Dinosaurs, humans coexist in U.S. creation museum

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.

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.

Bird Dino? you're kidding right? That has been rebuttled extensively- only the dogmatic cite that as 'evidence' anymore. Serious scientists don't even bother trying to use that as their 'evidence' any longer-

And please- showing species that have a FEW similiar features is like trying to state that a VW is a wheelbarrow simply because both have wheels. All you've managed to show are similiarities and suggest that billions of genetic differences bewtween the two species isn't significant. Biologically, they are so dissimiliar as to be completely seperate species- every one of those 'examples of transitions' you linked to have been debunked thoroughly- had they been proven to be true transitions, the debate would be over- Are you prepared to dissagree with science and claim that transitions have been proven?

The examples cited show adaption- and do NOTHING to prove evolution. The fact is that MUCH of what is contained in that link is subject to MUCH debate and speculation and dissagreement- even within the secular sciences alone- The question was asked in that thread "Tell me, of any two consecutive fossils in the following list, do any differ so much from each other that anti-evolutionists wouldn't just write it off as "just adaptation", or "just microevolution"?"

The answer is YES- and they HAVE been questioned and rebuttled extensively by not only Creation scientists, but by secular scientists as well

Transition from land dwellers to whales- they note there are similiarities- Yup- there are some- but then again- there a billions of dissimiliararities which they will NOT mention because it debunks their theory- Gosh- a whale has a bone that 'looks similiar' to a hippos? By golly- that's clear evidence- Whales have redundant bones- But wait- Redundant? Nope- turns out these bones helped secure females during relations. But But, the bones look like a hippos ankles- Yeah? So? Many species have similiar features-

You can either take their word for fact, or you can extensively research the facts and find out for yourself just how shaky their 'evidence' really is- pointing out a few similiarities in DNA does not make a banana a monkey.

look- I realize my answers might come across as snide- but please beleive me i don't think anyone who honestly searches is a fool- you may not realize it, but you're innadvertantly on a sort of right path- but you're not focussing in completely the right direction- forget about examples of adaption- evolutions only hope is to prove new information in the gene coding- lateral gene transference- science- honest science, has made a major shift in their previous pursuit for evidence of mutations because the fact is mutations do not account for evolution- science has recently focussed their energies on lateral gene transference and for good reason- it's the ONLY way evolution could have occured. However, I must caution you- that although it is 'more promissing' it still has MAJOR problems that can't be explained and can't be ignored. Christian scientists are exploring this and presenting their evidences agaisnt it in peer reviews as we speak.

A page or so ago- someone (I think it was you- maybe not) touched on this without realizing it- they presented that havard article that supposedly showed new gene information that was supposedly created through mutations- however upon further examination- it has been revealed that the information was already present and is nothign more than a reshuffling of already present info- the article was old on the harvard site- and nothing in the scientific literature shows that this was pursued- due to the difficulties in proving the case. The Harvard article didn't go into the problems because they knew it undermined their case- sins of ommission and all that.

IF you're serious about making a more solid case than mutations- which can't be made, then lateral gene transference is your best bet.

I think you are misrepresenting, I suspect unintentionally, the science behind the search for the mechanisms behind evolution.

"... evolutions only hope is to prove new information in the gene coding-..."

I've heard this many times - that evolution depends on an increase in information to produce novel features - but I remain unconvinced. Unfortunately the notion that an increase in information is needed raises a question that so far has gone unanswered on this forum - how is this information defined? That question suggests many more.

Is the information a product of a DNA sequence?
Is information contained in coding sections, highly conserved coding sections or the entire sequence?
How do we measure this information, what units are used - bits? - and how do we calculate the information content of a specific string of DNA?
Once we have a measure of the information and we know how much information a specific sequence contains how do we tie that information content to morphological traits?
What kind of trait change is necessary to validate the SToE.
Will an accumulation of trait changes eventually combine into what can be considered macro-evolution? If not, why not?
Is there an observed correlation between a morphological change and a change in information content?
Is there an observed decrease in information for every change in the genome?
Is it necessarily true that only an increase in information can produce these individual trait changes?

Without answering at least these questions, the assertion that evolution needs added information is vacuous.

If you believe that changes to the genome do not produce an increase in information then you are arguing that the information content of a DNA sequence is static. If the information content of a DNA sequence can change then it either increases or decreases. If the information content can decrease then it can increase, if it can increase then it can decrease, this is all very simple. Any change to a DNA sequence is reversible, if you make a change to any nucleotide in the sequence you can change the point back to its original value. If the change to the sequence decreases the information content then changing it back will increase the information content. This shows that information can increase in the string through a simple change to the sequence. This is true of any change to the sequence whether caused by an indel, duplication, translocation, lateral gene transfer or any other mechanism.

Your argument is limited to either proposing an informationally static sequence or accepting that information can be increased. If you characterize the genome as an informationally static structure then not even lateral gene transfer would help. However if you do make such an assertion you have a lot of science, including the ever popular creationist demand of 'observations', to refute.

"lateral gene transference- science- honest science, has made a major shift in their previous pursuit for evidence of mutations because the fact is mutations do not account for evolution..."

The reason science has started to look at lateral gene transfer and a whole number of other mechanisms is because that's what science does. The fact that they are looking for alternatives is not because the mechanism of mutation is being abandoned but because science never assumes that all the answers have been found. The work looking for mutations has not stopped even though that mechanism of DNA change is fairly well understood. However, because there is good understanding of how mutations cause morphological change, energy is being shifted to finding additional mechanisms for DNA change and to determining what changes to the genome produces which traits. The energy spent in one direction in science always changes as the knowledge base changes. It has always been that way. For you to assert that the change in direction is based on a failing of mutations to contribute to evolution shows a strong bias against the process of evolution on your part. Where science does abandon unproductive avenues rather quickly, the length of time that has been spent on mutations thus far (and we can anticipate into the future) indicates that it has not been an unproductive path in any way.

"- science has recently focussed their energies on lateral gene transference and for good reason- it's the ONLY way evolution could have occured. However, I must caution you- that although it is 'more promissing' it still has MAJOR problems that can't be explained and can't be ignored."

If the only reason you assume lateral gene transfers are necessary is because they potentially add information then my questions and answers above address this point.

Christian scientists are exploring this and presenting their evidences agaisnt it in peer reviews as we speak.

Christian 'Scientists' are busy trying to make the evidence fit their hypotheses.

"A page or so ago- someone (I think it was you- maybe not) touched on this without realizing it- they presented that havard article that supposedly showed new gene information that was supposedly created through mutations- however upon further examination- it has been revealed that the information was already present and is nothign more than a reshuffling of already present info- the article was old on the harvard site- and nothing in the scientific literature shows that this was pursued- due to the difficulties in proving the case. The Harvard article didn't go into the problems because they knew it undermined their case- sins of ommission and all that."

You are going to have to explain yourself a little more fully and clearly here. Your assertions are just not enough.

"IF you're serious about making a more solid case than mutations- which can't be made, then lateral gene transference is your best bet."

Before I can take this statement seriously you will have to describe how to determine information content in a DNA sequence and from there explain how common mutations, including simple point changes, are prevented from increasing information.

I'm going to have to adress most of your post a bit later- running short on time right now. but I'll hit a few key points. I stand by the fact that new information is absolutely necessary- without it you can never turn a wheelbarrow into a car- you MUST introduce new information from another source- you can pound and bend and twist the wheelbarrow all day long- changing the structures of the components in such a way that the particles adapt to their new circumstances- but you will STILL be lacking the necessary NEW information (in htis case parts) for a car.

[Is the information a product of a DNA sequence?
Is information contained in coding sections, highly conserved coding sections or the entire sequence?
How do we measure this information, what units are used - bits? - and how do we calculate the information content of a specific string of DNA?
Once we have a measure of the information and we know how much information a specific sequence contains how do we tie that information content to morphological traits?]

morphological traits? You're asking for a breakdown of DNA when the measure is that of information that is either present to produce wings or not. This information can be traced and exampled, and used to determine whether a species has it or not- this information is what has fueled the classifications of species for some time now-

Not sure what 'traits' have to do with NEW information- perhaps you are suggesting that INCREASES in information that casue trait differences in species is the same as NEW information? If so, you are in error. Increase is NOT NEW information, it is an expansion of information already (or even at one time) present and active. a Trait can be lost, but the information that caused the trait is still present, either measurably or hidden. however, if information for a specific intraspecies change is not present, this change will never occure without lateral gene transference.

You are attemtping to argue that increase in information is evolution and this simply is not true. Our school books are responsible for this error, but I assure you that science is embarrased that this is even taught any longer.

I'll address thje rest of your questions in a bit.

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.