• 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

Sure it may not, so you ask someone else to look as well. If they see it too, then it's probably a true fact; if not, it might be a false one.

Observations don't need, of themselvaes, to have conclusions drawn. They stand alone as the basis for science. I don't understand why it should muddy anyone's definitions by calling them facts.

There is observable truth in the universe, or else we're all awash in random speculation.

Is not the count of galaxies being in the billions not a fact? Does not hydrogen oxidize in air in the presence of heat?
 
There's a creation museum within ten miles of where I live, but I can't sue it for fraud because it charges no admission.

(If it had charged admission, I would have been tempted to ask for a refund, the exhibits were that feeble.)
 
MikeSun5 said:
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?
Click to expand...

surely Hannah Barbera could sue, for copyright infringement, they claimed in the flintstones that men and dinosaurs lived together way before Hovind
:D
 
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.






[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_338944a8542b322573.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/338944a8542e558740.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...

no i dont want to do that myself, that will piss off God, and he is already pissed enough at me for beeing an Atheist.

:D
 
MikeSun5 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think that even in the best case, the most you could reasonably hope for is your money back. They might even give you that without suing if you have a receipt, although I don't know (lots of frauds promise "your money back if not completely satisfied"). You would pay more in lawyer's fees than you could hope to recover. Besides, if you never believed their claims in the first place but went anyway just to laugh at the lies and sue them, then I don't think you could say you were defrauded because you should have known better. You would have to say (and remember that lying under oath is perjury) that you were truly duped.
 
Last edited:
Robster said:
Freedom of speech does not require accuracy of speech.
My thoughts on visiting the museum are here.
Click to expand...

Very good point.

Robster, I've been showing up on various threads on this topic, and I'm usually playing devil's advocate against you guys going to that museum. I've got nothing against freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, or atheists destroying the Creationist dogma. I encourage all three. My only problem was not believing you all could behave yourself (I was proven wrong).

The article you wrote about your visit also proved me wrong. I learned stuff that I wouldn't have simply by visiting their ridiculous website. That being said, I still disagree with you giving those boneheads your money. ;)
 
Here's some relevant case law:

United States v Ballard

Basically, it is not up to the courts to decide whether a religious belief is true or false. The only justiciable issue in the case of fraud is whether the accused sincerely held the belief in question. This also why a public school teacher's saying creationism is "religious, superstitious nonsense" can violate the Establishment Clause even if it is true.
 
Last edited:
mijopaalmc said:
The only justiciable issue in the case of fraud is whether the accused sincerely held the belief in question. This also why a public school teacher's saying creationism is "religious, superstitious nonsense" can violate the Establishment Clause even if it is true.
Click to expand...

So a teacher could say Creationism is "considered by some to be religious, superstitious nonsense," and everything would be fine, right?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom