Fire-breathing dragon at Creation Museum!

| 65 Comments

No, I am not fooling or exaggerating. You may see a billboard here. As nearly as I can tell, they are serious about it.

Thanks to Dan Phelps for the link.

65 Comments

A similar dragon billboard was up for quite a while in Cincinnati in 2010 and 2011. I drove past it frequently. Laughing at it never got old.

Ken Ham:

Secularists just can’t stand it when information they have censored from the public is being disseminated by us.

Good one, “information.”

Actually, I don’t recall any of it being censored in the least. Laughed at, shown to be highly disingenuous, yes, but it almost seems that Ham’s mendacious statements appear on the web, and even are linked by evil scientists and (you hear the fire crackle in Ham’s pronunciation of it) atheists.

Glen Davidson

Just when you think they couldn’t sink any lower.

What’s next? Maybe an exhibit about the “curse of Ham” (Noah’s son, not the ex-Aussie nutjob), and who exactly are the “descendants of Ham” who have inherited that curse and thus deserve to be “servant[s] of servants”. Guess whom the AIG crowd consider the “race of Ham” or “Hamites”.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmg[…]X_Zhn8#57cad said:

Ken Ham:

Secularists just can’t stand it when information they have censored from the public is being disseminated by us.

Good one, “information.”

Actually, I don’t recall any of it being censored in the least. Laughed at, shown to be highly disingenuous, yes, but it almost seems that Ham’s mendacious statements appear on the web, and even are linked by evil scientists and (you hear the fire crackle in Ham’s pronunciation of it) atheists.

Glen Davidson

Technically speaking, Creationists and many Christian Fundamentalists believe that any reaction that is not glowing praise is “censorship.”

Creationism always has been about image and marketing, rather than anything substantive. They’re better at the marketing side, because that’s where they spend all their time and resources. Actual scientists have to spend time doing some actual science.

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

What gets me about Byers - what really gets under my skin - is that he delivers himself of fact-free opinions without the slightest sense of having any actual reason for them whatsoever. He doesn’t think that dinosaurs lasted long enough after the Flood to be remembered as dragons. Why not, for Pete’s sake?

This is a bloke who thinks that koalas are literally bears and thylacines were just another one of the “wolf” kind, like dogs. He thinks there was a single world-wide flood. He thinks that the total human population in 2400 BCE was eight. He thinks that Pangaea split apart about then and the continents sprinted to their present positions as if equipped with outboard motors, then mysteriously slowed to a geological crawl, and that all this happened with nobody to notice. He thinks that super-evolution happened for several centuries, turning land quadrupeds into whales, and then stopped dead.

Compared to dead flat, babbling insane contradictions of reality like those, dinosaurs being remembered as dragons is a snap, but THAT he denies. Why? He can’t be applying any sort of logic to the idea - well, this is Byers, after all. So what’s he doing? What principle is he applying? Of course, it will be a thoroughly idiotic one, this being Byers, but nevertheless, by what unhinged byway of unreason has he reached such a conclusion? What on Earth causes someone who believes six, nay, sixteen impossible things before breakfast to draw the line at one more thing that would actually be possible if the sixteen impossibilities were factual?

Fascinating, as Mr Spock would say.

This is entirely the result of creationists fabricating and distorting dragon legends and folklore taking in parts of dragons that seem to fit dinosaurs while throwing out that other parts that don’t. Then they invent the lie which claims that these are accounts of people allegedly seeing live dinosaurs that are claimed to be direct descendants of those who survived the non-existent Flood. All while ignoring the fact there’s no traces of human bones and artifacts found alongside dinosaur bones in the fossil record. Therefore the notion of “The dragon thing is a common comment that dragons reported around the world were just dinosaurs that lasted after the flood. they would explain a dragon as some kind of dinosaur. Its a fair point although i don’t think dinos lasted long enough after the flood to be remembered.” is entirely make believe.

One of the posters: “The Brave Triceratops” Cute! I think they hired comic-book artists for those posters.

Ken Ham -

You went a little too far even for Robert Byers this time.

Also, the format of your propaganda makes it really, really obvious that your goal is to confuse and brainwash children.

Dave Luckett said:

What gets me about Byers - what really gets under my skin - is that he delivers himself of fact-free opinions without the slightest sense of having any actual reason for them whatsoever. He doesn’t think that dinosaurs lasted long enough after the Flood to be remembered as dragons. Why not, for Pete’s sake?

This is a bloke who thinks that koalas are literally bears and thylacines were just another one of the “wolf” kind, like dogs. He thinks there was a single world-wide flood. He thinks that the total human population in 2400 BCE was eight. He thinks that Pangaea split apart about then and the continents sprinted to their present positions as if equipped with outboard motors, then mysteriously slowed to a geological crawl, and that all this happened with nobody to notice. He thinks that super-evolution happened for several centuries, turning land quadrupeds into whales, and then stopped dead.

Compared to dead flat, babbling insane contradictions of reality like those, dinosaurs being remembered as dragons is a snap, but THAT he denies. Why? He can’t be applying any sort of logic to the idea - well, this is Byers, after all. So what’s he doing? What principle is he applying? Of course, it will be a thoroughly idiotic one, this being Byers, but nevertheless, by what unhinged byway of unreason has he reached such a conclusion? What on Earth causes someone who believes six, nay, sixteen impossible things before breakfast to draw the line at one more thing that would actually be possible if the sixteen impossibilities were factual?

Fascinating, as Mr Spock would say.

Don’t forget that whales magically evolved from land creatures just a few years after the magic flood and genetics is atomic and unproven, except for paternity cases. Perhaps he does have some special knowledge of the latter. i think Byers needs some atomic and unproven gene therapy.

As a Christian believer who also accepts standard science I can’t help but wonder if Ken Ham’s little sideshow isn’t a false flag operation designed to discredit Christianity. It certainly couldn’t be doing the job any better.

robinson.mitchell said:

As a Christian believer who also accepts standard science I can’t help but wonder if Ken Ham’s little sideshow isn’t a false flag operation designed to discredit Christianity. It certainly couldn’t be doing the job any better.

Of course this was sarcasm. Sigh. I should have written I wish it was a false flag operation.

Robert Byers said: The dragon thing is a common comment that dragons reported around the world were just dinosaurs that lasted after the flood.

Okay, Byers - please tell us how many fire-breathing dragons were on Noah’s wooden boat?

Just Bob said:

Just when you think they couldn’t sink any lower.

What’s next? Maybe an exhibit about the “curse of Ham” (Noah’s son, not the ex-Aussie nutjob), and who exactly are the “descendants of Ham” who have inherited that curse and thus deserve to be “servant[s] of servants”. Guess whom the AIG crowd consider the “race of Ham” or “Hamites”.

I think you’re missing something there…Ham…Hamite…Ken Hamite? But I’m not clever enough to find it either.

Helena Constantine said:

Just Bob said:

Just when you think they couldn’t sink any lower.

What’s next? Maybe an exhibit about the “curse of Ham” (Noah’s son, not the ex-Aussie nutjob), and who exactly are the “descendants of Ham” who have inherited that curse and thus deserve to be “servant[s] of servants”. Guess whom the AIG crowd consider the “race of Ham” or “Hamites”.

I think you’re missing something there…Ham…Hamite…Ken Hamite? But I’m not clever enough to find it either.

It’s like Marmite, but even smarmier, and Vegemite, but somehow less meaty. How Ham does that, I’ll never know.

Well, the Creation Museum’s billboards ARE much better art directed than the atheist ones.

The dragon thing is a common comment that dragons reported around the world were just dinosaurs that lasted after the flood.

Wow! Must have been all that water, huh? Did Noah also breathe fire after the flood? That would explain the origin of fire-and-brimstone preachers.

Could we comment on the accuracy of the billboards?

The velociraptor has no feathers. Bullshit. We know it has feathers. There are now 32 species of feathered maniraptoran dinosaurs, many older than Archaeopteryx. There are at least 250 specimens of Anchiornis, all older than Archaeopteryx.

The creationists are in denial about all 32 species of feathered dinosaurs. They’re screwed. Xu Xing in China will fuck them real good.

(By the way, if they ever pull the trick on you, “Archaeoraptor was a fake, so they could all be fakes”, just tell them that it was Xu Xing who proved it was a fake.

And if they say “University professors believed in Archaeoraptor”, just tell them, the guy who suppressed the evidence showing that it was fake was Steve Czerkas. Who happens to be the authority that Creationists cite for a “scientific opinion” that those feathery things on dinosaurs are not feathers! And he is not, by the way, a Ph.D. nor a professor. Xu Xing– the guy who proved Archaeoraptor was fake– is our authority on dinosaur feathers. Their authority is Czerkas–the guy who suppressed evidence.

End Rant.)

And what do they think the fire-breathing dragon evolved from… I mean… “varied within a kind” from? It’s got two horns like a triceratops, but no beak. The beak evolved first. Then eye horns, then nose horn.

Ken Ham is “censoring” feathered dinosaurs. Feathered dinosaurs are “expelled” by the anti-Darwinist thought police.

Why not teach the controversy, Ken?

Just Bob said: What’s next? Maybe an exhibit about the “curse of Ham” (Noah’s son, not the ex-Aussie nutjob), and who exactly are the “descendants of Ham” who have inherited that curse and thus deserve to be “servant[s] of servants”. Guess whom the AIG crowd consider the “race of Ham” or “Hamites”.

Ken Ham is not a biological racist. He is one of the few older creationists who is not racist. All the major creationist up to about the mid-1970’s were racist, but not Ham.

He’s a super-bigot against non-Christians, arguing that there are two races: Christians and non-Christians, and they must not inter-marry. He even cites as a “negative consequence” of intermarriage (between Christians and non-Christians) that passage in the Book of Numbers where an Israelite wants to marry a Midianite, and the High Priest’s son impales them both through the viscera with a javelin. So, under Ham’s model, you still get to have race hatred, race bigotry and race murder, but you redefine what “race” means as a standard for hatred and mass murder. It’s OK to hate and kill as long as skin color is not the motivation. Christians believe in the sanctity of life… theirs.

Ham believes in the theory that there are three races (*cough*! Don’t say “races”! say “people groups”) that descend from Noah’s son, but he does not assert that one is intellectually inferior to another nor that they should be subjugated.

Many other creationists do believe that. Henry Morris in his 1977 book “The Beginning of the World” talked about how “Hamites” (blacks and Asians) are intellectually inferior and culturally stagnant, and how Noah’s “prophecy” (curse, actually) on Ham meant that blacks and Asians would be subjugated by whites and kept “servant of servants” because of their inherited “racial character”. In a later, 1990’s edition of the book, Morris changed two instances of the word “racial” to “genetic.”

But Morris said that all racism and race hatred derives from evolutionism. When creationists say that blacks and Asians are intellectually inferior and that it is God’s will that whites should subjugate them, you don’t say race and don’t call it racism.

They call it “prophecy.” Completely different. Not at all the same. Different word altogether. It ain’t racism or subjugation if you call it “prophecy.” As Jon Stewart would say, I’m going to call my marijuana “smokable beer.”

BTW Morris copied his racist Sons-of-Noah theory wholecloth from Arthur C. Custance, also racist.

Many creationists say that Curse-of-Ham is not in the Bible. Bull. What’s not in the Bible is that Ham turns instantly black–that’s NOT there. Ham turning instantly black came from a later, Jewish tradition. The Bible DOES say that his descendants will be “servant of servants.” The most famous descendant of Ham is Cush, and the Cushites are Africans.

Many creationists assert instead that God did a miracle at the Tower of Babel to make Africans black. The founder of the creationist “Variation within a Kind” theory, Frank L. Marsh, in his important 1940 book “Fundamental Biology” asserted that, as a result of the Hamite curse, God allows the Devil to mutate the DNA of black people, thus turning them from white to black, kinking their hair, and perhaps most tragically of all, destroying their ability to appreciate Bruce Springsteen.

A lot of creationists believed the “Satan as genetic engineer made Africans black” theory.

The Christian Church fathers also had racist Sons-of-Noah theories, though less bizarre than modern creationists.

Church father Irenaeus in his commentary on Genesis followed Justin in asserting that there are three races of men, and the Hamites are not just “servant of servants”, they’re also HEREDITARILY sinful and immoral. It’s hereditary.

Irenaeus: “Cham […] received a curse, and to all who were from his seed extended a share of the curse, whence it happened that every generation after him, being cursed, increased and multiplied in sin (cf. Gen 10.6-20). […] They all fell under the curse, the curse extending for a long time over the ungodly.”

Justin: “Sin cleaves to the descendants of Cain.”

Darwin invented racism. All the dinosaurs fit on the Ark. Stop asking questions.

I can remember a book I found in the library as a kid–a reference of some kind, I think, maybe even World Book. But it wasn’t anything specifically xian. It had a picture of 3 busts of representative human types–the 3 main races: hamitic, semitic, and japhetic.

I’ve always wondered where the fundy racial categorizers fit in more problematic groups. Are all peoples with really dark skin “hamitic”? Where do Eskimos fit? Amerindians? Pacific islanders?

Just Bob said:

I can remember a book I found in the library as a kid–a reference of some kind, I think, maybe even World Book. But it wasn’t anything specifically xian. It had a picture of 3 busts of representative human types–the 3 main races: hamitic, semitic, and japhetic.

I’ve always wondered where the fundy racial categorizers fit in more problematic groups. Are all peoples with really dark skin “hamitic”? Where do Eskimos fit? Amerindians? Pacific islanders?

From what I’ve read about the subject, the Africans, the non-Caucasian Asians (and their descendents), and, most importantly, the Canaanites, were all Hamitic people. As far as the ancient Israelites were concerned, the “Curse of Ham” was to justify the conquest and destruction of Canaan. Henry Morris alleges that the Curse affected Asian peoples by making them more inventive, i.e., the Chinese’ invention of wood-pulp paper, and the Curse affected the African peoples by making them servile victims of the Slave Trade.

diogeneslamp0 said:

Darwin invented racism. All the dinosaurs fit on the Ark. Stop asking questions.

Of course Darwin invented racism: it was Darwin who invented slavery, and it was Darwin who founded the institution of Anti-Semitism, and it was Darwin who made the Southern United States buy and own slaves, and it was Darwin, and not Mrs O’Leary’s cow who set fire to Chicago.

Darwin invented racism in 1859, and America was racist for two years until Stonewall Jackson freed the slaves in 1861. At least that’s the impression I get from commenters on Amazon. Thank god for home schooling.

Yeah, that Talk Origins link quotes the 1991 version of Morris’ book. I checked out the 1977 version. Morris says that “race” is strictly an evolutionary concept, evolutionists invented the word race, race only has meaning in terms of evolution. Then he, Morris, goes on to talk about racial difference, racial character, racial this, racial that…

If you follow the Talk Origins link, you should follow it to read about Jerry Bergman writing to the Ku Klux Klan to complain about affirmative action for black people. Then he blames Darwin for the racism he, Bergman, was just promoting. Then when he got caught, he denied remembering writing the letter. He’s got mental problems.

On Amazon, Bergman poses as at least two different sock puppets so that he can post 5-star reviews for his own books, and promote them in comments, while pretending not to be the author of what he’s selling. He controls his own star ratings on Amazon through multiple sock puppets. On Amazon, I try posting comments on his fake reviews to expose him as the author of the books he’s reviewing. He keeps doing it. He’s pathological.

diogeneslamp0 said:

Darwin invented racism in 1859, and America was racist for two years until Stonewall Jackson freed the slaves in 1861. At least that’s the impression I get from commenters on Amazon. Thank god for home schooling.

Yeah, that Talk Origins link quotes the 1991 version of Morris’ book. I checked out the 1977 version. Morris says that “race” is strictly an evolutionary concept, evolutionists invented the word race, race only has meaning in terms of evolution. Then he, Morris, goes on to talk about racial difference, racial character, racial this, racial that…

If you follow the Talk Origins link, you should follow it to read about Jerry Bergman writing to the Ku Klux Klan to complain about affirmative action for black people. Then he blames Darwin for the racism he, Bergman, was just promoting. Then when he got caught, he denied remembering writing the letter. He’s got mental problems.

On Amazon, Bergman poses as at least two different sock puppets so that he can post 5-star reviews for his own books, and promote them in comments, while pretending not to be the author of what he’s selling. He controls his own star ratings on Amazon through multiple sock puppets. On Amazon, I try posting comments on his fake reviews to expose him as the author of the books he’s reviewing. He keeps doing it. He’s pathological.

1) There is a huge correlation between racism and political creationism. That is not at all to say that every creationist is a racist. In fact, if we define “creationism” as merely passively choosing a “God created humans” answer in an opinion poll (specifically biased to force that answer), millions of creationists (by that definition) are non-racist.

Having said that, racism is one of those unsupportable emotional biases that causes those who think they need it great discomfort. That discomfort and the intense sense of defensiveness it provokes is central to the right wing reality denial ideology.

2) Stonewall Jackson, oddly enough, was very non-racist by the standards of his time (Southern OR Norther standards). He was an active advocate for African-American literacy and education in a time and place where teaching African-Americans to read was illegal. (No doubt a specialist will enhance my comment by pointing out some more details, but the gist of it is correct.) If he had lived, he might have been an advocate of equality during the Reconstruction and have ended up a despised figure (there were quite a few white Southerners who did that), but he was killed by the Union Army and is thus a hero to southerners.

diogeneslamp0 said:

If you follow the Talk Origins link, you should follow it to read about Jerry Bergman writing to the Ku Klux Klan to complain about affirmative action for black people. Then he blames Darwin for the racism he, Bergman, was just promoting. Then when he got caught, he denied remembering writing the letter. He’s got mental problems.

On Amazon, Bergman poses as at least two different sock puppets so that he can post 5-star reviews for his own books, and promote them in comments, while pretending not to be the author of what he’s selling. He controls his own star ratings on Amazon through multiple sock puppets. On Amazon, I try posting comments on his fake reviews to expose him as the author of the books he’s reviewing. He keeps doing it. He’s pathological.

There is a strong correlation between believing in Creationism and being pathologically deceptive.

On General “Stonewall” Jackson, there are various opinions. He was above all else a devout protestant (Presbyterian) Christian, and this was certainly the basis of his conviction that all persons, even the least, should be treated kindly, with charity, justice and goodwill. This he very honourably did with his slaves - his family held about half a dozen. But he was in no doubt that slavery was ordained of God, and he treated them, as he was entitled to do by the law of his time and place, as his possessions. He did teach reading to black children in his Sunday school classes - and although this was entirely so that they could read the scriptures for themselves, it was still the gift of literacy.

He was not killed by the Union Army, but was shot by pickets of his own side, and died of complications to the pneumonia that set in after an operation to amputate his shattered arm. A gifted general, if an eccentric one, he was also a decent man and a gentleman, like his great commander. I certainly would have strongly disagreed with nearly all of his opinions, and yet I would that Henry Morris and the current creationist crew had half his honesty and sense of honour.

apokryltaros said:

diogeneslamp0 said:

If you follow the Talk Origins link, you should follow it to read about Jerry Bergman writing to the Ku Klux Klan to complain about affirmative action for black people. Then he blames Darwin for the racism he, Bergman, was just promoting. Then when he got caught, he denied remembering writing the letter. He’s got mental problems.

On Amazon, Bergman poses as at least two different sock puppets so that he can post 5-star reviews for his own books, and promote them in comments, while pretending not to be the author of what he’s selling. He controls his own star ratings on Amazon through multiple sock puppets. On Amazon, I try posting comments on his fake reviews to expose him as the author of the books he’s reviewing. He keeps doing it. He’s pathological.

There is a strong correlation between believing in Creationism and being pathologically deceptive.

Really? I hadn’t noticed.

Dave Luckett

On General “Stonewall” Jackson, there are various opinions. He was above all else a devout protestant (Presbyterian) Christian, and this was certainly the basis of his conviction that all persons, even the least, should be treated kindly, with charity, justice and goodwill. This he very honourably did with his slaves - his family held about half a dozen. But he was in no doubt that slavery was ordained of God, and he treated them, as he was entitled to do by the law of his time and place, as his possessions. He did teach reading to black children in his Sunday school classes - and although this was entirely so that they could read the scriptures for themselves, it was still the gift of literacy.

As I noted, relatively non-racist by the standards of his time, Northern or Southern standards. Teaching African-American slaves to read for any reason was extremely controversial, especially in the aftermath of Nat Turner, but even before. Even preaching Christianity to slaves was controversial in some places and times.

I realize that it seems absurd, by contemporary humane standards, to say that someone who owned some slaves, but taught them to read rather than enforcing illiteracy, was a relative non-racists, but sadly, at the time, that was very much the case.

He was not killed by the Union Army, but was shot by pickets of his own side, and died of complications to the pneumonia that set in after an operation to amputate his shattered arm. A gifted general, if an eccentric one, he was also a decent man and a gentleman, like his great commander. I certainly would have strongly disagreed with nearly all of his opinions, and yet I would that Henry Morris and the current creationist crew had half his honesty and sense of honour.

That’s right, that had slipped my mind, technically, he was actually killed by unintentional friendly fire.

My point wasn’t to defend Stonewall Jackson by contemporary standards; just to note the irony that, despite contemporary lionization of Jackson by racist authoritarians, he wasn’t, beyond the accident of having been born in the south, a particularly harsh or racist figure himself.

Our resident Canadian YEC is not banned, but he is restricted to cogent comments, and so far he has failed to comply.

Matt Young said:

Our resident Canadian YEC is not banned, but he is restricted to cogent comments, and so far he has failed to comply.

i thinking maybe never to be happen just a line of reasoning

i thinking maybe never to be happen just a line of reasoning

that sounds like fuzzy illogic!

A few years ago I blogged about a children’s book on creationism (by Duane Gish) that featured a fire-breathing Parasaurolophus: http://thedispersalofdarwin.wordpre[…]re-treasure/

- Michael Barton

David Orr also blogged about this same book, using my photos: http://chasmosaurs.blogspot.com/201[…]hosaurs.html

I wouldn’t be overly surprised if we did discover a dinosaur could breathe fire or something burning/scaldingly similar. Nature has produced some remarkable bits of WTF engineering. I would be quite surprised however if said dinosaur, or any dinosaur*, survived the tens of millions of years needed to then be noted by people and passed into legend.

*Not including avians of course. –dan

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Matt Young published on June 13, 2012 6:23 PM.

New attack on science standards? was the previous entry in this blog.

Evolution and Belief: Book review is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter