 |
|
|
|
|
January 27th, 2011
09:44 AM ET
Tax incentives for biblical theme park?Is Kentucky giving tax breaks to a for profit religious group a violation of the establishment clause in the constitution? Supporters say the life sized ark theme park is for profit and will bring jobs and tourists to the area. Critics say the park has religious conversion in mind and the state should not be giving the group tax incentives. Anderson Cooper takes a look at the controversy. Ken Ham, the President of Answers in Genesis, Reverend Barry Lynn, Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Jeff Toobin, CNN legal analyst all weigh in on the controversy.
Next entry »U.S. missionary in Mexico fatally shot
« Previous entry'Call Me Jacob': Jewish names tops in baby derby
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Yes there should realize the opportunity to RSS commentary, quite simply, CMS is another on the blog.
http://www.regiondo.de
People are actually whining about tax incentives for this Ark project? I'd be more concerned with my tax dollars being spent to provide those M-1 A-1 tanks to a soon to be hostile to the U.S. Eygptian government. Kind of like the Iranians when they diposed the Shah and left them with F-14 Tomcats. A few of those tanks in Cairo cost more than this project. Think about this when you're paying $5.00 a gallon because the Suez Canal is possessed by a hostile regime brought to you by the 'religion of peace'.
This is for Luke, not necessarily for Keith. I have read these responses with interest. Luke, you miss the same point most evolutionists miss–evolution is a position of faith. Creation science is a position of faith. It happens that I have studied these positions and taught their differences. I will gladly accept you calling me a moron if you can answer any one of 40 questions I have for you. First–According to Science Magazine the sun is shrinking 5 feet an hour and has been for billions of years. If you take the math back 10 million years, the sun would be scorching the earth. If you take the math back 20 million years, the sun would be TOUCHING the earth. How is it that dinosaurs became extinct 70 million years ago? Once I get this answer, I have 49 more for you. Thank you in advance for your kind response.
Mike T.
Mike T. – "Faith" in observable physical evidence is not the same as "faith" in the supernatural and in the absence of physical evidence. Evolution is no more a "position of faith" than Gravity, Germ Theory or Atomic Theory are "positions of faith". This erroneous conflation undermines your claim of "study" though I've no doubt you've certainly "taught" this as an accurate comparison.
The failings of the shrinking sun argument have been discussed elsewhere if you care to investigate. Suffice it to say, that AIG and ICR are superimposing a linear trend onto a cyclical phenomena and then inappropriately extrapolating the trend back for millions of years to support a young-earth position. The true cause(s) for the extinction of the dinosaurs has no definitive answer but many interesting hypotheses. You might have chosen any number of discrete mass extinctions, but for each case, drowning in a global flood has never been supported by any physical evidence. Before moving on to your other questions, I'd suggest cross-referencing them to the TalkOrigins creationist claims archive (just to save you some time).
But since you brought them up, how did every last dinosaur, ranging in size from smaller than a chicken to larger than a city bus, occupying virtually every known ecological niche (from sea to land to air) and which according to literal interpretations coexisted with all other animals both before and after the flood, wind up buried very, very far beneath every extant mammal and virtually all extinct mammals?
Sure Mike,
Your [moron] question is quite common among young earth creationists and others that don't bother to get answers to such questions from cosmologists.
This rate does not refer to the surface of the sun. Instead we are talking about a layer extending beneath the visible surface. The rate of shrinking may be accounted for by an increasing radial component of the rms random magnetic field at a rate that depends on its radial distribution.
When the core shrinks the outer layers expand. In many millions of years it will eventually be so close to earth that it will engulf earth.
This is the same process that creates black holes. Stars are powered by nuclear fusion. It converts hydrogen to helium. When the core runs out of hydrogen, it begins to covert lower weight elements into heavier elements. Once it begins to make iron, the star is dead...and does it ever die. A supernova will blow up in a gamma ray burst, which creates more energy in a fraction of a second than our sun will ever put out. The resulting core is so dense, that a black hole opens.
What's next on your list?
Mike T.,
I have a simple response for you: YOU are an idiot !
If you're using AIG to formulate those questions, and if they're based on 'evidence' from AIG, then you couldn't be anything else.
Evolution is NOT based on faith. It is based on FACT. The difference between HYPOTHESIS (what YOU have) and THEORY is huge. To be a THEORY it must have FACTS to base that theory on. An HYPOTHESIS needs no facts. THAT is what AIG has. Nothing but HYPOTHESIS. And ignorance.
This is what I teach my students. It is basic, simple and easy. Of course, AIG and YOU, evidently, don't understand the basics. Quite sad. Funny, to be sure, but sad, all the same.......
Still awaiting your 49 more brain busters, Mike. It's been two days and you are yet to reply to my answer. As such, I think you realized who you are messing with.
Luke and others: You have to remember that Creationists use a form of reverse psychology when arguing evolution. Instead of telling us what they really believe, they try to get YOU to explain what evolution IS, knowing you can't explain everything (as scientists are nothing if not honest) so they can pick it apart. Don't fall for it. Turn it around on them and get them to show why they believe that Creationism is factual....they can't. Then you'll have them.....
Nadine,
I can explain the Theory of Evolution quite well as I've been studying evolution for half of my life. And when I don't fully grasp an idea, I am man enough to say that I don't understand fully and can point anyone in the right direction. PZ Myers is a good source of data, as is Dr. Richard Dawkins. If you, for example, read On the Origin of Species and wanted to read a follow up piece in modern tongue, you could read The Greatest Show on Earth over the weekend. There is no trap. Evolution is testable, predictable and measurable. If you have a question, I'll help you out.
Now we can see how many animals can actually fit on the the ark, i'll bring the termites.
Jeff...too funny. How many centuries do you think it would take to fill that ark? Who's going to pay to bring over all the animal from Australia and New Zealand? Not to mention Northern America, which has many species of animals that aren't in Europe or the Middle East???
the entire thing is so ridiculous and outrageous, it really amazes me that any of these seemingly intelligent adults could ever believe this. They must be sad individuals, indeed, to have to rely on such BS to make their lives whole. Pitiful.......
So I suppose I'm the only one that took the time to actually go open a bible I own and read the stories of Noah and the Ark. It's surprising, actually, what you'll learn if you just read (I'm talking to you believers). Turns out that in addition to his myth about saving animals and repopulating the earth, he also got wasted on the deck of his ark only to be discovered naked by one of his family members. This guy saw Noah naked so he covered him up with a blanket. Of course, Noah was displeased for being seen naked by another man (hom-ophobia I presume), so Noah did the natural thing and cast a spell on this poor guy. Yes – Noah was a wizard. Maybe a warlock. I'm honestly not sure of the difference.
I love the people that post things like: "there is a God and he loves you !"
Doesn't this remind any of you of George Carlin's take on god???? Here, for your enjoyment.....
" ... you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims: religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest bulls-hit story ever told.
Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man - living in the sky - who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!
BUT HE LOVES YOU !
He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more.
Now, you talk about a good bulls-hit story. Holy S-hit! "
LOVE it.....best description of a non-existent god ever. We miss you George.....you were the greatest
Luke-
That whole episode was just told to give the back story of why the Canaanites deserved the genocide God later dealt them. There had to be some justification for killing all of them, after all.
Oops, I meant killing most of them. The Hebrews enslaved the rest as per the curse. God be merciful!
Noah wasn't seen naked on the ark, he was off the ark. And it was his son that saw him and went to his own brothers to humiliate Noah and bring him shame. Next time you read, try remembering what you read before you report on it.
John – Oh, so that makes it better? Makes perfect sense now, right?
John, you are funny!
ALL this does is prove that Genesis wasn't written by god but by man. WHY would god want man to be ASHAMED of what god gave him....his naked body? Only man could come up with this pile of crap. You guys are just digging a bigger hole for yourselves that you'll never get out of.
@Nadine
Thanks for bringing in some Carlin. LOL...!
Peace...
@John
I'm curious... Are we to assume that your correction of -Luke somehow makes the story *true*...?
Peace...
They should only get any tax breaks if God turns up to open it.. but as any of the god humans have invented are very shy, I doubt if it will happen!
If God actually does show up at this event I think it likely that tax breaks will be the least of these folks' worries. He tends to only show up in fatherly personal when mass extinction is on His mind.
@NL
And even then, all we ever see are the alleged works of god (small "g"intended, I refuse to play the believer's silly capitalization game – it only encourages them) but never the dude himself. He is either really shy, or non-existent, and non-existence better explains his invisibility and other baffling behaviors (not that I am conceding his existence by writing as if he exists, merely referring to the imaginary enti!y charlatans have created).
" – Luke: yes, millions of people believe what the Bible clearly says. We do so by faith, but there is plenty of archeological and fossil record evidence. "
I don't remember who said this and I can't find it, but I wanted to respond:
WRONG. there is no archaeological evidence of a world-wide flood. There has been massive flooding in all parts of the world, but not all at the same time. Not since man has been on the earth, approximately 50,000 YA, if you're talking about modern man with the same looks and capabilities that we have.
Fossils of sea creatures on top of mountains, especially where I live, in the Rockies, are easily explained. Mountains are made by subduction caused by plate tectonics, and the Rockies are the newest range of mountains in North America. The reason we find marine fossils here is because we used to be flat.....is that so difficult for you to understand? I guess so.
As an archaeologist, I HATE it when people who are NOT archaeologists claim they have evidence for biblical myths when it isn't possible for them to have them. You've been listening to idiots like KEN HAM. HE isn't a scientist, either. did you KNOW that? This is all so stupid. AND having the fossils doesn't always tell their story. Unless YOU actually did all the digging and have proof of the stratigraphy, then you have NOTHING. End of story.
Those of us who are right-wing Christian fanatics believe the Bible is the literal Word of God and that it has the answer for everything. We look and cite to the New Testament for our politics and economics ("The U.S. must be Jesus' reign on Earth!") and we look to the Old Testament for our science ("The universe was made in 6 days just a few thousand years ago.")
So repent your sinful archeological ways and find truth not in actual artifacts that can be studied with scientific instruments and the rational mind God gave you, but instead look solely to the Bible, in which there has never been any human transcription error of any word in the Bible throughout hundreds of years of Jewish oral history and multiple layers of translations from Aramic and ancient Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English, etc., etc.
http://www.whatwouldamericanjesusdo.com
WWAJD....
VERY funny.....you have a decent dry humor.
"Science" can't prove the origin of earth. And it is your understanding of the origin of the earth which drives your interpretations of the fossils which you discover in the ground. Science is defined as "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world." The scientific method is defined as "a method of procedure consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses." We have not observed something form out of nothing and there is no way to test this notion, therefore all understandings of the origin of the earth are purely religious and not scientific.
John
I think your understanding of the scientific method is off.Iit is true that,so far, science has no answers as to how the universe came into being, but has a very good understanding of the time after it was formed. It could have been a large blue dragon that sneezed the universe into being, or a bubble from another dimension, or an alien or god ..take your pick they are all as valid as others at this time. Science has been the best tool we have so far to measure and test our natural world, and has been very successful so far. Religion is not an equal method to science in any meaningful way.
After reading much of this blog I have only one thing to say: Thank God I'm an Atheist!
YEE haw, Ranandar....I'm with YOU !
CW,
One thing I have noticed, when we do not bend or waiver in our faith, some of the folks we talk to quickly resort to name calling, anger, and severe frustration! They carel ess about making points as they do about ATTEMPTING to make us appear foollish. The truth of the matter is the preaching of the Cross is FOOLISHNESS to those who are perishing! Stand strong brother! I know I will! Let's just move on to the next story!
@ Steve,
Amen to all your points....I got your back...you have mine. God Bl-'ess!!!!
Pretty sad when you NEED to watch each other's backs. Holy rollers are such a riot......weak individuals, to be sure.
Nadine,
I have never addressed you before. Let me say this. Yes we have each other's back. Why? Because God has ours! CW is my brother in the LORD! Simply read the back and forth between Luke and myself, re-read his pleas to David for support That support never came. Yet CW never asked me for support BUT here I am! Weakness is actually resorting to calling names rather than have a conversation even if we disagree! Yet when I am weak HE (the Lord) is strong! Bye!
Steve the real one....whatever that means....
So, do you believe that ALL men are your brother? Or do you pick and choose, much like the new Governor of Alabama does, and only accept believers?
REAL Christians accept everyone as their brother or sister, no matter what they believe. The worst offenders of this concept are almost always the Evangelical faction and the religious-right pundits. These are the very people that the Founders wanted to get away from. Interesting......
Nadine, All are not my brother But ALL are my neighbor. Jesus commanded us to love thy neighbor as thyself. Even Jesus did not use the term Brother He used the term Neighbor ! As that is the case I will not hate you, steal from you, or covet what is yours! Why? You are my Neighbor!
Steve the real one is just a line to separate me from the others Steves on line. That is what that means!
We see the something with facts though Steve.. there is a lot of chatter about how evolution is apparently incorrect, but no verifiable evidence is offered as a rebuttal. Science is humanities way of knowing how the world works and is the best tool we have so far to enable us to do that.
Steve, if you noticed in the video, this is exactly what happened to Ken Ham. Instead of a sound argument against the tax incentive, Ham was made fun of because of the use of the word "unicorns" in the bible. But the same guy who made fun of Ham for what the bible says wants us to believe we magically evolved from monkeys. Impossible for a horse with a horn on its head to have existed, but totally possible that a chimp turned into a human "over time."
Evolved DNA:
The reason there is no verifiable evidence for a rebuttal is because the debate isn't over the evidence itself, it is over the interpretation of the evidence we already have. We are all looking at the same evidence (fossils, layers of earth). We (Christians) interpret the evidence based on our understanding of science and God's word. Science for those aspects which can be tested and verified, and God's word (bible) for that which cannot be tested and verified. You do the same. You use science to verify that the fossils came from such and such creature and are male or female, etc... and you use your religious beliefs to interpret the rest, which is your belief on the origin of the earth and your absolute position that the supernatural does not exist (although the concept that something was created out of nothing is a belief in the supernatural because natural law tells us that matter cannot be created no destroyed).
John- You say "interpretation" by which you clearly mean magical explanation absent any basis for validity and would infer this is equally positioned with an interpretation based on testing and replicable results concordant with all of the other relevant scientific disciplines. Similarly, you attempt to equate science with religion by inferring that making hypotheses based on real time observable mechanisms, then testing the predictions of these hypotheses against the available historical physical evidence and then supporting or rejecting these hypotheses based on the outcome is the same thing as accepting on pure faith that the words in your holy book really did come from a magical father figure who lives in the sky. You clearly have no experience with actual science and are parroting the standard creationist blather. This is disingenuous at best and you betray any shred of intellectual honesty you may possess in even making these as-sertions of equality.
Whereas 160+ years of relentless testing has only continued to confirm the central tenets of biological evolution, creationism offers no credible supporting theories or evidence and fails to offer any meaningful explanations. After all this time, creationists still cannot remotely account for the organization of the fossil record, the geographic distribution of extinct and extant species, the presence of uniquely positioned parasitic DNA elements, the overlapping morphological features bridging the various hominid lineages, the Neanderthal's non-H. sapien DNA sequence, impact craters, distant star light, extra flood water removal, genetic bottlenecking for both humans and animals, etc, etc, etc.
But of course, we all know that this contrary physical evidence is just a test of our faith, that real science rejects creationism not because it lacks any support but because they want to "deny God" and they want to live sinful, decadent, hedonistic lives of their own accord, that there exists a magical answer but we just aren't privy to the "mysterious ways" of the "plan", AND that God is not tricky by allowing these contradictions because no matter how many children and babies drowned or ordered hacked to death, He is just and loving...
Where did he get the "unicorn" issue? Another fairy tale made up to undermine the words in Scripture? Another Bible illiterate jab? Many seculars don't want anything that contradicts their fairy tale science. They do not want to see a biblical world view, because it just may agree with scientific evidence for a recent global flood, which leads us to a God of judgment, who has sworn us to His wrath again! So in their book, this "theme" for a park, disturbs their "peaceful" existence, and tramples on their conscience...
Well, unicorns are mentioned in these places in the bible
"God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn."–Numbers 23:22
"God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn."–Numbers 24:8
"His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth."–Deuteronomy 33:17
"Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee? Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him? Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?"–Job 39:9-12
"Save me from the lion's mouth; for thou hast heard me from the horns of unicorns."–Psalms 22:21
"He maketh them [the cedars of Lebanon] also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn."–Psalms 29:6
"But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of the unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil."–Psalms 92:10
"And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with their bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness."–Isaiah 34:7
Your quarrel, I think, is with the classical representation of the unicorn as just a horse with a single horn coming out of it's forehead, something we can all agree is just ludicrous, right?
Catherine....
" Where did he get the "unicorn" issue? Another fairy tale made up to undermine the words in Scripture? "
Do we NEED anything to undermine scripture? The biggest fairy tale ever told. NO evidence that anything in the New Testament ever happened. NONE of it written down at the time it happened. It isn't history, as there is no physical evidence of any of it. We don't even have physical evidence that Jesus ever existed. WHO are you kidding?
" Many seculars don't want anything that contradicts their fairy tale science. "
TOO funny ! You say the bible is true, but PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACT is fairy tale? I want YOU to show me where science is wrong. WE have physical proof of everything we claim. We HAVE to, as it's required if it is truly science. YOU have nothing but faith. HMMM.....
" They do not want to see a biblical world view, because it just may agree with scientific evidence for a recent global flood..."
NEWS: at one time the ENTIRE earth was covered in water. The continents have moved, quite a lot, in 4.6 BILLION years. Here, in Colorado, you can easily find shells of long extinct sea creatures on top of mountains. This does NOT prove anything but that these mountains haven't always BEEN mountains. It's simple science that you, evidently, haven't figured out yet.
"...which leads us to a God of judgment, who has sworn us to His wrath again! "
Whoo-hoo hullabaloo ! I'm so scared....NOT. Haven't you figured out that YOUR beliefs are YOUR beliefs and the rest of us think it's all BS? Just another example of the religious-right (who are almost always WRONG) uses myth to define themselves? WE are not required, neither personally NOR through our government, to believe any of it. We are not required to PAY FOR IT, in any way. YOUR religion is your problem, NOT ours. Keep it to yourselves in your homes and churches. It does NOT belong anywhere near the government.
Thankfully, our Founders figured this out a long time ago. The 1st amendment and the Establishment Clause and the 14th amendment protect us from people like YOU and Ken Ham. What a great country !!
So in their book, this "theme" for a park, disturbs their "peaceful" existence, and tramples on their conscience...
@ NL,
I see your quoting scripture...Good....now...try reading it. Anyway I believe that Catherine is refering to people taking the words which in the bible are somewhat used as meta-'phors and syb-'bolism as literal statements to try to dis-'credit the Bible
" So in their book, this "theme" for a park, disturbs their "peaceful" existence, and tramples on their conscience... "
I accidentally left this line in my post, above. So, I'll respond to it...
It has nothing to do with the park, its theme, or our conscience. It has to do with the GOVERNMENT supporting an obviously religious project. It is AGAINST THE LAW for them to do so. Do you really not see this? Are you so blind and ignorant that you do not understand how this undermines the Consti-tution? The Establishment Clause?? Obviously not. You and your righties are trying to make it sound like we lefties just want it to go away. CREATE your ridiculous amusement Park, or rather your amusing park, as it is so funny. But YOU must pay for it.- It will never happen, not with government monies. Even if the Supreme Court of Kentucky says it's o.k., it will be acted on,and that court WILL be overturned by the Supreme Court.
PLEASE educate yourself on your own country, its laws and the founding docu-ments that make the U.S. what it is. Because right now you just read like a Holy Roller who is so uneducated that a 4th grader knows more about this government than you do. SAD and pitiful....
@CW
In prior postings, you have said that the only way to interpret the bible is literally. Careful, your rationalizations are showing....
@ Doc,
Yeah...Doc...was waiting on you bl-'irp in. Well all I can say is this.....since your such a cham-'pion of the H-om-'o lifestyle their is no meta-'phor in 1 Corithian's 6:9...is there. Yes there is symbo-'lism and some meta-'phor usage in the Bible....but not on the subject matter where YOU want it to be.
@Catherine
Do you believe Mendelian genetics to be fairy tale science?
There is no way that the biblically stated 4 breeding pairs of humans (all the males being immediate relatives) that existed after Noah's flood could have re-populated the earth with humans.
Something on the order of 70 unique (meaning no cosanguinity) breeding pairs are required for a healthy population.
Inbreeding leads to reduced fertility, high infant mortality, slow growth rate, reduced size, facial asymmetry, defective immune systems, vastly increased chances of myriad genetic deficiencies, etc.
CW-
Oh, I read scripture, ...all of them, which perhaps gives me a better overall perspective than those who read only the one and have nothing in which to compare it to, don't you think?
It's good that you should admit that the bible is full of metaphors and symbolism. Too bad that it doesn't clearly label them as such, thus sparing moderate believers the discredit that bible literalists create.
@CW
Dude – enough with the "champion of the gays" thing.
We are both intractable in our stances regarding that topic and continuously pointing out that the bible disagrees with me on that topic doesn't somehow automatically invalidate other arguments.
You won't admit that there are any contradictions in the gospels, but how about your own contradictions?
Is the New Testament to be interpreted literally, as you have steadfastly asserted in the past, or can it be interpreted as allegory and metaphor?
CW....
"....since your such a cham-'pion..."
Went to college, huh? Explain the poor grammar here.....YOUR instead of the correct YOU'RE??? Sad....totally
CW-
If Paul wanted to refer to hom ose xual behavior why didn't he use the word "paidera sste" which was the standard Greek term at the time for se xual behavior between males? His wording is unclear, to say the least, so why fight so aggressively for a traditional translation that may not even be what Paul had in mind?
DOC.....
" Inbreeding leads to reduced fertility, high infant mortality, slow growth rate, reduced size, facial asymmetry, defective immune systems, vastly increased chances of myria..."
You KNOW that they will just tell you that GOD can do anything he wants to his creation. What a pile....
I like to simplify it with WHERE DID THE BLACKS, NATIVE AMERICANS, HISPANICS AND ASIANS come from? There is no way that those particular people could produce a complete group of these ethnicities. (I never use the term RACE, as there is really no such thing) Let alone the particular diseases attributed to individual groups of people.
Beyond that, there is a HUGE problem with the ARK, itself. To be large enough, which is an impossibility in and of itself, to hold ALL the animals, it would not be sea-worthy, at all. And let's address the POOP problem....the total tonnage of poop and what to do with it would be impossible, with the small amount of people there to take care of the animals. how about CLEAN water for all of them? where did they get it? And the URINE....the amount of it and the ODOR would be so noxious for the humans you wouldn't be able to live with that. And, again, the TONNAGE of food, especially for the larger animals...no chance any ship any size could hold it all.
And HOW did they get to the animals that weren't known to exist when the bible was written? like kangaroos, koalas, gorillas, Tasmanian devils, or even American Elk or buffalo and many, many others. HOW did they GET to the ark? SWIM???? Or did god magically transport them to it.....Even a small child can figure this out. It NEVER happened.
I do not understand the NEED to believe in god. WHY do you NEED to believe in something bigger than yourself? I can only see it as a weakness.... when you need god you take away the necessity to be strong, within yourself. You give god all the credit for things accomplished instead of giving it to yourself, where it belongs. Sad....very sad.....
@ Nadine,
First off....very sad to stoop to criticizing something at futile as gram-'mer when your eter-'nity is at stake. Second...my degree is a bachel-'or...I'm an ac-'coun-'tant if you must know. You asked where do I get my ga-'ul in refu-'ting science? Let me put it to you this way....Science is man's way of explaining things...The Bible is God's way of explaining things...I'll trust and put my Faith in God to know that he is the one that is right. Lastly I'll say this...Its my prayer that God will open your heart and mind...and that God will help you while going through your health issues(I read some of your post).
@ Magic,
Just glanced at your post.....you may be ashamed that I have a degree but let me ask.....are you still in elem-'entary or Jr. high?
CW said "Science is man’s way of explaining things…The Bible is God’s way of explaining things…"
I would argue that the Bible is also man's way of explaining things, just with comforting stories that confirm his special place in the universe rather than observable facts.
CW....
" Read my post above to you.....John WAS one of the original Twelve apostles and his Gospel includes much more on Jesus's life after he rose on the third day. "
OH my goodness, where to start? FIRST, HOW the hell could John be once of the original apostles when ALL Biblical experts say that John's gospel was written LAST, and written at least 75 to 100 years AFTER Jesus supposed death? Are you KIDDING ME??? And all the "Jesus rose on the third day".....how can you even use that with people like me who know it is all BS? He never rose anywhere. He was a MAN...an ordinary man..... Do ALL religious fanatics think it's a given? That those that don't believe are just kidding themselves? TOO funny....
"For your other comment yes the other gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke are called sinoptic gospels b/c they were written the same way...they all contain the same exact story. "
NO, they don't. They contradict each other quite frequently. Have YOU even read them? I've read all of it. Just more ammunition for me.... There are so many contradictions it is hard to choose.....
The Gospel accounts betray a revising process ("Luke" revising "Matthew" which itself is a revision of "Mark"). The later Gospel writers copied from the earlier gospels, and many times "improved" the image of Jesus.
A longtime favorite example of mine is to show how the scribe, in the Gospel of Mark (the earliest Gospel) approaches Jesus out of curiosity and with due respect, and asks him which are the greatest commandments. In the other Gospels, the same character (variously masked but obviously describing the same story) "tempts" Jesus and tries to trip him up - suggesting that the later Gospel writers tried to "improve" on the Mark story, in order to portray the Pharisees as Jesus's enemies. I could write fifty pages on the contradictions but we are limited in space here....
"Now I since in your mind it is all hearsay how did they keep their story straight? "
THEY DON'T ! Sorry you are evidently too simple to see that.... The contradictions help to prove the hearsay....which you obviously don't understand.
"Eventhough they were scattered all over as God wanted to spread the gospel they still managed to have the same story....same timeline....and the same miracles."
Well, you're obviously hopeless and gone....so why should I bother answering anything you have to say?
Did you know, as a side-story to this, that Thomas Jefferson, a true Deist (believing in god, little 'g', as a being that created the world but then was never heard from again, and did/does NOT interfere in our everyday lives) was SO disgusted by the miracles in the New Testament that he took his bible and CUT OUT all the miracles of Jesus? He thought the words of Jesus so wonderful and all the supposedly 'miracles' mixed among them that he called Jesus words: " diamonds in a dunghill".
I'm sure you know nothing of the Founders, do you? OR just what your preacher or minister tells you. Since you seem to revel in falsities of the bible, what ELSE do you believe in that is BS? I'm sure I wouldn't be surprised......
@ Nadine,
I have done some research as well and it has been accepted by many biblical sch-'olars that John was one of the ori-'ginal twel-'ve. Second point ever heard of the de-'ad sea scr-'olls?...this is one of the first pu-'bl-i-'shed accounts of some of the bible. Experts have compared these re-'li-'cs to the trans-'lat-'ion of the Bible and have said that with he exception of some of the spelling that the meanings are the same.
As for the contridictions....there are no contridictions...just poor perc-'eptions...as the result of the la-'ck of Faith. Also your point on Jefferson....I could point out many many more of our fou-'nding fa-'thers and their attempts and spe-'eches they made about how the belief in God was a pi-'ll-'ar to our society and how turning away from that would be our do-'om.
To end this...I'll say...you believe as you do....I'll believe as I do....in the end....we will see who is right. Until that time all believers and non-believers need prayer for which you will be in a lot of christian prayers. Hope you find employment soon...God Bl-'ess you and may he op-'en your mi-'nd.
CW.....
I promised I wouldn't bother debating the BIBLE or JESUS with you as it is pointless. I don't CARE who wrote the New Testament, as all of it is BS anyway. There is no god, Jesus, if he ever lived was just a man. So WHO wrote John 100 years after Jesus supposedly died means nothing to me. It is HEARSAY because it wasn't a first-hand accounting of anything. If it wasn't written down AT THE TIME IT HAPPENED, it isn't history. WHY don't you understand that?
I studied the Dead Sea Scrolls for decades. I was more interested in the story of John Strugnell, the anti-semite who wouldn't allow any Jewish scholars near the scrolls. Since they are nothing but OLD testament, they mean nothing to your argument.
And as far as the Founders, the ones who wrote our most precious founding docu-ments were ALL Deists. Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison.....and others. And what a politician says to the public and what he says in personal correspondence are two different things. IF you knew history, at all, you would know this. As it is, you are so ignorant of basic things it is beyond me.
I also noticed you did not disclose WHAT your supposed 'degree' is in or where you earned it, so that answers that.
The point, ONCE AGAIN, of this blog is the legality of Ken Ham getting government money to support his amusement park based on Genesis, an obvious religious endeavor. If you can't stay on topic then your have no business posting here.
CW....
" Hope you find employment soon...God Bl-'ess you and may he op-'en your mi-'nd."
First, I am not working not because I can't find a job. I cannot work because of a degenerative condition that keeps me from being able to stand or walk for long. the results of being an ASA umpire for 17 years. I do research at home which is enough.
And it is YOU who has the closed mind. Ever since your indoctrination into the myth of religion, your mind has been closed to anything else. When you are taught to believe that all science is bunk, then you are the one with the closed mind. Blind and ignorant.....quite sad.
David.....
" This was explained perfectly by the fundies, when they determined that the various organisms sought higher ground as the water rose. Humans were the smartest, and so reached the highest ground. Each "kind" was buried in the order they made it up the mountain. Also, they posited that the different "kinds" floated at different rates, and thus survived at different rates. "
BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA.......OMG..... when evolution takes over and 'survival of the fittest' takes effect for humans, GUESS who will go first??? TOO funny.......
HEY NL.....thank you for the compliment, very kind. I love to argue religion in government, a particular favorite of mine. It amazes me how many people are so ignorant of their own country's laws let alone the Consti-tution......remarkable.
And no, my husband has a fairly full head of dark hair. Of course, he's 12 years younger than me. He may eventually be bald....I'd have no problem with that. I can tell you WHY redheads are attracted to bald men, though..... It's the knowing that the reason most men are bald is because of an over-abundance of testosterone. And redheads, supposedly highly se-xed, are attracted to that. Most of that is BS, but that's what they say.....
@ Nadine,
I have posts to you above for today....take a look.
Oddly, I see the redhead/bald guy correlation everywhere, but I admit to being biased. It's gotten to the point where we can see a couple like Shrek and Fiona, Capt. Picard and Dr. Crusher, and just laugh, knowingly.
CW.....
" Your A-pe Th-'eory...you can believe we all came from a-'pe-'s but I don't su-'bscrib-'e to that man-'made my-'th as you would say. "
So, in your ignorance you totally dismiss the FACTS of evolution? We were planted here like turnips by a god that has NO evidence to prove he ever existed? WHY? Because you were indoctrinated as a child. It is part of you. Too bad your intelligence and common sense hasn't taken over.
" Now to other points...Yes I do hold a col-'lege de-'gr-'ee. "
YET you don't expand on that....WHAT degree do you hold? In WHAT genre? Obviously not in science, not in History.....not in political science, either. WHERE did you get said degree? If you cannot answer either of these questions, then I don't believe it. You were probably home-schooled by someone who barely got out of high school alive.
" Secondly you so-'und well sch-'o-'oled but you do not know one thing about the Bible. "
Well, I've already proven I know it better than you do. You couldn't possibly have read the same book that I did if you truly believe there are no contradictions in it. What a joke...
" The gos-'pels for inst-'ance Math-'ew Mar-'k and Lu-'ke were all written by dis-'ci-'ples that were not apart of the ori-'ginal twel-'ve. They were though apart of the discip-'les at one time but not in the ori-'ginal twel-'ve. If you had done your hom-'ewo-'rk you would know that Jo-'hn WAS apart of the ori-'ginal twel-'ve and was written decades later. "
Sorry, WRONG John. Ever go to REAL scholars of the bible for your answers? You should try it sometime. Seek a JEWISH biblical scholar for true answers. The religious-right creeps that say they know are nothing but idiots and liars.
"Just wanted to point this out to you since your such a his-'torian and all. On your other point you said that your pr-'ofes-'sor put it best when he said that the Bible was a my-'th...I say that there is no proof in all of the attempts made to explain how we got here that can't be s-'h-'ot down."
Your overuse of hyphens makes it almost impossible to understand what you are typing. You do not need to hyphenate HISTORIAN and many of the other words you did. And saying you can 'shoot down' all explanations of how we got here would NOT be from you, would it? You would go to AIG for your answers, which just makes me laugh all the more. Their answers are NOT scientific and really nothing but a joke. Until YOU, yourself, have a degree in science in any area, and give reasonable answers to reasonable science questions, I will not be replying to you again. It is a waste of time. You are indoctrinated to the max.
Besides, THIS blog is on the Consti-tutionality of Ken Ham getting any kind of money from the government to support this RIDICULOUS amusement park. You are trying to make it a debate on the bible and god's supposed miracles. SORRY.....waste of time. You are lucky that I haven't succ-umbed to name-calling, as with you it would be just too easy to do so.
If anyone wants to argue an individual's rights, we can use the 14th amendment:
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES; NOR SHALL ANY STATE DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Which means that even if there is ONE person in Kentucky who is against this, the state MUST abide by it. So, on top of the state already being wrong by using government money to aid the building of this religious theme park, if just ONE person says NO, that's the way it is.
I love the Consti-tution and the founders for writing it.
Hi Nadine – For the record, there's certainly no age, marriage or reproductive limit on hotness when the gal in question is brainy! INAL, but the SCOTUS will be hearing arguments in a case challenging whether a state can provide tax credits for taxpayer donations to scholarship associations redistributing funds based on an applicant's faith. A couple of interesting points are individual taxpayers are usually denied standing to argue against taxes and their distribution if the asserted injury is solely as an affected taxpayer, unless, there is a clear connection to a const-itutional issue like SOCAS. The other major distinguishing factor is the decision to donate is an individual decision, not a state decision. Have to wait and see how that case is decided though I'm not particularly hopeful SOCAS will win the day. However, in this KY scenario, the state itself is deciding the recipient of the tax incentive and the recipient has the clear intent of advancing a specific (and ridiculous) religious perspective. I've not heard of any specific efforts to challenge yet, but I suspect they're coming.
It's pretty clear that the estimates of visitors and income were grossly over-represented when compared to numbers from other theme parks and even the nearby Creation Museum. So not only did Beshear undermine intellectual honesty and the overwhelming scientific consensus supporting evolution in this agreement to bring more bronze age mythology to KY, he's likely ensured an expensive series of lawsuits to be funded at further taxpayer expense in the hope of providing jobs and other taxes that were unlikely to materialize in the first place.
Still, it's always fun to watch the creationists attempt to explain the discrete and progressive order of the fossil record, e.g. single cell, multi-cell, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and then birds, as having somehow been produced by the simultaneous drowning of all these forms in one event. Most children know you're full of it when you try and tell them T. rex was a vegetarian, but for the fundies, no BS is too far fetched.
@Q
You said: "Still, it's always fun to watch the creationists attempt to explain the discrete and progressive order of the fossil record, e.g. single cell, multi-cell, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and then birds, as having somehow been produced by the simultaneous drowning of all these forms in one event."
This was explained perfectly by the fundies, when they determined that the various organisms sought higher ground as the water rose. Humans were the smartest, and so reached the highest ground. Each "kind" was buried in the order they made it up the mountain. Also, they posited that the different "kinds" floated at different rates, and thus survived at different rates.
Things are so simple when you just stop thinking...
Cheers!
"Things are so simple when you just stop thinking"
Cessation of thinking has always been a prerequisite for indoctrination into religion. It wouldn't work if people actually thought about and dared to ask questions about the ridiculous doctrines and scientifically impossible scenarios that are common in all religions.
Q....." Still, it's always fun to watch the creationists attempt to explain the discrete and progressive order of the fossil record, e.g. single cell, multi-cell, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and then birds, as having somehow been produced by the simultaneous drowning of all these forms in one event. Most children know you're full of it when you try and tell them T. rex was a vegetarian, but for the fundies, no BS is too far fetched."
TOO funny.....absolutely! and the "Bronze-aged mythology" was a great comparison, as well. I'll use that one....
I've seen, too many times, the creationists dispute the fossil record....which cracks me up, considering most if not ALL of them have never seen any real fossils to begin with. You could fill my house with them and still have plenty left over. But HOW do they get away with convincing people that dinosaurs lived at the same time as man? We have NOTHING that even hints at that, it's so ridiculous. Of course, AIG and other groups go out of their way to dispute ALL our testing methods. I've never been able to get a clear answer from any of them WHY or HOW anyone can dispute the results. They keep saying "we can prove it..." yet I've never seen this, have you? And the 6,000 year old earth? Wow.....it all cracks me up.
PEACE.....thank you. that was very nice.
LUKE....you've made me feel good....I am a redhead, so my husband says the intelligent part comes naturally. I have 6 children that are all grown and 3 grandchildren. I am 58....but I feel 38. I am still feisty and sure of myself which does get me into trouble once in a while. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. But THANKS.....I appreciate your kind comments.
Hey, Nadine!
Great posts!
I married a redhead. Is your husband a bald guy like me? Seems that everywhere we look we run into redhead/baldguy couples. It's actually quite eerie. 🙂
It is depressing that we have so many grossly uneducated, misinformed people in this country that a museum like this actually has the potential of making money.
Well, Rationale, THIS isn't about a museum. IF this ever gets built, it will be an 'amusement park', which I think would be an oxymoron....kind of like VACATION BIBLE SCHOOL....
This place will be in Kentucky and the Creation Museum is in Ohio. Both are the brain child of Ken Ham (Hmm...brain and Ken Ham...another oxymoron) , the Creationist that says that Genesis is TRUE. I find it all very funny and ignorant. Although I would LOVE to go to both of them. I'm sure I'd wet my pants laughing the entire time.
In people's imaginations the ark can do what the story calls upon it to do, but if they actually build a full-sized model, the tactile reality of it will just destroy that whole fantasy. People will actually be able to see that an ark would only be as big as a strip mall holding a dozen or two stores, and many will think "Gee, I guess it really wouldn't have been big enough after all." It may make some money, but it will end up shooting them in the foot.
" I am not on here to debate science or attack anyone."
REALLY? that is why you said: "The laws of this country are not designed to promote a uniform society characterized by a mil-itant athe-ism."
You don't consider that an attack on a group of people who are not militant, in any way? It is a lie that has been told over and over again. NO atheist in this country has ever tried to keep anyone from believing or worshiping as they wish. WHERE do you get such prejudiced ideas?
" I think one of the solutions to these controversies is debates but keeping civility. "
I have been nothing but civil. I tell the truth. If that is what bothers you, I have no control over any of that. You are the one that 'called names' and accused atheists of being militant. Very ignorant....
" Secondly I offer my opinions not as a scholar of science, since people like you are more informed in that area but I as a student of government. I think Ken Ham has the law on his side on this one whether he should or shouldn't. "
Then you are a lousy student and didn't learn anything. I've posted the reasons over and over again. WHICH law? Can you quote even one that would support him? You cannot call 'religion' an IDEA. it doesn't work. the Consti-tution expressly says RELIGION. it is singled out for a reason.
Ken Ham, the CHARLATAN, "..a person who pretends or claims to have more knowledge or skill than he or she possesses; quack." Has NO foot to stand on. THIS is why:
THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT ALLOWED TO PROMOTE RELIGION – EVEN IF A MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN A GIVEN COMMUNITY MIGHT SUPPORT THAT RELIGION – because, when it comes to your Consti-tutional rights, our country does not operate by majority rule.
Do YOU understand that? By using government money to build this thing, the government would be PROMOTING it. that's how the law sees it.
" The issue at stake here is whether the government should discriminate against a Christian, Muslim, Jew, neo conservative or classical liberal based on ideas. "
WRONG, again. Religion isn't an IDEA. It is a BELIEF system. The government is not allowed to participate in that as far as FUNDING it. Tell me, please, if it were someone who wanted an ATHEIST PARK.....with evolutionary based ideas and things that a conservative Christian would hate, would you be for it then? How about a MUSLIM park, or maybe BUDDHIST? With a GIANT Buddha in the middle??? You are so blind.....
" Even religion is the expression of ideas. The founding fathers intended a society of freedom and tolerance. "
YES, freedom and tolerance, NOT supporting it with OUR tax dollars. the founders WROTE the 1st amendment. Actually, it was written by James Madison, a DEIST. ALL of our most important founding docu-ments were written primarily by DEISTS. I'm sorry you cannot see that. To do this, Congress would have to OBLITERATE the 1st amendment and ALL the decisions, covering 60 years, by the Supreme Court. That isn't going to happen. THIS isn't going to happen. And anyone who can't see it, can't get this straight in their heads....well, I feel sorry for them. I feel sorry for you.
Please take your intelligent mind and continue studying, as you've obviously missed some very important points along the way. Do not get your information from religious-right sites, however. They lie.....frequently.
If you happen to be hot, some guy is going to be very lucky to have you on his arm one day. Me? I'm personally attracted to brainy people. I lucked out. My wife is brainy. But she's also model-like. Yeah Yeah Yeah, I'm a chauvinist. Eh...I call it being a dude. Doesn't mean I disrespect people based on their looks. I just like being married to a hottie. In any event, I like you. Can we be friends?
@Nadine
I like your posts...Well said !!!
Peace...
Thank you, Peace. That was very kind.
And THANKS Luke ! You made me feel young. Actually, I've been married twice and to my current husband for 20 years. I have 6 children and 3 grand-children. I'm 58.......I haven't felt hot for a long time. But I am feisty and sure of myself. And I am RIGHT about this controversy. Of course, as a redhead, it comes naturally.
Nadine – LOVE your posts, especially about the Atheist Park – we have those, as I am sure your know, and they are called Museums of Natural History, places Creationists never seem to go... Keep informing them – reality rocks!
This is for all of you that were speaking of radiometric testing on previously living things, animal or vegetable.
FIRST, you CANNOT use C14 (carbon dating) on anything older than 50,000 years. It doesn't have a long shelf life, hence, we primarily use it on anything that was around during man's most recent periods. Animals, sea life, wood, all of it. For things older or close to the limit we usually use other methods, like Potassium=-argon testing, which is more accurate for older things. For rocks there are other methods.
I can't believe all of you kept referencing C14. I thought everyone, even laypersons, knew this. Interesting......
No, they don't know it. They find one line printed by one lame person that contradicts modern science and hang on to it in their itty bitty heads and let is creep out when they think it is properly inserted into a debate when, in fact, they insert it improperly. You see, they don't know what c14 datings is, nor do they know what Argon testing is. Crap, they don't know what Argon is. So when they try to debate with data they don't understand, they make fools of themselves.
Well, Luke, thanks for telling me. I can explain, easily, C14. It's really simple.....
You see, all things that were ever alive: animals, plants and humans, have carbon in them. Carbon deteriorates at a measurable and fairly consistent rate. We know what that rate is, so we know when we test how old something is by how much carbon remains in what we are testing.
Potassium-argon is a little more difficult. Argon is a gas that is trapped within rocks. The amount of time it takes the gas to escape is how they are dated. It's shelf life is at about a billion years, so covers all of human existence. It would be boring beyond boring for you guys for me to get more specific than that.
Uranium-lead dating is only used on rocks, as it will date between 1 million years to over 4.5 billion years, or the age of the earth, which is 4.6 billion years old.
I hope that clears up some of it, anyway......
what cracks me up, though, is AIG argues ALL radiometric dating methods saying they prove nothing. Too funny......
Some things that Ken Ham doesn't address;
1- Answers In Genesis is asking for road improvements to the I-75 interstate exit. Those would be paid for by the State of Kentucky. The cost of road improvements for the Kentucky Speedway were $43 million dollars.
2- There is currently no sewer service to the site, although there is currently a grant proposal costing several million dollars to provide sewers to the the proposed site, that would not be paid for by the ark park investors.
3- There has been no mention of property tax incentives which are likely to be provided at the county level.
This, in spite of the fact that Ken Ham and his agents have repeatedly insisted that there would be "no cost" to taxpayers.
I would have no problem with whatever Answers In Genesis wants to build, if they were to pay for all infrastructure and improvements, but not a penny should come from the government, nor should they be allowed tax breaks or incentives, as that would be an establishment of a particular religion, contrary to both the US and Kentucky consti-tutions.
On a personal level though, in this day and age, with what mankind has learned and established beyond any reasonable doubt, it is simply irrational to accept that the universe was created only 6,000 years ago, and that 4,400 years ago there was a global flood that was survived only by 8 humans and a boatload of animals, regardless of Ken Ham's insistence that we accept his particular interpretation of the bible.
Wow...CW was all over me for a while, but now he's no where to be seen.....gee...I wonder WHY? Can't argue the law and the Consti-tution, can you???
And your comments on the bible were spot on! Please don't be a stranger to these blogs.
Cheers!