That would be kind of a cool museum to visit, though. I can’t remember who visited it (maybe Al Franken?), but apparently there’s one part, with a dinosaur ride. THAT would be cool. Who wouldn’t want to ride a dinosaur?
Lulli Akin.
Ken Ham did this once before with Nye. Get a load of this cartoon:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/overheads/pages/oh20030808_187.asp
Are you kidding? We have full scale models of the Star Trek USS Enterprise made in Minecraft. Somebody, somewhere has to have at least tried such a feat, even if they gave up.
Well yes, but that is clearly a productive and reasonable use of ones time.
Beyond disgusting. This is why I’ll never trust homeschooling. They include field trips to places like this. Bill Nye was great to do this.
Exactly WHAT do these parents think they’re doing FOR their kids? Helping them become intelligent? Yes, Jeebus rode dinosaurs, he even blessed the stegosaurus with horny plates and cursed the T-Rex with pussy arms and a pussy frame! The ark had ALL the animals, including dolphins and sharks who lived happily ever after because yahweh told them to! And everybody lived over 600 years back then! They could all build arks if they wanted to! And pancakes are giant communion wafers with syrup from trees that god gave us and saying a prayer on one knee will make you lopsided.
I am dumbfounded lately how the word “fact” can mean anything you make up. Or how people use “there’s no proof of that” for evolution but never use it for religion. I’m even more dumbfounded how creationist idiots can’t separate faith and science. When I was a kid in catholic school, it always seemed separated as faith in god is “this” and knowledge of science is “that”. As a matter of fact, no one ever told us that science was anti-religious, but more like how god wants us to learn as much as we can about our world. These freaks in Creationland don’t even teach the word “theory” correctly.
Best thing to do might be collecting the names and addresses from the parents who bring their kids to the Religious Masturbation Creationland and send in child services.
I remember the Tower of Babel - all 37 feet of it, which I suppose was impressive at the time. And when it fell they howled, “Divine Wrath!” But come on, dried dung can only be stacked so high
Ale tries to look inconspicuous and inches towards the door.
Sadly, I live only a few measly miles from this place across the Ohio River in Indiana. I can feel its godly gravity tugging at me.
If you go, bring some matches. If they built it to bible specs, it’ll be gone in 60 seconds. 
what is the difference between historical science and observational science?
What in hell *is *historical science? Aristotle? Ptolemy? What kind of term is that, even?
I’ll guess Ken Ham says historical science is in the bible, observational science is a parlor trick.
“Historical science” is a science that studies something that already happened. “Observational science” is something you can recreate in a lab. Creationists want to separate things like physics (which clearly work - leading to things like electronic devices that they themselves use and enjoy) with geology, cosmology, paleontology, and evolution. Since we can’t re-create the universe or even just earth in a lab and watch it develop, they want to claim that we can’t really know what happened.
This is a silly distinction for creationists to make for at least two reasons.
-
Every science is historical in some sense and observational in some sense. What we know about how the earth formed and developed is known precisely because of observations that were (and are) done today. There is no fundamental difference between making observations of rock layers today and extrapolating into the past millions of years and making observations of bits of particles today and extrapolating microseconds into the past. It’s a difference of degree, yes, but not of kind.
-
Creationists love to commit a fallacy that I call “Nobody knows; therefore I know.” The infamous Kent “Dr. Dino” Hovind liked to tell children to ask, “Were you there?” That is, if a teacher were to try to teach these children about evolutionary history, the child should play the trump card, “Were you there?” The implication is that if they weren’t, they can’t possibly know that really happened. This is a fallacy in itself, of course. But Creationists go further. After arguing (or at least implying) that nobody can possibly know what happened in the past (since we weren’t there), they then go on to posit a story of exactly what they think happened in the past. Even though they weren’t there either.
In summary, even Creationists have a hard time rejecting all of science. It’s just too obvious that it works. Their harping on the distinction between “historical” and “observational” science is an attempt keep the science even they can’t reject while doing away with the vast amount of troublesome science they would prefer to ignore.
BlackKnight: Wonderful job explaining that nonsense. However, there are Creationists who deny what would be classed as “observational science”; for example, Andy Schlafly and his Conservapedia Brigade deny the theory of relativity:
Here’s an article from [del]headdesk[/del] Newsdesk.org on the subject, with this quote:
To be clear, GPS wouldn’t work without relativity. We need relativity to do anything regarding gravity, high-speed transportation, accurate timing, and even quantum physics (quantum field theories specifically incorporate special relativity, incorporation of general relativity being a future project).
Their brains really are broken, aren’t they.
<wanders off to wonder at the incredible capacity of humankind to deceive itself>
I once saw Duane Gish speak, and, in his speech, he ridiculed scientists for believing in “colorless, odorless, invisible gases.”
I had to take a deep breath…
I didn’t see what you did there.