In the beginning . . . Adam walked with dinosaurs [Creationist Park]

Telegraph.co.uk ^ | 02 January 2005 | James Langton

[PatrickHenry]

With its towering dinosaurs and a model of the Grand Canyon, America's newest tourist attraction might look like the ideal destination for fans of the film Jurassic Park.

The new multi-million-dollar Museum of Creation, which will open this spring in Kentucky, will, however, be aimed not at film buffs, but at the growing ranks of fundamentalist Christians in the United States.

It aims to promote the view that man was created in his present shape by God, as the Bible states, rather than by a Darwinian process of evolution, as scientists insist.

The centrepiece of the museum is a series of huge model dinosaurs, built by the former head of design at Universal Studios, which are portrayed as existing alongside man, contrary to received scientific opinion that they lived millions of years apart.

Other exhibits include images of Adam and Eve, a model of Noah's Ark and a planetarium demonstrating how God made the Earth in six days.

The museum, which has cost a mighty $25 million (£13 million) will be the world's first significant natural history collection devoted to creationist theory. It has been set up by Ken Ham, an Australian evangelist, who runs Answers in Genesis, one of America's most prominent creationist organisations. He said that his aim was to use tourism, and the theme park's striking exhibits, to convert more people to the view that the world and its creatures, including dinosaurs, were created by God 6,000 years ago.

"We want people to be confronted by the dinosaurs," said Mr Ham. "It's going to be a first class experience. Visitors are going to be hit by the professionalism of this place. It is not going to be done in an amateurish way. We are making a statement."

The museum's main building was completed recently, and work on the entrance exhibit starts this week. The first phase of the museum, which lies on a 47-acre site 10 miles from Cincinatti on the border of Kentucky and Ohio, will open in the spring.

Market research companies hired by the museum are predicting at least 300,000 visitors in the first year, who will pay $10 (£5.80) each.

Among the projects still to be finished is a reconstruction of the Grand Canyon, purportedly formed by the swirling waters of the Great Flood – where visitors will "gape" at the bones of dinosaurs that "hint of a terrible catastrophe", according to the museum's publicity.

Mr Ham is particularly proud of a planned reconstruction of the interior of Noah's Ark. "You will hear the water lapping, feel the Ark rocking and perhaps even hear people outside screaming," he said.

More controversial exhibits deal with diseases and famine, which are portrayed not as random disasters, but as the result of mankind's sin. Mr Ham's Answers in Genesis movement blames the 1999 massacre at Columbine High School in Colorado, in which two teenagers killed 12 classmates and a teacher before killing themselves, on evolutionist teaching, claiming that the perpetrators believed in Darwin's survival of the fittest.

Other exhibits in the museum will blame homosexuals for Aids. In a "Bible Authority Room" visitors are warned: "Everyone who rejects his history – including six-day creation and Noah's flood – is `wilfully' ignorant.''

Elsewhere, animated figures will be used to recreate the Garden of Eden, while in another room, visitors will see a tyrannosaurus rex pursuing Adam and Eve after their fall from grace. "That's the real terror that Adam's sin unleashed," visitors will be warned.

A display showing ancient Babylon will deal with the Tower of Babel and "unravel the origin of so-called races'', while the final section will show the life of Christ, as an animated angel proclaims the coming of the Saviour and a 3D depiction of the crucifixion.

In keeping with modern museum trends, there will also be a cafe with a terrace to "breathe in the fresh air of God's creation'', and a shop "crammed'' with creationist souvenirs, including T-shirts and books such as A is for Adam and Dinky Dinosaur: Creation Days.

The museum's opening will reinforce the burgeoning creationist movement and evangelical Christianity in the US, which gained further strength with the re-election of President Bush in November.

Followers of creationism have been pushing for their theories to be reintegrated into American schoolroom teaching ever since the celebrated 1925 "Scopes Monkey Trial", when US courts upheld the right of a teacher to use textbooks that included evolutionary theory.

In 1987, the US Supreme Court reinforced that position by banning the teaching of creationism in public schools on the grounds of laws that separate state and Church.

Since then, however, many schools – particularly in America's religious Deep South – have got around the ban by teaching the theory of "intelligent design", which claims that evolutionary ideas alone still leave large gaps in understanding.

"Since President Bush's re-election we have been getting more membership applications than we can handle,'' said Mr Ham, who expects not just the devout, but also the curious, to flock through the turnstiles. "The evolutionary elite will be getting a wake-up call."

[BibChr]

Those who oppose evolution might achieve some credibility in these threads by making an effort to understand what they're arguing against.

< snip >

....It would also be useful to learn what science is...

< snip >

Everybody be nice.

You're a real piece of work, you know that?

Did you ever explain why you picked the screen-name of a man whose most passionate beliefs you revile and mock?

Dan

[safisoft]

And how did Noah, his wife and kids get the next generation of humans? I am sure there are some entertaining links on how incest was divinely sanctioned in this instance and I await them with interest.

Catch up, you are falling behind. At least a CURSORY reading of a text should be required before commenting on it.

On the very same day Noah and Noah’s sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and Noah’s wife and the three wives of his sons with them, entered the ark Genesis 7:13

Now this is the genealogy of the sons of Noach: Shem, Cham, and Yapet. And sons were born to them after the flood. The sons of Yapet were Gomer, Magog, Madai, Yavan, Tuval, Meshek, and T'iras. The sons of Gomer were Ashkenaz, Ripat, and Togarmah. The sons of Yavan were Eliyshah, Tarshiysh, Kitiym, and Dodaniym. And the sons of Cham; Kush, and Miztraim, and Put, and Kana'an. And the sons of Cush; S'ba, and Chavilah, and Savtah, and Raamah, and Sabtecha: and the sons of Ra'mah; Sh'ba, and D'dan." Genesis 9:1-47

Just for the record, Avraham was closer to Sarah genetically speaking than any of the grandchildren of Noach to their spouses.

As for discussing what is and is not "divinely sanctioned" - one must first recognize the existence of the "divine". Then we will talk.

[shubi]

Just-"Nobody can threaten anybody into becoming a Christian."

Prior to that Just-"Christ says that this will be repeated yet again, wonder what kind of 'ark' will be supplied to the ones who do not participate?"

Sir, you just did what you said nobody could do. You are truly wondrous!

[johnmilken]

So sex with first cousins is OK? Cool...
And was there a black wife, an asian wife and a blonde?

[shubi]

Are you sure the deep doesn't refer to the space dust that formed the Earth?

Did you know that no one knows what the definition of these words are precisely (deep, void, firmament)?

[Thatcherite]

Catch up, you are falling behind. At least a CURSORY reading of a text should be required before commenting on it. On the very same day Noah and Noah’s sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and Noah’s wife and the three wives of his sons with them, entered the ark Genesis 7:13

And who did the grandchildren marry? For the Shem/Ham/Japeth lines to remain separate as some creationists imply when they talk about things like "sons of Ham" they would have to marry their own brothers and sisters.

[safisoft]

Internally consistent interpretation demands accepting my view of these passages. To do otherwise is to make a farce out of God's Word.

Now there is a singing self-endorsement if ever there was one.

Maybe you have not read the writings of ancient natural Hebrew speakers?

Seminarians crack me up sometimes. I'll take one Jewish sage of the Talmud to a hundred Hebrew professors from a 'Christian' seminary any day. Funny how folks never questioned the Hebrew of the B'reshit account prior to the 19th Century, eh? Wonder why. Are you working backwards? Or maybe right to left. ;)

BTW, since there is no dagesh, shouldn't it be shuvi? It's easy, practive with me: Avvvraham Avvvinu. Just joking.

[Just mythoughts]

"Prior to that Just-"Christ says that this will be repeated yet again, wonder what kind of 'ark' will be supplied to the ones who do not participate?"

Sir, you just did what you said nobody could do. You are truly wondrous!"

Thank you.

How can something you do not believe scare you?

A Christian is one who believes in Christ, and only the Heavenly Father knows the mind. To project any power upon me to cause one to be scared is out on a limb. What you choose to believe is between you and the Creator.

You want to discuss it that is fine, but please, claiming fear of the impossible just doesn't play.

[safisoft]

So sex with first cousins is OK? Cool

Catch up man. You need to read the complete reply before hiting REPLY. Avraham was the half-brother of his wife Sarah. But why fool around with "half" - Kayin was wed to his full sister. And Seth to his.

I love apologetics. If you run short, I have some far better ones - for someone well-versed in Scripture and and more aquainted with its apparent problems it gets much deeper than you can think. There are a good many dusty books that have struggled with such issues in far more depth than you can imagine. Shoot, the average public school highschool student dishes out such drivel to antagonize 'Christian' fellow students. Wait, who are you really?

[Just mythoughts]

"Kayin was wed to his full sister."


Scripture please.

[shubi]

Is English your first language?

Ham and his minions try to scare people into believing a stupid interpretation of Scripture. This is what they do to Christians.

To unbelievers, they condemn them to hell for finding science to be factual. I have news for them. God's Grace through belief in Jesus Christ is salvational. Creationism is not.

Creationism is apostasy.

[Lucky Dog]

I am not sure who you are including as a Darwinist, but I know for a fact that creation is not included in the Theory of Evolution, except by creationists using a strawman.

From my earlier post on this thread (#84) to “WildHorseCrash:”

************************************************************

Please allow me to quote from the referenced link to which I earlier referred you:

According to the theory of evolution, all life differentiated from a single common ancestor by the process of random variation and natural selection [empahsis mine]. Originally, organic compounds organized themselves in such as a way as to become self-replicating. Over the course of a great deal of time, those compounds varied naturally through random changes at replication [empahsis mine]. The protoorganisms with more advantageous traits were better able to self-replicate, and so they spread more quickly. Eventually, cells developed; then sexual reproduction; then multicellular organism; and over the course of millenia, life developed from a single protocell to its present diversity. The fossil record reflects this development, as organisms of increased complexity were buried by means of sedimentation over time.

The distinction I (and many others) draw between an “evolutionist” and “Darwinist” is related to the phrase “random.” I have only a few mild philosophical debating interests with those who wish to claim that evolution is a mechanism that God used in creation. In such a case, those “evolutionists” who make this claim are rejecting the term “random” and substituting God’s will/guidance and Providential hand in determining the changes rather than “random.”

***********************************************************

The Genesis account of God’s creation act does not specify the mechanism that He used to accomplish creation. Consequently, there are those creationists who subscribe to the “Divine Potter” theory and others who maintain that God used the mechanism of evolution to accomplish at least part of His creation handiwork. Finally, there are those creationists who maintain that the mechanism that God used for creation is not nearly as important as the fact that God is the Author of creation and its sole Master.

The “Divine Potter” group, for example, maintains that where the scriptures say that God formed man from the dust of the earth, He manually (assuming He had hands) scooped up dirt and manipulated it into a human form and then “breathed” life into it. While this is certainly a possible interpretation for a Divine creation mechanism, the scriptures do not restrict God to this method.

It is possible to correctly say of an automobile that this car was made of what was once rock (iron ore), ignoring that the rock (iron ore) had been crushed to dust, mixed with chemicals, melted at extremely high temperatures, otherwise refined and mixed with carbon to make steel, etc., before the “rock” was made into a car. Similarly, it is also possible to say that man was made from the dust of the earth ignoring that the dust may have been “refined” into another shape before it was man. The wording of the Scriptures does not preclude such an interpretation.

For me, the mechanism that God used in the miracle of creation is an intellectual curiosity similar in importance to the mechanism of any other miracle in that it represents Divine intervention. I maintain that none of these miraculous mechanisms are important in comparison to the Divine power and will required to work the miracle. Consequently, I find the debate over “young earth” versus “old earth” or the “Divine Potter” theory versus the evolutionist theory and whether the Hebrew word “yom” is a literal 24-hour period or an indefinite period of time to be a “tempest in a teapot.” These are interesting debate topics from an intellectual standpoint to me, but I find far too many people think that their particular interpretation is the only correct one and that all others are heretical. Frankly, until one of these people walk on water when it isn’t frozen or call forth some dead person from the tomb before my eyes, I will continue to believe that my own reading, study and meditation provide just as good an interpretation as anyone’s.

[shubi]

While I have had six years of Seminary, I learned Hebrew in a federal government spy school.

I don't need to work with vowel points. In fact, I find it to be restricting, since it tends to interpret the Bible in a Masorite fashion.

I find the wisdom of the Jewish sages to valuable, myself.

[shubi]

to be valuable

[Just mythoughts]

Is English your first language?

"Ham and his minions try to scare people into believing a stupid interpretation of Scripture. This is what they do to Christians."

Apparently you know a "Ham" that I am unaware of.

"To unbelievers, they condemn them to hell for finding science to be factual. I have news for them. God's Grace through belief in Jesus Christ is salvational. Creationism is not."

Fear not them that can destroy the flesh, but fear Him that can destroy both the flesh and soul.

Then by your own words there is more to this story than the Heavenly Father going along with MAN condemning anybody to hell. We are told that God would send strong delusions to those that choose to ignore truth and believe a lie. We are also told that some are blinded for their own protection.



"Creationism is apostasy."

I will not argue with you generally speaking.

[shubi]

I suspect you got your quote from a creationist crapsite, because abiogenesis is not in the Theory of Evolution.

The fact is the whole creationist nonsense is a strawman.

Evolution works from the point of creation forward.

Since you are using sources that are wrong, we might expect your conclusions based on this misinformation to be wrong, as well. You are correct that the debate is a tempest in a teapot because evolution is a fact and creationism is nonsense based on a strawman.

[MEGoody]

"I am sure there are some entertaining links on how incest was divinely sanctione."

The children of Noah's children would have been cousins. Cousins can legally marry in many places throughout the world. In fact, some states in the good old U.S. allow cousins to marry.

[shubi]

The article we are discussing is about Ken Ham the owner of the creationist museum. It might behoove you to read the article and find out the background of the people behind this nonsense.

[MEGoody]

"Sir, you just did what you said nobody could do."

How can something be a threat if you do not believe it is going to happen?

[MEGoody]

"The fact is the whole creationist nonsense is a strawman."

Just curious - ever read the book "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel? If not, you might be interested. It would give you a good view of the creation argument from a truly scientific point of view. (No, not Adam walking with dinos.)