• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Suing the creation Museum

Oliver

Penultimate Amazing
Oliver
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
17,396
Thanks to another thread here in Religion and viewing some videos about the creation museum and their claims, but isn't it flatout fraud what they're doing whenever they claim that their explanation are scientific ones while taking peoples money?

And did someone sue them already?
 
Puppycow said:
What would you sue them for?
Click to expand...


Uh, for ripping off people by using false claims without disclaimers clarifying that none of the Museums claims are based on scientific facts? For example.
 
then we should also sue the Vatican and all the churches.
 
Oliver said:
Uh, for ripping off people by using false claims without disclaimers clarifying that none of the Museums claims are based on scientific facts? For example.
Click to expand...

If they're taking money on false pretenses you've got a claim. What do they claim on thier advertising literture that they don't deliver?

A brief scan of their website shows that they claim to "bring the bible to life" blah blah blah.

From what I've heard that seems to be true and makes these claims no more fraudulent than the Sherlock Holmes Museum

Now if on the other hand you found advertising which claims that they offered a solid scientific refutation for the theory of evolution and yet all they delivered was their bible is true therefore science if wrong naysaying, then that would be false advertising and you might have a case.
 
Well it won't be around for long:

"Judge clears way for dinosaur park to be seized

Kris Wernowsky
kwernowsky@pnj.com

A federal judge has cleared the way for the government's seizure of a creationism theme park in Pensacola owned by a couple convicted of tax fraud.

A ruling by U.S. District Judge Casey Rodgers states that the nine properties that make up Dinosaur Adventure Land as well as two bank accounts associated with the park will be used to satisfy $430,400 owed to the federal government.

Kent Hovind, who founded the park and a ministry, Creation Science Evangelism, is serving 10 years in federal prison for failing to pay the Internal Revenue Service more than $470,000 in employee taxes."

http://www.pnj.com/article/20090801/NEWS01/908010317





WHAT ABOUT ME!!

 
DC said:
then we should also sue the Vatican and all the churches.
Click to expand...

How long have you got to live and how much money have you got?
Remember that the Vatican is an independent City-State. In all countries there is no legal entitity as the Roman Catholic Church.








 
eccles said:
Well it won't be around for long:
Click to expand...

Don't get Ken Ham and Kent Hovind mixed up. They're both willfully ignorant liars for jesus who built tourist attractions based upon the zany idea of dinosaurs coexisting with antidiluvian biblical man. So it's easy to mix them up but it turns out that there's just enough crazy in the USA for there to be two of these abominations.
 
Ocelot said:
If they're taking money on false pretenses you've got a claim. What do they claim on thier advertising literture that they don't deliver?

A brief scan of their website shows that they claim to "bring the bible to life" blah blah blah.

From what I've heard that seems to be true and makes these claims no more fraudulent than the Sherlock Holmes Museum

Now if on the other hand you found advertising which claims that they offered a solid scientific refutation for the theory of evolution and yet all they delivered was their bible is true therefore science if wrong naysaying, then that would be false advertising and you might have a case.
Click to expand...


Well, I didn't visit the "Museum" yet, but from what I see on videos, that's exactly what they're doing: Making false pretenses and taking your money, which pretty much is fraud unless they're explicitly stating that the Museum isn't based on science and all of it's claims and information about the creation may as well be just made up BS:


Also, does the Sherlock Holmes Museum state that he was a real person and the exhibits were used or worn by this real Sherlock Holmes? I don't think so, because that would be fraud.
 
Oliver said:
Uh, for ripping off people by using false claims without disclaimers clarifying that none of the Museums claims are based on scientific facts? For example.
Click to expand...

There are no facts in science. Only theories that are confirmed to such a degree that it would be foolish to withhold provisional assent, as the saying goes.
 
Oliver said:
Well, I didn't visit the "Museum" yet, but from what I see on videos, that's exactly what they're doing: Making false pretenses and taking your money, which pretty much is fraud unless they're explicitly stating that the Museum isn't based on science and all of it's claims and information about the creation may as well be just made up BS:


Also, does the Sherlock Holmes Museum state that he was a real person and the exhibits were used or worn by this real Sherlock Holmes? I don't think so, because that would be fraud.
Click to expand...

No that wouldn't be fraud. Fraud is taking money under false pretenses. Being wrong in a museum is not fraud. Fraud would be if they promised a biblical account of creation and gave a tour round a meat packing plant.

See this article

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-closes-six-days-after-it-opened-1055550.html

Thousands of complaints, trading standards called in, all over one issue: that they promised more than they delivered. No-one was complaining that their santa claus wasn't the real santa claus, they're complaining that they promised log cabins and delivered garden sheds.

I know that the exhibits make factual errors. That's only a problem if prior to paying you'd been told that all the exhibits would be scientificly accurate. Otherwise sorry. If they promise a big steaming pile of horsemanue and they deliver a big steaming pile of horse manure, I see no grounds for complaint.
 
Seems to me there is no hope in suing for fraud. They deliver exactly what they advertise, as dumb as it is.
 
Last edited:
Oliver said:
Uh, for ripping off people by using false claims without disclaimers clarifying that none of the Museums claims are based on scientific facts? For example.
Click to expand...

There's no law against lying to people. They are liars but they are not defrauding anybody. The false claims are not used to get money. The museum experience gives you exactly what is promised for your admission fee.
 
I'm no lawyer, but I think in order to sue, they'd have to prove that the museum caused them some sort of damage, trauma, money loss, etc.

I don't think the museum is taking money under false pretenses, either. Everybody who shows up there knows what the museum is about.

...and if the money was your problem, the museum would probably just give you your entrance fee back to shut you up. And that's only if you found a lawyer dumb enough to take that case.

That would be the definition of a frivolous lawsuit. Suing the Creationist Museum for teaching nonsense is like suing McDonalds because their coffee is too hot. :idea: ...but that worked, didn't it?
 
Magnifico2.0 said:
There are no facts in science. Only theories that are confirmed to such a degree that it would be foolish to withhold provisional assent, as the saying goes.
Click to expand...

This is great for a polemic stand, but it's just not true - or at least, it's not completely true. Observations are facts, unless you want to twit the observer's sanity. Observations are part of the scientific process.
 
By Oliver's "logic" I could sue Disneyworld because I never witnessed any magic in the Magic Kingdom.. not only that, it's not even a kingdom! :rolleyes:

eccles said:
How long have you got to live and how much money have you got?
Remember that the Vatican is an independent City-State. In all countries there is no legal entitity as the Roman Catholic Church.
Click to expand...

Nit pick. Individual diosces are legal entities and can be sued as happened with the pedophile priest cases here in the States.
 
shadron said:
This is great for a polemic stand, but it's just not true - or at least, it's not completely true. Observations are facts, unless you want to twit the observer's sanity. Observations are part of the scientific process.
Click to expand...

Observations are observations, and it only muddies important definitions to say they're 'facts'... don't weigh them down by drawing conclusions from them yet! The observer can be wrong, and then the 'facts' are just 'bad data'.
What you think you see may not be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom