Which helps explain the serpent’s appeal to Eve.
Since Adam had no dangly bits, I’d guess that Cain, Abel and sibs were immaculately conceived…
Bump forgiven, as the concept of a dickless Original Progenitor brightened my day immeasurably.
My guess would be that if the sketch on the museum’s website is an accurate representation of what the “Adam and Eve” exhibit will look like when it’s done, that maybe it’s just a budgetary consideration, not a doctrinal fiat, as Adam is up to his waist in water, and why pay for a penis when you don’t really need one? Like with department store mannequins…
I notice that Eve has hair covering her breasts, so I’ll be interested to see if Ken Ham splurged on tits.
And I’m fascinated to see that the Serpent is…purple. I guess it’s not green or brown or black like other normal, eco-system-dwelling reptiles because it’s not really a reptile, see, it’s Satan, and so it can’t be a normal color. But then the question arises, why isn’t it scarlet?
Museum walkthrough for those with too much time on their hands this morning.
I notice that in Ken Ham’s blog for today, he says:
Uh huh.
And something like 50% of all so-called Christians don’t consider Catholics, or Christians who can think, to be Christians.
Well, I’m going to go, and hang out all day in the
**Stargazers’ Room **
Peer back into the deepest recesses of the heavens, and discover that the latest images of the stars confirm an all powerful Creator, not a random bang!
'Coz I just have to find out: what can possibly be better than a random bang? 
See from one of the posts in an earlier thread that no government money was going into the museum. In that event I find it hard to see what is so pit worthy about a private entity spending money on something that is perfectly legal.
Arguing about the percentage that might believe the subject matter also strikes me as a bit of a diversion. Even if only 1% believe in it what’s so wrong about them having a museum that caters to thier understanding of history.
People choose to go to the museum or people choose not to go to the museum. This OP frankly strikes me as narrow minded anti creationist whining. What’s next whining about creationist books being published. Moaning about people being able to speak about creationism in the street.
Here is a much shorter, graphical and musical summary of this pitting:
(wait for it to load)
No, I think we will go straight to the moaning about creationism being taught in schools, given equal time to evoultion.
And perfectly stupid. Hence, a pitting.
Basically the same thing that’s wrong with Holocaust deniers having a museum that caters to their understanding of history. It’s stupid and full of BS.
I actually had a sophomore make that statement in class the other day. “Well, Catholics aren’t Christians.” After my mind stopped boggling, I shut down the brewing religious war before she started in on the 7 Mormons in that class. Some people…
You know how is with Immaculate Conception…it’s a big deal the first time.
And the last time.
The ones in the middle nobody gives a shit about - kind of like kids! And plagues.
-Joe
It’s not about whose money is being spent. It’s that this endeavor is actively working to increase the net amount of ignorance in the Universe.
Something you find non-pit-worthy about that?
Yea, in all honesty I don’t believe genitals are standard equipment on animatronic figures regardless of their realism. Most of the time they are covered with clothing so there is no need for their inclusion just like mannequins. Plus, a dangling menmber on a public exhibit would present a problem in most places due to general societal prohibitions, not just a creationist Museum… I mean, I really doubt that Honest Abe is packing at Disney. It was just so shocking to see such incredibly naturalistic art with this weird discontinuation… It looks like that area was sculpted in a special configuration like a flap and some kind of “shelf joint” per industry design for practical mechanical access and some kind of mounting. So yea, I was being a bit facetious… but if I were (in some alternate universe) able to have an animatronic display featuring Adam and Eve, I would specify total anatomic realism and definitely display them sans fig leaf in all of God’s Glory. I just thought the irony of the whole thing was overpowering, re3gardless. I also see from their website that they have several displays featuring Adam, so I’m not sure which Adam this particular one is.
I did remark to some others that I wanted to come see Eve when they start on her. 
I mean, these guys are good… the ladies at the party really seemed to enjoy Adam.
Where is the financing from?Is it using church collections?
The cash is probably coming from some Cabal of Christian Corporations… It’s probably laundered money from Chik-Fil-A and the CBN (700 Club).
Because it’s promoting something stupid and dangerous. Would a museum designed to promote the idea of white racial superiority be ok with you ?
Okay, so…quick! Pop quiz! Would you have Adam with–or without–a belly button?
[snerk]
If it was done without government money? Sure, absolutely. Freedom of speech means allowing and even defending those things you don’t like or agree with too, you know.
When they say that 50% of Americans are “creationists”, do they mean that they all believe literally in the Biblical creation story, word-for-word?
Or does that include those who accept the idea of an old earth, evolution, and millions of years of prehistoric life, but insist that God got the whole thing started?
I think there’s different meanings of “be OK with me”. I don’t think the Klan or the Christian Reconstructionists or Fred Phelps should be suppressed by the government, but that doesn’t mean I’m “OK with” their ideas. Using my free speech to oppose someone else’s freely spoken ideas doesn’t make me anti-free speech.
This news release from the National Center for Science Education indicates that as of November 2004 45% of Americans agreed with the statement “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so”. Another 38% chose “Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process”, which could be taken as compatible with either “theistic evolution” or the more sophisticated forms of “intelligent design” a la Michael Behe (either God’s guidance is scientifically indistinguishable from evolution by natural selection, in the same way God can be considered to “guide the stars in their courses” in a way which is not scientifically distinguishable from the workings of gravity; or God intervened in the multi-million year process of human development from other lifeforms in ways which are allegedly scientifically distinguishable from evolution by natural selection–“irreducible complexity” and all that woo-woo). 13% chose “Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process”, which sounds pretty atheistic to me, or at most a remote and impersonal form of Deism. 4% told the question asker to fuck off, said they had no clue, launched into an hour-long disquisition on their views of the Meaning of Life and How It’s All Connected, Man, etc.