Posted on 01/14/2007 5:31:07 PM PST by Tim Long
PETERSBURG, Kentucky - Ken Ham's sprawling creation museum isn't even open yet, but an expansion is already underway in the state-of-the art lobby, where grunting dinosaurs and animatronic humans coexist in a Biblical paradise.
A crush of media attention and packed preview sessions have convinced Ham that nearly half a million people a year will come to Kentucky to see his Biblically correct version of history.
"I think we'll be surprised at how many people come," Ham said as he dodged dozens of designers working to finish exhibits in time for the May 28 opening.
The $27 million project, which also includes a planetarium, a special-effects theater, nature trails and a small lake, is privately funded by people who believe the Bible's first book, Genesis, is literally true.
For them, a museum showing Christian schoolchildren and skeptics alike how the earth, animals, dinosaurs and humans were created in a six-day period about 6,000 years ago -- not over millions of years, as evolutionary science says -- is long overdue.
While foreign media and science critics have mostly come to snigger at exhibits explaining how baby dinosaurs fit on Noah's Ark and Cain married his sister to people the earth, museum spokesman and vice-president Mark Looy said the coverage has done nothing but drum up more interest.
"Mocking publicity is free publicity," Looy said. Besides, U.S. media have been more respectful, mindful perhaps of a 2006 Gallup Poll showing almost half of Americans believe that humans did not evolve, but were created by God in their present form within the last 10,000 years.
Looy said supporters of the museum include evangelical Christians, Orthodox Jews and conservative Catholics, as well as the local Republican congressman, Geoff Davis (news, bio, voting record), and his family, who have toured the site.
FROM 'JAWS' TO EDEN
While the debate between creationists and mainstream scientists has bubbled up periodically in U.S. schools since before the Scopes "monkey trial" in nearby Tennessee 80 years ago, courts have repeatedly ruled that teaching religious theory in public schools is unconstitutional.
Ham, an Australian who moved to America 20 years ago, believes creationists could have presented a better case at the Scopes trail if they'd been better educated -- but he's not among those pushing for creation to be taught in school.
Rather than force skeptical teachers to debate creation, Ham wants kids to come to his museum, where impassioned experts can make their case that apparently ancient fossils and the Grand Canyon were created just a few thousand years ago in a great flood.
"It's not hitting them over the head with a Bible, it's just teaching that we can defend what it says," he said.
Ham, who also runs a Christian broadcasting and publishing venture, said the museum's Hollywood-quality exhibits set the project apart from the many quirky Creation museums sprinkled across America.
The museum's team of Christian designers include theme park art director Patrick Marsh, who designed the "Jaws" and "King Kong" attractions at Universal Studios in Florida, as well as dozens of young artists whose conviction drives their work.
"I think it shows (nonbelievers) the other side of things," said Carolyn Manto, 27, pausing in her work painting Ice Age figures for a display about caves in France.
"I don't think it's going to be forcing any viewpoint on them, but challenging them to think critically about their evolutionary views," said Manto, who studied classical sculpture before joining the museum.
Still, Looy is upfront about the museum's mission: to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with nonbelievers.
"I think a lot of people are going to come out of curiosity ... and we're going to present the Gospel. This is going to be an evangelistic center," Looy said. A chaplain has been hired for museum-goers in need of spiritual guidance.
The museum's rural location near the border of Kentucky, Ohio and Indiana places it well within America's mostly conservative and Christian heartland. But the setting has another strategic purpose: two-thirds of Americans are within a day's drive of the site, and Cincinnati's international airport is minutes away.
The project has not been without opposition. Zoning battles with environmentalists and groups opposed to the museum's message have delayed construction and the museum's opening day has been delayed repeatedly.
The museum has hired extra security and explosives-sniffing dogs to counter anonymous threats of damage to the building. "We've had some opposition," Looy said.
As predicted- people scream for facts and links- when provided- they throw their hands over their ears and say 'nuh uh'
Want to know why dating methods aren't reliable? http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3059
Want ot ignore it because it's on a Christian website despite hte fact that SCIENCE proves the facts listed? Fine-
ah the classic bow out- and you're right- God did state that we're not to argue facts when confronted with lies- Being spiteful? I'm sorry- you're right- calling those sites that present scientific facts as 'gospel tracts' isn't being spiteful- Don't dish it out of you don't like the return serve.
The scary thing is they'd have argued just as hard for the geocentric universe if they'd been born a few centuries earlier.
Here's how your sources distort:
" When the isotope concentrations are adjusted for such conversions, the ages calculated are reduced from some 600 Ma to recent."
They have deleted the number "70 million years" and replaced it with "recent"!
If your sources believe recent is 70 million years ago, then you lose the YEC argument.
BTW, your "Cook" was a creationist.
Your link leads to a page of additional links. Rather than try to wade through them all I looked at the first link (which I have examined before).
The article deals with radiometric dating, and the section on radiocarbon dating (which is what we have been discussing) concludes with:
In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully.Want ot ignore it because it's on a Christian website despite hte fact that SCIENCE proves the facts listed? Fine-
Anyone who attempts to calibrate a scientific method by reference to a mythical flood is not doing science. They are doing apologetics (defense of religion).
Is there any better science on any of the other links? So far, your links are just a waste of our time.
--The scary thing is they'd have argued just as hard for the geocentric universe if they'd been born a few centuries earlier.--
Not that bad. They lost.
--Is there any better science on any of the other links?--
No. See my 264.
Typical creationist, ask him to back up a silly claim and you get nothing but dodging.
---SCIENCE proves the facts listed?---
One of their scientists they use to support their position.
Dr Andrew Snelling ... now works full-time with the Creation Science Foundation
For some reason I'm reminded of the scene in Monty Python's Holy Grail where they use "logic" to determine if someone is a witch.
BEDEVERE: Exactly. So, logically...
VILLAGER #1: If... she... weighs... the same as a duck,...she's made of wood.
BEDEVERE: And therefore?
VILLAGER #2: A witch!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcBXuFxMYd0
Aw crap. A perfectly good thread turned over to the EVO vs. Creationist people. Thats enought for me....
and this disproves that he presented scientific facts how now?
No sir that wasn't the only point being made on that site- and attempting to disprove every point made based on ONE point being discussed is disingenuous and amounts to dismmissing everything simply because somehwere in the article the name God or flood or some similiar point is mentioned- there ar lots of FACTS in those articles that do NOT rely on the mention of that one point about hte flood- and you're attemptiong to misrepresent the whole by picking and choosing something you perceive as innacurate- The site also goes on the explain WHY adjustments could JUST AS validly be used to account for the anomilies that throw off the radio carbon dating-
the trueorigin site also goes into great detail the facts showing why different dating methods are wrong and can't be trusted and why those asserting old age MUST make assumptons based on error in order to come up with hteir findings-
Sure they'rew a waste of your time because you autom atically dismiss somethign hwen they make a point like a flood could very well have accouinted for for what they are findijng- incase you missed it- the article ALSO said the flood model has to be very carefully applied-
Take a look at that trueorigin site- but the creationontheweb site also has plenty of scientific fact for you to noodle over if you can get around the fact that they might mention God now and again
and these are by no means the only sites- there are sites that are quite technical and featured in peer reviewed scientific journals- but alas, they too might mention God & so the 'cast out anyone who does so' crowd will automatically discount any of the evidences
UpallNight- Sure- yep- every other point in that article is automatically thrown out- Facts swept under the rug- you're right- argument lost-
Many things that are called science are not science.
Science does not require faith because it is based on facts and theory.
This is true of real science. So there must be a "scientific" field of origins. This is where we step deep into faith. We can never verify the past but we must believe a stack of things about the past to accept any belief about our origin.
When people accept these assumptions about an unprovable past, no matter which ones they accept, the result is to form religion. We may think we see light coming from a source that is 10 billion light years away, and we may believe that the only way for that light to have gotten here is for it to have traveled the whole distance at a fixed speed, but we can never know that to be true.
"and this disproves that he presented scientific facts how now?"
Not by itself, but I have shown other 'distortions' (lies) and you have not addressed those. This is just an example that your 'scientific sources' are paid to generate pre-determined' facts.
look- stop with the petty little accusations- IF you have an argument for or against what is being discussed- then present it- otherwise all you're doing is getting your little anti-Christian jabs in- feel good does it? Yeah? well it's still petty and childish- stay on topic- do some research- counter what I am stating with facts if you can rather than indulging in the irresistable temptation of bakcbiting and bickering- you can do it- I have faith
--UpallNight- Sure- yep- every other point in that article is automatically thrown out- Facts swept under the rug- you're right- argument lost--
It would take forever to address each 'fact' on your link. I did, however, show how they deliberately lied to make results that showed something was 70 million years old to match the YEC hypothesis. Address that lie and we will go on to another.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.