Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Fred Phelps

2007-06-02T22:42:30Z

Manifestdestiny: disgusting liberal bias

==No linking to Phelps's web sites==

They are not family appropriate, and Conservapedia is not a repository of hate speech. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
: Would it be reasonable to add the prohibition of making and linking to hate speech one of the commandments? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I think that's an excellent idea. I suggest bringing it up either on Aschlafly's Talk Page or Talk:Conservapedia Commandments. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
: I did not know that I shouldn't have linked to his websites. However, could you please put into the opening paragraph that Fred Phelps' mission is against homosexuality? As it is, this important fact is not mentioned until halfway down the page. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 19:33, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:Will do. In fact, I'm going to unprotect this. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:55, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Surely the main authority on Phelps's teachings in Phelps himself? His sites should be linked to. I suggest doing so as plain text, not a clickable link, and alongside a warning notice.

*Posts not signed are ignored. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

==Discussion of subject==

I'm going to tentatively leave this in place, although it was intended to make Christians look bad by the original creator, he is a major news figure because of his funeral protests, and his actions have prompted major legislation regarding these (and he is also a major embarrassment to my home state, as well as a DEMOCRAT who actually campaigned for Al Gore in 1988 before he went on his anti-homosexual crusade).

Also, I drove by his "church" once and I got a physical chill once I got within two blocks of it. I felt like I was in a place of true evil. Interestingly, the ZIP codes in Topeka, where he lives, all start with 666. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I just moved it because it was under "Fred phelps," and the lack of proper capitalization was bothering me. I like to copy edit. :-p [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

If you looked at the original article as it was written, it contained some crude language. But thanks for working on the capitalization. It bothers me as well when articles are started like that. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:30, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with you completely. I didn't want to bother with the article at the time, and I'm glad someone else did. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

On a more humorous note, [http://www.barzelay.net/files/images/other/phelps.jpg this] was taken outside of Vandy when Phelps came to visit. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I saw that picture for sale in a liberal store downtown once. It's so funny.
One of Phelps's lackeys told my friend that his hair was too long once. (I live about 25 miles from Topeka, so we get a lot of him.) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:51, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:But everyone knows, Jesus doesn't like long hair... [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::::This man makes me question the First Amendment, he is just that much of a evil being.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I know. His speech is beyond reasonable and just disgusting. I would guess that a majority of Kansans would support his execution.
And Colin, you may be thinking of Paul :) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I know the feeling. I'm a huge believer in the importance of the First Amendment, especially free speech, but what he says is just so ridiculous it's hard to believe it's technically allowed. And MD, I was mostly referring to the fact that most men of Jesus' time had "longer" hair. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 04:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

That's what I thought. I don't like to judge other Christians' salvation, but I have to make an exception here for old Freddie. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 04:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: OK, I saw you reverted the article back after I added content about the extent of his hate speach. There needs away for this to be stated, especially if you are going to allow the b.s. about militant homosexuals on the page. Otherwise this article makes him come across as less insane than he is.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 18:04, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::I agree. I just don't think that the word "fag" is appropriate for an article on this site. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::: The hate crimes against Fred Phelps section is uncited b.s. and I think it should be deleted unless someone can give any evidence beyond Phelps' own paranoia and delusional rantings. I'm doing you a favor--Fred Phelps is not your friend. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 11:02, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I'm also taking out the Al Gore contributions part since that isn't cited either. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 11:04, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Edits by Jack ==

please push your liberal views in an article about yourself. This article is about Fred Phelps views, not yours. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Ummmm, liberal views? You say that as if it was a bad thing. One of the commandments here is that claims need to be properly sourced. This article is certainly making a lot of excuses regarding one of the most abhorrant men in America today. He goes to military funerals with signs that say "God Hates F*gs". That is an objective, well documented fact. However, the sysops delete it from the main page. However, completely unsubstantiated claims by Phelps that HE is the victim of hate crimes is allowed to be left up. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 22:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::The subject of an article and their public statements are reliable sources for an article. Phelps is preaching the literal statements of the Bible. In fact, he is at the most extreme end of the spectrum with the limits of free speech I have ever seen. The article is about his views and him. And he is certainly notable. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 22:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::RightWolf2, please stop editing the article to claim that Phelps is "literally following the Bible", and please stop attacking Jack. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::1. Not an attack, but a statement of my views. 2. When admins and their buddies start forming cabals to reinforce each other, free editing goes out the window. 3. I am over 60 years old, I am a competent attorney, and I am not here to rain on anyones parade. Just to add God's word. 4. Your views of Phelps are "your views". Articles about subjects as controversial as phelps should enshrine "his views", not everyone elses opinions. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 11:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Landover Baptist==

Is Fred Phelps' church the inspiration for the Landover Baptist Church website that mocks Christian Extremism?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==?==

"Phelps, although outspoken and outlandish, is far less of a hypocrite than other Christian organizations who claim to be able to determine which verses from the Bible are literal from those that are allegorical."

Wow. QED. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

With all respect to the fact that it shouldn't be stated on an encyclopedia, Phelps probably is going to Hell. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 00:42, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

==Phelps is PRO-FAMILY, not anti-homosexual==

There's a reason Dr. Dobson called his institution "Focus on the Family" and not "We Hate Gays". There's a reason that it's called the "Family Research Council". The people who oppose the homosexual agenda are PRO-FAMILY, not anti-anything. Even the mainstream media generally recognizes this fact and ignore the moonbats (just like they ignore the moonbats when the moonbats try to label "PRO-lifers" as "ANTI-choicers"). Even the mainstream media (which has been proven to be overwhelmingly liberal, remember) doesn't call Dr. Dobson a bigot or a homophobe. So why shouldn't Conservapedia, which was created to espouse the CONSERVATIVE point of view, reflect what even liberals acknowledge?--[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 02:38, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Phelps isn't a true conservative. He says Bush is going to burn in hell. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:39, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Jeeze, conservatives aren't brainless clones who can't disagree! I strongly disagree with Phelps on this matter, but that doesn't make him a non-conservative! Besides, the issue isn't whether or not he's conservative, the issue is his PRO-FAMILY "bias"!--[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 02:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

*My reading of scripture, perhaps not as advanced as some, tells me if we keep judging, which God has said is his alone to do, we will all be burning. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:I agree with Terry, but as I've learned from much debating with christians, the argument doesn't work. They've chosen to ignore one thing the bible says in order to use another thing the bible says to achieve their goals or to justify their hate.[[User:Nsmyth|NSmyth]] 04:47, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
*Well, really, in the Grand Scheme of things, it isn't important. All of us, eventually, will face the harshest, yet most loving Judge in the Universe. Justifications, and legal arguments won't be allowed, lol. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:You can be anti homosexual without being pro-family. The cult Phelps has developed targets and belittles families, he is truely a Bad person in every sense of the word, if he has gotten anything right it has been by way of accident [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 01:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Being anti-homosexual is not being pro-family. It is being pro-YOUR-idea-of-family, and forcing that idea on the rest of the world. There's a big difference.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Phelps is not pro-family, he's pro-hate. There's a difference. His websites are not family-friendly, his sermons are not, nor are his "hymns", and neither are his images. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:54, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

What does Phelps stand for, _besides_ hating gays? That seems to be his one schtick. And by all accounts, he psychologically and physically abused his OWN family, which doesn't sound too 'pro-family' to me. [http://blank.org/addict/] (Court evidence--not for the weak of stomach.) --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 07:56, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== What the #$@% ==

This page mention nothing about the sick twisted and evil nature of Fred Phelps and his family cult. I don't know how this site can call itself conservative and not utterly denounce someone who celebrates the deaths of our fighting men and women and taunts the families of our brave departed soldiers. I am disgusted that he gets off with one line of criticism. [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 01:41, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:Opcn, I believe the principle at work here is "The Enemy Of My Enemy Is My Friend." Which is a very long way from "Love thine enemies" but that was just some liberal claptrap from about 33 AD or so. [[User:Teresita|Banned User Teresita]] 01:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Phelps and Religion ==

"It's hard to be religious when certain people aren't incinerated by bolts of lightning." -- Calvin.
--[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 07:46, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== disgusting liberal bias ==

this article is terribly condemning of this man. this is the same kind of p.c. bias crap that made me sick of wikipedia. mr. phelps believes in the same things we all do, so why is this article against hihm? he only believes in the things that jesus taught1!1[[User:Manifestdestiny|Manifestdestiny]] 18:42, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:John Kerry

2007-06-02T22:27:42Z

Manifestdestiny: /* Nice work with the Zeig-Heil photo */

Citation needed relative to liberal voting record, shouldn't be too hard to find.

* First one google finds: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60419-2004Jul18.html "Americans for Democratic Action, or ADA, which wants senators to earn a high rating, has a more straightforward ranking system. Each year the group identifies 20 important votes and assigns five points each time a senator votes the way ADA advocates. Kerry has a lifetime average of 92. As Republicans note, this is two points higher than Democrat Walter F. Mondale's lifetime ADA average. Mondale, the 1984 presidential nominee, is regarded as the most emphatic old-style liberal offered by Democrats in recent decades." [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 22:57, 9 March 2007 (EST)
: Here is a [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1eF3UbZbCc Youtube video] about Kerry's voting record. Some claim he does not have that liberal a voting record. [http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=S0421103 His voting record can be seen here] and [http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/John_Kerry.htm here is another reference to his voting record]. You should be able to look at these sources as more reliable than that Youtube video. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 12:12, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:*According to the National Journal (which was a big source for the 3 year old Washington post article) John Kerry ranks as the 12th most liberal and the 87th most conservative. I'm reverting the "most liberal" language to "one of the most liberal, with cites. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 12:59, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== This article is probably mostly stolen. ==

I just reinstated a lot of content because someone cited "article too long" as a reason for removal, which is silly. However, I suspect that the majority of the content on this page is stolen and probably does need to be dealt with in a more responsible manner. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 20:59, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Recommend ==

[[Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style/Politicians]][[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:17, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

== Nice work with the Zeig-Heil photo ==

Though for completeness I think you need to also include one of him in the pink jumpsuit. What better way to visually convey the conservapedia's disdain for John Kerry, Democrats in General, the state of Massachusetts, and balance in general. That'll teach him to... you know, wave and have his picture taken from an odd angle and... wear the same cleansuit as everyone else...
:yes. we must also find a picture (and it shouldn't be TOO HARD) OF this pinko performing an abortion. [[User:Manifestdestiny|Manifestdestiny]] 18:27, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

== "Kerry's fellow soldiers" ==

This article seems to take the accusations of the "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" at face value, for instance saying that he "went to great lengths" to be given his purple hearts, which is not simply editorializing but specifically repeating a charge by the group, who has themselves been rebuffed publically on many of their claims. Also, the phrasing "Kerry's Fellow Soldiers" is rather misleading, as while all these people were in the same military at the same time as Kerry, none of the "Swifties" actually served with Kerry. Its true, but leaves a deliberately incorrect impression. Its rather like saying "Some of Kerry's fellow Americans have accused him of being 'French-Looking.'"--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 14:00, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

*''themselves been rebuffed publically on many of their claims''
:Name one. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:34, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::...good lord are you actually serious? Um, okay then I'd like to introduce you to [http://www.undergroundclips.com/undergroundclips/2004/10/nightline_falsi.html an obscure little program called NightLine] for starters (the site is over the top, but links to the relevant video, which I implore you to give a watch). Other news reports exist but I'm having a challenge finding them online at the moment, but the point is that basically that part where they claim Kerry got the silver star for tearing the heart out of a 2-year old child and eating it to fuel his satanic powers? Yeah, thats basically a lie. The only things they are semi-right about is whether Kerry was "wounded enough" for some of his purple hearts, and when he claimed to be in Cambodia he was merely near it and not actually within it. My point is that treating the group as arbiters of objective fact by repeating their charge unquestioningly is just... well flat out silly.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 15:08, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I got a dead link on the video; in good faith, I'll work with you on this, let me warn you however, most of this is easily debunkable. And let's begin with the ABC [http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Vote2004/story?id=166434&page=1] piece which uses this terminology, "official account", "According to the military citation", "According to Kerry's medal citation", "According to the Navy's official report", and ''still'' a few other references to the same, the Swift Boat Vets contention is '''John Kerry wrote all this'''. So ''ABC News'' is being a little disengenous here, if not outright deceptive, in not even addressing the fundemental issues under contention. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:49, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::Firstly, as I understand it, even in the unlikely though somewhat plausible case of Kerry writing all the pertinent documents that would later become the official record off which his commendations were based, these same documents also have to undergo review to be considered as much. It was, in fact, reviewed by two of the SWVTs themselves, Captains George Elliott and Adrian Lonsdale. [http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50914FE3D5A0C738EDDA10894DC404482 From the New York Times]
:::But Mr. Elliott and Mr. Lonsdale, who handled reports going up the line for recognition, have previously said that a medal would be awarded only if there was corroboration from others and that they had thoroughly corroborated the accounts.
:::"Witness reports were reviewed; battle reports were reviewed," Mr. Lonsdale said at the 1996 news conference, adding, "It was a very complete and carefully orchestrated procedure." In his statements Mr. Elliott described the action that day as "intense" and "unusual."
::For these two men who reviewed the record and recommendation for citation to come out 35 years later and say they were fabricated is flatout ridiculous. Likewise, for John O'Neil, Head-Swiftie, to come out and challenge the official record decades after the war with accusations and allegations and no real evidence outside of the testimony of a group of politically-minded veterans is equally ridiculous.
::You know what though, yes, I agree that ABC would have better spent their time pointing out how little evidence there is to support the Swift Boat's claims and showing how members of the group are responsible for the construction of the "official record" that they claim was falsified. However, that doesnt make the Swifties any more truthful.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 16:22, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Ok, so this should be the first line of investigation, i.e. determining ''exactly'' what SBVT (and by extension, John O'Neill in ''Unfit for Command'') claims are regarding Kerry. ''ABC News'' would have us believe the dispute concerns things such as who was standing where at the time of gunfire, etc. If the dispute is primarily over the veracity of documents, would you agree ABC has pretty much disqualified itself as a credible source? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:50, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::I just said their time was wasted, not that they're discredible for it. Further, since the ABC investigation goes some way to provide some evidence that bolsters the official account (the one that went largely unchallenged these 35+ years) and by extension refuted the claims in "Unfit" its still fairly relevant to my initial point, that these people have already been challanged in the press. I could gripe about how it took so long for the MSM to start examining what they were saying to see if it were true at all before giving them a platform to speak almost unchallenged and accuse a Presidential candidate of, essentially, desertion and treason, but my main point remains, that the CPedia article currently treats such allegations as fact, that he "went to unusual lengths" and "his wounds were self-inflicted." Such statements are based, almost exclusively, on opinions and contradict the official record which, in spite of SBVT's publicity and bluster, remains unchanged today.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 17:12, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:::So you're basically argueing the defunct WP:Verifiabilty policy -- so long as a lie originates, or is repeated in a "reliable" source, it's a valid inclusion, nevermind the fact it can be proven false, invalid, obsolete, or irrelevent. And I think the claim that the "official account (the one that went largely unchallenged these 35+ years)" can also be proven to be without foundation. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:44, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::...I'm sorry, apparently I think I'm saying one thing and you're managing to hear it coming out as the exact opposite. I'm arguing that, since the bulk of the claims by the SBVT have been challeneged publically and rebuffed by many on both sides of the political arena, that treating their evaluation as empirical proof and making statements as fact whose truth is depentant on the veracity of those SBVT claims, is ridiculous. In this way I'm trying to argue the exact opposite of that same defunct WP policy, and that the Swifties claims should not be treated as inherently valid for myriad reasons, not least of which is that they go against the official record. They are the ones making the remarkable claims that go against current perceptions. The onus is on them to provide proof, and in their book, by and large, they provide none, but rather a great deal of conspiracy-theory speculation (Kerry wrote his own commendation, got them to be accepted as fact, was awarded purple hearts for razor burns, etc). They have, in what I would hope is any professional's view, a long way to go to have their claims be taken seriously, and to repeat their unfounded claims as though it were a matter of undisputed record is reckless and irresponsible.
::And of course its the official account, otherwise Kerry wouldn't have gotten the medals, and of course it hadn't been challenged before or more hay would've been made of it.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 18:24, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::*''since the bulk of the claims by the SBVT have been challeneged publically and rebuffed by many on both sides of the political arena''
:::*I reject the validity of this assertion.
::::You dont think ABC News using air time to explain that they're distorting things counts as them being challenges in the public sphere? You dont think John McCain (R-AZ) and John Murtha (D-I forget) constitute bipartisan rebuffment?--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 23:06, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::McCain did not challenge the veracity of the claims, McCain challenged the appropriateness of their motives in the political process vs a consensus of national healing and reconciliation over issues that divided the country. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:55, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::*''treating their evaluation as empirical proof ''
:::*What's been proposed above is to deteremine "''exactly'' what... [the]... claims are" as "the first line of investigation".
::*''Swifties claims should not be treated as inherently valid ''
:::*This would be analyized ''after'' "the first line of investigation" is complete, i.e. determining what are the Swifties claims.
::::I have not been arguing either way on this, and I'm not sure why you are, but I'm just saying that since their claims are in dispute, for the article on Kerry, in its current form, to impart the perception of this group as objective act is fallacious. You actually agreed to this above when you were talking about "verifiability" and I'm not sure why you dont recognize it coming from the other side.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 23:06, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
::::*''since their claims are in dispute''
:::::*There is only one who can dispute their claims, John Kerry. Kerry can bring forword eyewitnesses to support his position, eyewitnesses who's own credibility must be examined. ''ABC News'' '''cannot''' dispute the claims; they can investigate, however ''primea facia'' evidence shows ''ABC News'' investigation to be skewed. Now, if you make reference to ''ABC News'', ''et al'', as "disputing claims", that is a reflection of a flawed methodological approach. So one needs to be cautious here in discussing how we are to go about conducting our own investigation. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:55, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::*''current perceptions''
:::*General statement without foundation.
::::It meant "what the, as of then unchallenged, record had shown at that point." I rather think that would have been obvious from the context but if you needed it explained to you then you only needed to ask.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 23:06, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::*''in their book''
:::Faulty premise and statement; "their book" presumably refers to O'Niell's book. O'Niell is singular and distinct from the SBVT, so a determination has to be made of what relationship, if any, exists between SBVT and the publication of the O'Neills book.
::::Except he's the public face of the group and as such, presumably, speaks for them not simply in television interviews, but also his published works. To argue that the book has nothing to do with the group when they share the same arguments and ideology as well as the same membership is lunacy.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 23:06, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::::*We cannot presume a connection without investigating it first. That there has been a coordinated effort to discredit both there is no denying, but we cannot begin an investigation based upon what may be a deliberate, and flawed presumption and prejudice. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:55, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::*''They have... a long way to go to have their claims be taken seriously''
:::*Indeed by the Mosaic covenant, we will determine, "by the testimony of two witness, a matter is established". So we need to examine the credibility of ''all'' witnesses present, including Mr. John Kerry. (evidence such as, "I voted for it before I voted against it", or beating up on Mary Cheney before 80 million viewers to further his own career needs to be examined to determine the character of this witness). [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:34, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
::And this is just plain classy. You're trying to steer the argument away from anything I was trying to say into your own agenda to get these guys more attention, and use two non sequitur attacks on Kerry to do so. Yeah, he "beat up on Mary Cheney" when he said his father loves her. Yeah, you can vote for the same exact Senate bill two different times in the Senate in two different ways. Spot on. Good for you. Have a cookie.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 23:06, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::*So would you agree determining exactly what the claims stated by O'Neill and the SBVT is the first line of investigation? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:55, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

...dear lord you're actually so intent on keeping the phrasing such as it is that you're proposing an investigation into the group and Oneill specifically just so you can justify using it. Yeah, lets give unsubstantiated claims that contradict the official record, made by a man with a political axe to grind, even more publicity. What better way to get to the bottom of things than that particular waste of time?
"There is only one who can dispute their claims, John Kerry. Kerry can bring forword eyewitnesses to support his position, eyewitnesses who's own credibility must be examined."
Why is Kerry automatically the one who has to justify himself? Why are you treating ONeill's claims as inherently truthful, claims that are refuted by the official record, and the personal testimony of the people serving on Kerry's boat (a relevant point too is that the SwiftVets never served alongside Kerry in this capacity, their testimony is not that of "witnesses")?
Look, here's a corrolary. I accuse you of being a witch. It would be asanine of me to demand you to provide proof that you're not when my claim, which has no evidence behind it, is almost entirely self-evidently false. The burden of proof is not on Kerry and the people he served with, its on ONeill and the SwiftVets, and given how self-contradictory their claims are and how politically motivated their operation seems to be, why should their criticisms be given more credibility than the official military record, one that, with regards to Kerry's service, had not gone challenged for decades until such time as was politically opportune.

All this though is tangential to my point. Saying Kerry went to great lengths to get his purple hearts is merely an opinion, a gossipy one at that, and one which is at odds with the established military record, and I'm more inclined to trust the United States Military over two people with an axe to grind. I'm pretty sure one of the commandments is about gossip and opinions being used in place of fact. he "has been accsed of it" perhaps, but stating it as objectively true is outright wrong. And characterizing the detractors, who did not serve with Kerry in any real capacity, his "fellow soldiers" is a misleading claim.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 22:04, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

*'' a man with a political axe to grind''
:*What does this mean? a candidate nominated by an opposition party to run against an incumbant cannot be described as "a man with a poltical axe to grind"?
*''What better way to get to the bottom of things than that particular waste of time? ''
:*So rubber stamping biased media reports is valid historical writing, but an independent investigation into the facts is a "waste of time"?
*''Why is Kerry automatically the one who has to justify himself? ''
:*Under this methodology, ''ABC News'' becomes an eyewitness to any investigation, perhaps how ABC reported the Virgina Tech massacre is admissible evidence, nevermind the fact they didn't have camera's or reporters in classrooms where and when the incident occurred? Does this sort of methodological research and reporting even need commenting on?
*''Why are you treating ONeill's claims as inherently truthful...the SwiftVets never served alongside Kerry in this capacity, their testimony is not that of "witnesses")? ''
:*If you read what is outlined above, it lays out the proper method to proceed. That O'Neil & SBVT made charges is not in dispute; that the characterization of those charges in so-called "mainstream media" has been distorted we already have evidence; that John Kerry's character as a credible witness needs close scrutiny, because that is the basic charge of ''Unfit for Command'' (obvious in the title of the book); that there is evidence to suspect Kerry's character and crediblibly there is ample evidence now, the question is was it questionable 30 years ago; that Kerry may have witnesses to vouch for his tale has been established, and we need to examine their credibility, not accept ''ABC News'' reports asssement of their credibility at face value. And there are other issues to be examined as well.
*''The burden of proof is not on Kerry ''
:*To use a ''Perotism'', Kerry had a job application before the American people, the job he applied for was Commander in Chief. A background check, with references, is standard and routine. A previous associate said he was unfit for the job; yes, examining the credibility of that associate is in order. But it's not simply a "he said/she said". Kerry's credibiblty was already in question. Obviously, the inability to repair Kerry's reputation would lead to a strategy of slander and defamation of his detractors if specific claims could not be refuted. Ultimatley, this is exactly what happened. Let's investigate all of it.
*''given how self-contradictory their claims are ''
:*Yet to be established.
*''their claims are and how politically motivated their operation seems to be''
:*See above ''burden of proof''; yes indeed, efforts to slander & defame the Swifities by Kerry, the DNC, and media toadies does appear politically motivated.
*''had not gone challenged for decades''
:*See above reference to ''Perotism''; Kerry had not applied for the job of Commander-in-Chief til 2004. And this may be a false premise, some of the claims may have arisen in previous Senate campaigns.
*''Saying Kerry went to great lengths to get his purple hearts is merely an opinion''
:*The issue is larger than that; the basic idea is Kerry followed JFK's footsteps. Like JFK, a PT boat commander, Kerry went to Vietnam looking to build a "warhero" image with the intent to return to Massachusetts as JFK did, run for Senate, and like JKF, become President someday. Big difference here between JFK & JFK (John Forbes Kerry), however; the first JFK got his warhero status in service to his country; the second JFK of Massachusetts got his warhero status awarded to himself by himself in service to himself and his own ambitions. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:26, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Another point-by-point. Ooh and this one has even more bullets than your previous one which dissected my statement in so many ways I couldnt possibly address them all to anybody's satisfaction. Congratulations on intentionally obfuscating the issue so you never have to address it head on.
*Credit [[Noam Chomsky]], the godfather of [[deconstructionism]]. Maybe [[Theodore Adorno]] and the [[Frankfurt School]] of [[critical thinking]], the birthplace of [[political corrrectness]], too. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:57, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:Okay, so I accuse you of unnecessary deconstruction and straying off topic, and you respond with unnecessary deconstruction and straying even further off topic. I imagine your next post will involve the potato famine and the film "Heat" in some arbitrary way that I cant wait to read.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 17:28, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

So, we've got unnecessary dissection, we've got you hearing me saying things that aren't even near the point I'm explicitly making, we've got diversion onto Mary Cheney, Kerry's "flip-flopping" (I'm surprised you dont actually use that word for it, we both know you must derive immense pleasure from as much) and adding to the pile of logic and reason not only do we get JFK in on this discussion, but you decide this is the time and place to come down on ABC for some percieved slight dealing with the Virginia Tech Massacre. If I were a more hostile and arrogant man than I am, I would cal it such a lucky thing for you that happened this week, otherwise you'd actually have had to think a bit before trying to derail the argument again.
*The Mary Cheney business is worth investigating; as I recall, what a person does in their private sex life is no bodies business, and Senator Kerry voted to uphold that sacred principal in the Clinton Impeachment Trial. Why he decided to expose Mary Cheney's sex life to 80 million viewers, there is only one possible explanation for this 'flip-flop' of moral principal, and it coincidentally parellels the charges made by Swift Boat Vets -- to further his own career. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:57, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:Mary Cheney had been, prior to that, public about her sexual orientation. When John Edwards mentioned Ms. Cheney's sexuality at the VP debate, Chaney thanked him for the kind words. Stating publically available information is not "exposing" anybody, nor, if it was, would it indicate Kerry is of week morals, nor, if it did, would it connect to the swifties at all because the theoretical moral issue is about privacy and not deception, as the Swifties accuse. Honestly, do you even understand a single thing that you've been talking about here? How can you confuse exposing facts with concealing facts? --[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 17:28, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::Ok, so we can investigate the claims of Mary Cheney being "open'; that still doesn't justify what he did in that forum, (twice), nor a flip flop on invading somebodies privacy over their sexuality, nor publicly outing someone while at the sametime claiming a criminal act -- perjury -- is justifiable if somebody lied about their sex life. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:03, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

The points I'm making, yet again, are as follows: A- Calling the Swifties "Kerry's Fellow Soldier's" is mislabeling them as, although they all did serve in Vietnam, none of them actually served with Kerry, which in addition to making anything they claim to have "witnessed" severely suspect (though not, of course, in your eyes), makes that label severely disengenuous. B- Saying Kerry went to great lengths to get his purple hearts, a statement which is not reflected in the official record, is unfounded gossip, and has no place being stated as though it were any sort of official assesment or objective fact.
*Ok, we'll lool at these specific claims. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:57, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:Feel free to. Mean time, stating them as outright fact is unjustified, no? --[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 17:28, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

In all the text you supply to try and derail the argument and argue that before any mere rephrasing of a sentence is made a full investigation must be conducted by the high-minded, independent scholars here at the conservapedia, you never so much as disagree with my assessments, much less contradict them. I am forced to assume that you concede my point, and I will be correcting the article shortly to reflect your unacknowledged agreement with me.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 10:44, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
*''you never so much as disagree with my assessments, much less contradict them''
:Why would I? That would be prejudicial and flawed research methodology. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:57, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::Marvelous. So you have no problem with the edit. Lord knows why it took you a few days to say as much, or why you felt the need to drag Noam Chomsky, Virginia Tech, and Mary Cheney into it, but thats as may be and I suppose its my fault for not predicting this kind of behavior here. I'll be making the change later. when I have more time. --[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 17:28, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Go ahead and edit the article; it still remains subject to review for the veractiy of any claims. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:03, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Creation Museum

2007-06-02T22:26:25Z

Manifestdestiny:

[[Image:CMpix1.JPG|thumb|300px|The front of the Creation Museum while under construction in 2005.]]
The '''Creation Museum''' is a 60,000 square foot [[museum]]<ref name="creationmuseum" /><ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14122311/ Museum Brings Creationism to Life], MSNBC, says "50,000 square-foot-museum"</ref> that cost 27 million dollars to construct. It is located in Petersburg, [[Kentucky]], just outside of [[Cincinnati]], a location chosen due to having almost two thirds of the [[United States]] population within a 650-[[mile]] distance.<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070520/ts_alt_afp/uspoliticsreligion_070520222942 Dinosaurs frolic with Adam and Eve at creationism museum]</ref> Designed to promote a [[Young Earth Creationism|Young-Earth Creationist]]view of history with state of the art displays and presentations, it opened its doors to the public on May 28, 2007, exceeding expectations by receiving 4,000 visitors on the first day.

"The Creation Museum presents a 'walk through history'"<ref name="creationmuseum">[http://creationmuseum.org Creation Museum]</ref> with a basis on a literal understanding of [[Genesis]] chapter 1. The exhibits are designed, for "[a] fully engaging, sensory experience,"<ref name="creationmuseum" /> to illustrate [[Earth]]'s history and origin from a [[Young Earth Creationist]] perspective. The enterprise is supported by [[Ken Ham]], founder of [[Answers in Genesis]].

On its opening, the ''New York Times'' gave it a page one review which commented:
{{cquote|Whether you are willing to grant the premises of this museum almost becomes irrelevant as you are drawn into its mixture of spectacle and narrative. Its 60,000 square feet of exhibits are often stunningly designed by Patrick Marsh, who, like the entire museum staff, declares adherence to the ministry's views; he evidently also knows the lure of secular sensations, since he designed the "Jaws" and "King Kong" attractions at [[Universal Studios]] in [[Florida]].... The Creation Museum offers an alternate world that has its fascinations, even for a skeptic wary of the effect of so many unanswered assertions. He leaves feeling a bit like Adam emerging from Eden, all the world before him, freshly amazed at its strangeness and extravagant peculiarities.<ref>Rothstein, Edward (2007) "Museum Review: Adam and Eve in the Land of the Dinosaurs," ''The New York Times,'' May 24, 2007, p. 1; also [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/arts/24crea.html?_r=1&ex=1180670400&en=5856f2432a6c1&oref=slogin online].</ref>}}

==Controversy==
There has been much controversy since the Kentucky-based Creation Museum was announced. Lawrence Krauss (evolutionist)<ref>[http://www.phys.cwru.edu/faculty/index.php?krauss Lawrence Krauss, Faculty Page]</ref> stated that the museum is both a "fraud" and "hypocritical" because it "...repeatedly misrepresents the process and results of [[science]] and distorts the scientific record. Yet in every case it takes advantage of the technical wizardry of science to get its point across, with a series of dazzling [[animatronic]] displays and explanations"<ref> Kraus, L, 2007 quoted in "Museum of Misinformation", New Scientist, May 26th 2007, p24</ref>

Greg Neyman, of [[Answers In Creation]], expressed concern about non-[[Christian]] museum visitors. "They will see the museum, and recognize its faulty science, and will be turned away from the church. This will increase the already widening gap between the unchurched and the churched. ... [[Atheist]]ic people and organizations are increasingly attacking the [[church]], because they perceive that the findings of modern science cannot be reconciled with the [[Bible]]."<ref>Answers in Creation - Creation Museum Media Mania, March 30, 2007[http://www.answersincreation.org/rebuttal/aig/daily/2007/20070330_creation_museum.htm]</ref>

Ken Ham debated the issues raised by the Museum on The FOX News Channel’s TV program The O’Reilly Factor on 28th May.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/28/museum-news-oreilly Ken Ham on The O’Reilly Factor]</ref>

==Other Creation Museums==
The [[Creation Evidence Museum]] in Glen Rose, [[Texas]], was established in 1984. According to its web site, the museum presents "scientific evidence for creation and design by a personal Creator", and "makes a unique contribution, demonstrating that man and dinosaur lived contemporaneously".<ref>Creation Evidence Museum[http://www.creationevidence.org/]</ref>

[[Dinosaur Adventure Land]] in Pensacola, Florida, a "theme park" consisting of a discovery center and museum, was established in 2001. Its founder, minister [[Kent Hovind]], said "There are a lot of creationists that are really smart and debate the intellectuals, but the kids are bored after five minutes. You're missing 98 percent of the population if you only go the intellectual route." The site has no rides. Demonstrations include the Nerve-Wracking Ball, a bowling ball suspended from a rope. Visitors are challenged to stand at a specific location, while a park guide carefully launches the ball from another specific location, and demonstrate their "faith in God's laws"—in this case, that a swinging object will never come back higher than the point from which it took off—by standing without moving or flinching as the ball comes close to their face.<ref>Goodenough, Abby (2004), "Darwin-Free Fun For Creationists", ''The New York Times,'' May 1, 2004, p. 7</ref>

A much more modest creation museum, the [[Big Valley Creation Science Museum]], is scheduled to open on June 5, 2007<ref>[http://www.bvcsm.com/ Big Valley Creation Science Museum], museum website</ref> in Big Valley, [[Canada]].<ref>[http://uk.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUKN2547663920070529 Canada's first museum of creation opens in Alberta], Reuters, May 29, 2007</ref> It includes displays on "[[Fossil]]s and the [[Great Flood|Flood]]," a set of [[England|English]] scrolls tracing the family of [[King Henry VI]] back to the [[Garden of Eden]], and illustrations of humans and dinosaurs coexisting.

Big Valley is a small [[village]] located about 270 miles north of [[Alberta]]. The region is an historically important dinosaur fossil collecting area, where the "great Canadian dinosaur rush" occurred in the early 1900s<ref>[http://www.travelforkids.com/Funtodo/Alberta/dinoasaurvalley.htm Dinosaur Valley], Travel for Kids website</ref>, popular for [[school]] field trips and tourists interested in fossils; the area also includes the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Paleontology and Dinosaur Provincial Park.

The [[Institute for Creation Research]] in Santee, [[California]] (near San Diego) has a small "Museum of Creation and Earth History" which has been operating since about 1992.<ref>[[Henry Morris|Morris, Henry]], [http://www.icr.org/article/795/ ICR and The Word Of God] ''Back to Genesis'', December 1995.</ref>

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Creation Museum

2007-06-02T22:25:53Z

Manifestdestiny:

I'm a big fan of the creation museum and Ken Ham but does this really belong in a encyclopedia?
<blockquote>
''"Ken Ham will defend the Museum against these criticisms on The FOX News Channel’s TV program The O’Reilly Factor on 28th May"''
</blockquote>

:Oh, come on, it won't last more than a day. Someone will quote was was said tomorrow. Give me a break...--[[User:AvengingAngel|AvengingAngel]] 17:35, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::I'm just not sure whether the page is intended to be a announcement board of AGI events... Remember (as I'm sure you know) this is a encyclopedia.--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 17:41, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:::OK if I'd left out that last bit, the other section would probably have got zapped. This way, I layed down a marker for someone else to follow tomorrow. I am trying to be even handed here.--[[User:AvengingAngel|AvengingAngel]] 17:44, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Well... the fill in for O'Reilly really didn't let Ken Ham say that much.... The only really useful museum fact from the interview/mini debate was that the museum had over 4,000 visitors today.--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 21:23, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm changing "evolutionist Lawrence Krauss" to "physicist Lawrence Krauss." Kraus's main focus of research and teaching is physics. I'm adding a link to his faculty page as supporting documentation. Outside of academia, he's probably best-known for writing a book about Star Trek. He's written a little about evolutionary biology in the popular press, and he debated a young earth creationist at Case maybe five years ago, but he's still a physicist by trade and reputation.
:kraus' main focus is defecating on our christian heritage. he must be credited for this.[[User:Manifestdestiny|Manifestdestiny]] 18:25, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
Clarification: Labeling Krauss as an "evolutionist" is both redundant and deceptive. It is redundant because Krauss's quoted comments make it very clear he favors biological evolution to young earth creationism. It is deceptive because it makes it looks like Krauss specializes in the study of evolution.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 00:32, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:Is his main argument against the Creation Museum based upon evolution or physics? I am guessing he is more concerned about the conclusions of the Creation Museum in biology than in physics. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:42, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

=="Demonstrate" versus "show," "illustrate," "present"==
I changed "demonstrate" to "illustrate" in the sentence
:The exhibits are designed to illustrate that the planet is just a few thousand years old and that man and dinosaurs once coexisted
"Demonstrate" means "1. To show clearly and deliberately; manifest: demonstrated her skill as a gymnast; demonstrate affection by hugging. 2. To show to be true by reasoning or adducing evidence; prove: demonstrate a proposition. 3. To present by experiments, examples, or practical application; explain and illustrate: demonstrated the laws of physics with laboratory equipment."
Very few museum exhibits of any kind demonstrate anything. Certainly a diorama that shows humans and dinosaurs coexisting does not demonstrate that they coexisted. Nor does a case of replicas of skeletons arranged in succession [http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/humanorigins/ Hall of Human Evolution] at the American Museum of Natural History "demonstrate" that humans evolved, nor does an orrery "demonstrate" that the planets move around the sun.
Exhibits "show" or "illustrate" or "present..." or "exhibit." They don't "demonstrate." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:23, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

*Thanks. Fair enough for me. Now please demonstate your superlative editing skills by actually adding something about the place, rather than concentrating on debunking quotes, okay? ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:55, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

::Point taken. Uh, I haven't added anything useful to the article, but '''I''' didn't have anything to do with any debunking quotations, either... the edit I made a few minutes ago is the last edit I'll make to this particular sentence. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:18, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:::OK, I added something (about the soon-to-open Big Valley Museum of Creation Science in Canada). maybe it should be a separate article... maybe it's not useful... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:45, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

sorrrrry, should have read this before I waded in, ooops. Will probably get reverted. Reminder to self. <Always Read the talk page>.--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 13:14, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

"The exhibits illustrate that the planet is just a few thousand years old" means that the exhibits prove it.

"The exhibits are designed to show that the planet is just a few thousand years old" means that there is a purpose behind the exhibit.

"The purpose of the exhibits is to convince us that the planet is just a few thousand years old" clarifies the purpose and does not comment on whether they work.

"The exhibits are an attempt to convince visitors to the museum that the planet is just a few thousand years old" is much more near the truth, as many may not be convinced.

Take your pick
--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 13:24, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

::Well, I ''don't'' think "illustrate" means "prove." But I'm keeping my promise and will not edit that sentence again. Let me check: "Illustrate 1a. To clarify, as by use of examples or comparisons: The editor illustrated the definition with an example sentence. b. To clarify by serving as an example or comparison: The example sentence illustrated the meaning of the word. 2. To provide (a publication) with explanatory or decorative features: illustrated the book with colorful drawings." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:44, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

== Location "chosen?" ==

The article says:
:a location chosen due to having almost two thirds of the United States population within a 650-mile distance
However, the [http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070520/ts_alt_afp/uspoliticsreligion_070520222942 cited reference] says no such thing. It does indeed say that "nearly two thirds of the population of the United States lives within a 650-mile (1,050-kilometer) drive of the Creation Museum" but does not even hint that that was a reason why that location was chosen.

I think it is far more likely that it was chosen for its proximity to the headquarters of Answers in Genesis, at 2800 Bullittsburg Church Rd., Petersburg, KY 41080.

Not sure how to tweak the wording... this factoid does not seem to me to be lead-paragraph stuff. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:59, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

: I do vaguely remember seeing a quote saying that it *was* why the location was chosen - something about how 2/3 of the pop. could get there with a day's bus ride - perhaps they built the headquarters when they built the museum? Anyway, perhaps we can find the quote, which will solve the problem. Will look. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 07:16, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

::It looks as if I was wrong in thinking Answers in Genesis' headquarters preceded the museum. [http://www.citybeat.com/2000-07-14/cover.shtml This 1999 article] says Ham is "a former Australian biology teacher... In 1994, Ham moved from San Diego to Cincinnati and founded Answers in Genesis, a religious organization whose members believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible." But Petersburg, KY is about thirty miles from Cincinnati, and I have to think that the location was influenced by proximity to Cincinnati.

::The figure of "650 miles" just seems weirdly arbitrary to me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:07, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

:::While I haven't tried looking for a reference, I can confirm that the location was chosen because of its accessibility to much of the U.S. population. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:33, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Here we go: ''Hamm says the site chosen for the new facility is in Florence, Kentucky, a choice not immediately obvious to most. "A lot of people say to us, 'Why would you build a creation museum like that? I mean, this is a world center, and people are going to come from all over the world here. Why would you pick northern Kentucky?'" he says. But AIG's president points out that nearly two-thirds of the U.S. population is within a day's travel of the museum's location. "Actually, northern Kentucky is part of the Greater Cincinnati area," he says, "and the museum property where the facility is being constructed is just two exits west of Cincinnati's international airport. We have a great international airport here. In fact it's a Delta hub."''<ref>Agape Press - Creation Museum Will Show Gospel's Scientific Truth, By Mary Rettig, October 21, 2004[http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/10/212004f.asp]</ref> I'll let someone else figure out how/if to work this into the article. (And whether 650 miles (BTW not mentioned in this source) is "within a day's travel".)--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 19:30, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

::::And another, slightly different, from Ham's native Australia: ''The museum's site has been chosen for its strategic location. It is six kilometres from an airline hub, Greater Cincinnati International Airport, and near Florence, Kentucky, headquarters of the Answers in Genesis worldwide ministry. As Ham explains, "One of the main reasons we moved there was because we are within one hour's flight of 69 per cent of America's population."''<ref>Sydney Morning Herald - Onward the new Christian soldier, January 17, 2005 [http://www.smh.com.au/news/Paul-Sheehan/Onward-the-new-Christian-soldier/2005/01/16/1105810774805.html]</ref> --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 19:36, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Hey, wait, what's this? He says it's "six kilometres from an airline hub, Greater Cincinnati International Airport." But the big Cincinnati airport seems to be CVG, which is named Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, and Google Maps gives the distance to Petersburg, Kentucky as [http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&hl=en&saddr=cvg&daddr=2080+bullitsburg+church+road,+idlewild,+KY&sll=39.084438,-84.788125&sspn=0.007545,0.014677&ie=UTF8&z=12&om=1 ten miles], not six kilometres.

:::::The museum's [http://www.answersingenesis.org/feedback/directions_aigus.aspx map and directions] confirm this... they say "eleven miles" to the exit.

:::::If nobody objects, I'd like to use this wording, pushing the details into a footnote, and avoid the issue of how the site was chosen:
::::::The museum is located ten miles from the Cincinnati airport, just off I-275, in the town of Petersburg, Kentucky.<ref>Ham says people sometimes ask "Why would you pick northern Kentucky?" but answers that two-thirds of the U. S. population lives within a 650-mile drive or an hour's flight.</ref>

:::::If anyone does object, OK, leave it as it is but add the references [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] turned up.

:::::P. S. I'm ''not'' saying it's ''not'' a good location. I'm just objecting to the implication that it was selected out of the entire United States because of its strategic location. I think the likelihood is that Ham selected it for convenience to where he was already located, and perhaps affordability, and wishes to point out that it happens to be a good location that is nowhere near as remote as it sounds. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:38, 31 May 2007 (EDT) P. P. S. It's closer to the Cincinnati airport than the [http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&hl=en&saddr=cvg&daddr=953+Eden+Park+Dr,+Cincinnati,+oh&sll=41.45793,-81.7581&sspn=0.116557,0.234833&ie=UTF8&z=12&om=1 Cincinnati Art Museum]. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:04, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Ten miles is six''teen'' kilometres; perhaps the reporter or someone misheard or something. And Ken Ham was working for ICR in California before starting Answers in Genesis in the U.S., so existing location was not a factor. (Incidentally, the move to the Cincinnati area was made before the museum property was obtained; AiG was in another location in the area initially, were offered or nearly bought a property for the museum, but that fell through, then they got this one, and relocated their headquarters to it as well as built the museum.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:24, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Well, that's my point. They had located in Cincinnati before looking for a location for the museum. Or was the museum already being planned when Cincinnati was chosen? Did Ham really take out a population map of the U. S. and systematically look for a central location, based on some predefined criteria?

:::::::The odd thing is that several of these newspaper stories say the museum was (e.g.) "chosen for its strategic location" but this seems to be the reporter's summary of what Ham said, not a direct quotation.

:::::::Yeah, I'm obsessing about this way too much, but at the moment I'm thinking the museum ''is'' in a good location, but that there is not yet any basis for saying that it "was chosen" for its strategic location, and, oddly, not even a basis for saying "Ham says it was 'chosen for its strategic location'". [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:56, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::::One more for the mix: From the Creation Museum Project Summary page of FAQs: '''Why did you choose the Cincinnati area?''' ''Almost 2/3 of America’s population can drive to Cincinnati in one day (within a 650-mile drive)! In addition to those 185 million Americans, millions of Canadians in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec can also drive here in one day. Most convenient, the museum will be close to I-75, the busiest north/south interstate in America, and for those who might fly here, the Cincinnati Airport is only two exits away.''<ref>Creation Museum Project Summary - FAQs - 10 most-asked questions about the future Creation Museum [http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/faq.asp]</ref> Sounds like this was a "talking point" used when soliciting funds for the museum. FWIW, at an ''average'' of 55mph, 650 miles is almost a 12 hour drive, with no breaks. (Again, I'll leave it to [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] and the rest of you to work out how/if to use this.) --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:28, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::::DBSmith, see [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/history.asp here], and read the paragraph with "March 1994" in it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:40, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::That "1994" paragraph is perfect. Thanks for humoring me. Will add the ref to the article if nobody else does it first. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:58, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

== ICR ==

Should a reference to ICR be made under other creationist museums? What do you guys think? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:46, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
:I don't really think that other museums should be in this article, as long as it's primarily about the AiG one, but as long as others are included, then ICR's museum definitely should be included. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:20, 31 May 2007 (EDT)