom and more complex ones as you go up, attributing this to the evolutionary process over millions and millions of years. But if we consider the order of burial during the cataclysmic activity of the Flood, it makes perfect sense that sea creatures would be buried first, followed by invertebrates and finally by mammals and other vertebrates. The placard shown here gives an example of how the sequence could have worked during the first few hours of the Flood.

So there you have it. All those who doubt the science of the museum have had their questions answered. I assume David MacMillan III (the author of the above nonsense) is a young Earth creationist and not a neutral observer ?

Comment #184622

Posted by C Welch on June 25, 2007 7:46 PM (e)

“Of course it’s NOT Adam and Steve…It’s Adam and Stephen.”

-David Rakoff

Comment #184634

Posted by Lance Wilson on June 25, 2007 9:19 PM (e)

A little troll going by the name of nate wrote:

“How can evolutionists explain the nature that happened following the Mt. St. Helen’s eruption? Coal being formed in a few years instead of millions of years, canyons with rivers down the middle created in seconds and not millions of years, fossilized trees in seconds… the list goes on and on ….the normal response from “scientists”… “What eruption?””

Based on the absurdity of your pathetic statement, I must wonder if you actually visited Mount St Helens, or are you merely repeating the drivel that was spooned fed to you.

Of course I find it amazing how on the one hand, geologists had studied Mount St Helens before (including accurately predicting what would happen in 1980, except for the landslide and the lateral blast) and after the 1980 eruption, were suddenly too “stupid” to understand the eruption.

Here is a direct response. First, there are no comparisons to Step Canyon (What YECers like to call the “Little Grand Canyon”) and the (real) Grand Canyon. Step Canyon goes through fields of unconsolidated pyroclastic flow deposits that is subject to easy erosion from the wet Pacific Northwest climate and there is a 2000 foot elevation drop within 1 mile, further adding to the erosion. The claim that there are fossilized trees at Mount St Helens is also nonsense. The trees in Spirit Lake has not fossilized because there had been no exchange of silica and since Spirit Lake has no silica, it is very unlikely that any of the trees in the lake will fossilized anytime soon. Mount St Helens had been active for 50,000 years and there are buried trees around the mountain from past eruptions and mudflows(about 17 explosive eruptions in the last 4,000 years), but none of these trees have fossilized either. They have however, served as a useful tool date previous eruptions of the mountain. Finally, I would hold off on filing a mining claim at Spirit Lake for coal. The bottom of the lake is 33 degrees F, which is far to cold for the microbe activity needed to form peat, let alone coal.

Of course Nate, you would know this, if you actually bothered to read the hundreds of USGS publications on Mount St Helens, the hundreds more of the peer reviewed studies published about the mountain, or had merely paid a visit to Johnston Ridge Observatory and talked to one of the Rangers working at the Mount St Helens National Volcanic Monument. So, before you grace us with your opinion, I recommend you get a clue first.

Comment #184638

Posted by Lance Wilson on June 25, 2007 9:49 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'u'

Comment #184639

Posted by Lance Wilson on June 25, 2007 9:54 PM (e)

Sorry about the error in my description of using buried trees at Mount St Helens as a dating tool of previous eruptions. The correct phrase should had been “They have however, served as a useful tool to date previous eruptions of the mountain.” I guess I allowed Nate’s comment to get the better of me.

By the way, thank you Prof. Steve-Steve for your bravery. Between your photographs and those of others, I no longer need to leave my beloved Mount St Helens area to make the 2,500 mile drive to Ken Hams Hall of Propaganda.

Comment #184677

Posted by Gary Hurd on June 26, 2007 9:16 AM (e)

As Art pointed out, modern museum display design is intended to move groups of people through in fairly short amounts of time. Studies have actually been done on how many seconds people will look at a given case, or panel. The leading research on crowd flow control was by theme parks and malls.

When you have four to six elementry school classes (just two or three buses from one schol)in your museum you need them to move through the display area without overlapping, or needing to cross through each other. Adding schools makes this all the more important. Training docents can work in two ways; either try to make “specialists,” or provide a sequential presentation they can all learn. The latter is the easiest.

Comment #184829

Posted by VJB on June 27, 2007 9:32 AM (e)

Lovely group photo at the end. Nice to see our kind of folks all together having a good time. But better not let Ann Althouse see Tara standing out front in the middle in 3/4 profile looking pretty durn cute. Tara might get yelled at for possessing some secondary sexual attributes ( see for example url href=”http://www.madkane.com/ann-althouse.html> .

Comment #185015

Posted by Ryan Nolan on June 28, 2007 12:13 PM (e)

wow nice panda

Comment #185016

Posted by Ryan Nolan on June 28, 2007 12:14 PM (e)

wow nice panda

Comment #185091

Posted by dbetger on June 29, 2007 8:49 AM (e)

Rather than being able to wander pretty much ad lib, one was pretty much confined to a definite route. It was hard to freelance around in it out of that route. I haven’t thought about the organization and implications of that route much – anyone else?

No worries; I’m sure the route was intelligently designed.

Comment #185273

Posted by Bruce Thompson GQ on June 30, 2007 2:04 PM (e)

If there truly were post fall panda eating dinosaurs as depicted it would certainly explain the extinction of the recently discovered early pygmy pandas fossil remains in China (1) . These diminutive pandas were at clear disadvantage in their environment, perhaps existing solely as a food source for some species of dinosaur. This would help explain the loss of at least one species of dinosaurs in Ken Ham’s timeline. It was the loss of little pandas as a food source that brought the mighty dinosaurs to extinction. Of course now there is a PR nightmare, competition between cute dinosaurs and cuddly pandas, one of which is eating the other.

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Comment #186905

Posted by Mel on July 10, 2007 10:05 AM (e)

The ridiculousness of this museum has finally pushed me to join American Atheists. They haven’t “converted and collected” me!