$27 million anti-evolution museum to open soon

$27 million anti-evolution museum to open soon

Child abuse.

The museum has a planetarium. But its programs, unlike those at other planetariums, will say that the light from the stars we see did not take millions of years to get here.

There also is a reproduction of a portion of the Grand Canyon. The message there is that it was created very quickly, from the waters from Noah's flood. The fossils in rock layers there and in many other places around the world are of animals that drowned in the flood, the museum says.

Some of the exhibits would be the envy of any natural history museum.

There are, for example, 10,000 minerals from a collection that was donated to the museum, fossil dinosaur eggs from China that Ham says are worth $40,000, and a donated collection of dinosaur toys that has been valued at $50,000.

There also will be an exhibit suggesting that belief in evolution is the root of most of modern society's evils. It shows models of children leaving a church where the minister believes in evolution. Soon the girl is on the phone to Planned Parenthood, while the boy cruises the Internet for pornography sites.

Edit:
The more I think about it, this is awesome for atheists, we should organize field-trips!

[TheMercenary]

Yikes! that is scary stuff. People will go to no ends to turn fantasy into reality.

You want scary.
In seventeen states it is still illegal for an atheist to hold public office.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8am5YCqwUbg

[richlevy]

Will it be open on Sunday?

[elSicomoro]

Only for Jews and Muslims...but they're not allowed from Friday evening to Saturday evening.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

In seventeen states it is still illegal for an atheist to hold public office.

[Sundae]

Blimey.

They'd rather have a giffer queer than an atheist.
Who'da thunk it?

[elSicomoro]

I don't believe the majority of that poll...sounds way too PC. I'm not above giving people credit where credit is due, but 92% would elect a Jew? 88% a woman? 72% a Mormon? Bullshit.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

Blimey.

They'd rather have a giffer queer than an atheist.
Who'da thunk it?

Come on, you know polls have little to no statistical validity.

[elSicomoro]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Come on, you know polls have little to no statistical validity.

Depends on the source...a lot of the bigger polls seem to be pretty solid from a scientific standard.

That one that UT posted looks so wrong though. But I don't think it's an issue with the mechanics of the poll...just the people polled.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by sycamore

Depends on the source...a lot of the bigger polls seem to be pretty solid from a scientific standard.

That one that UT posted looks so wrong though. But I don't think it's an issue with the mechanics of the poll...just the people polled.

It comes down to sample size and the Z. For example, a telephone poll of 400 people on the streets of San Francisco, Calif hardly can be extrapolated to "the people of the US would vote for..." The margin of error is the other thing that is important to note.

Telephone polls are some of the worst. All you did was sample people who have telephones.

The most amazing thing is often how small the sample size is. You hear it all the time on TV. "The number of Americans that would vote for X,Y, or Z is 45a%". Looking further you see the sample size was 846 people. Ok, please tell me how you extrapolate opinions of 846 people to 32 million people. It can't be done. The statistical validity hovers near zero.

Statistics, lies, and more statistics.

Polls are easily constructed through the pointed questions they ask to extract the information that the pollsters is after. Political polls and polls by special interest groups with very bland sounding names are some of the best at doing this. Did you ever get that telephone calll from some tighty-righty or lefty-loosey political organization? Listen carefully to the questions being asked. Often only yes or no answers with no clarification or middleground choice.

Polls.... spitoooie....

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by sycamore

I don't believe the majority of that poll...sounds way too PC. I'm not above giving people credit where credit is due, but 92% would elect a Jew? 88% a woman? 72% a Mormon? Bullshit.

Remember these are all hypothetical candidates from their own party though... So say a woman Democrat ran against a white male Republican. This would indicate that 12% of Democrats would rather vote for the Republican, i.e. he would win with 62% of the vote.

I agree that if it was a phone interview the numbers will be skewed though, people don't like admitting their prejudices out loud.

[TheMercenary]

Or how about this, the pollsters know what they want to find out in the end. Obviously one of the points here was to put it to the Atheists. So I conduct a poll Sunday morning in front of a Hispanic catholic church, a black southern Baptist church, and a synagogue. I will bet you the results would be very close to what you see above. You will never know from where and how the results were obtained. The pollster may just say, “hey we just stood on the street and asked people.” In the mean time the people who posted this little ditty actually were members of the religious right that wanted to send home a message or members of an anti-US group of people who want to show how religion dominates the political process in today’s election process. Who knows?

[elSicomoro]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Remember these are all hypothetical candidates from their own party though... So say a woman Democrat ran against a white male Republican. This would indicate that 12% of Democrats would rather vote for the Republican, i.e. he would win with 62% of the vote.

I don't think the numbers would quite mesh like that, but I understand what you are saying. Based on personal experience and some of what I've seen in my lifetime, it would seem that people would rather not vote at all rather than vote outside their party.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

I agree that if it was a phone interview the numbers will be skewed though, people don't like admitting their prejudices out loud.

I would think that because telephones still offer anonymity, people would be more willing to express their views. But I know I'm suspicious of my phone calls...maybe a lot of other people are too. Though I don't think polls are as suspect as Mercenary does.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by sycamore

Though I don't think polls are as suspect as Mercenary does.

Ok pick a poll that has original data which we can inspect and we can pick it apart. The point here is that you rarely if ever can see how or where the data was gathered. I spend part of my job reading original source research. You have to know how to find the weaknesses before you accept the data. And the validity would increase as multiple researchers are able to replicate the data you gathered in exactly the same manner. You rarely have access to how polling data is gathered, therefore the research cannot be properly evaluated.