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."

[Focault's Pendulum]

Everybody be nice.

Well.....it could happen.

[DallasMike]

There is NO evidence that the Adam walked with the dinosaurs, and no where does the Bible state this earth is 6,000 years old. The most the Bible gives us is a hint when man was created in the flesh and why.

Thank you! You may get flamed for your comment because far too many Freepers believe what Pastor Bob told them instead of what the Bible tells them.

I have plenty of problems with the current theory of evolution but my problems are with the sometimes shoddy science, not because of any conflict with my conservative evangelical Christian beliefs.

[rwfromkansas]

I did enjoy my time on another evolution thread a couple weeks ago. A person (maybe you) gave me some good links supporting evolution, and I found them very thought-provoking.

I am still a creationist, but am more willing to consider evolution than before since the poster took the time to engage in intelligent conversation. And while most of the things I think could have been explained in other ways, some could not have been except in evolution.

[PatrickHenry]

I am still a creationist, but am more willing to consider evolution than before since the poster took the time to engage in intelligent conversation. And while most of the things I think could have been explained in other ways, some could not have been except in evolution.

Excellent! Any one piece of evidence can have many possible explanations. But when the evidence becomes overwhelming, and from several independent lines of research, it's ever-more difficult to resist the conclusion.

Evolution is supported not only by fossil evidence and a study of comparative anatomy, which was available to Darwin (showing hierarchical groupings), but also by several independent lines of evidence that turned up later, which could have -- but didn't -- give results that are inconsistent with the TOE:

* genetics (the inheritability of mutations),
* comparative biochemistry, including DNA (showing genetic relationships among species),
* geology (the age of the earth),
* plate techtonics (continental drift that coincides with fossil evidence),
* physics (radiometric dating of fossils and rock strata),
* astronomy (the age of the solar system and universe), and
* other supporting lines of evidence (tree rings, ice cores, ocean-floor cores, etc.).

Only one teaching is inconsistent with all these independent lines of evidence -- creationism.

[Havoc]

Hebrew grammar doesn't trip me up.

Evidently it does.

Not really. Biblical lineages only list HEADs of clans

I'd recommend you should go back and read. The lineages give ages of the heads of family lines, their age when they had specific sons or daughters, their ages and so on such that Specific clear constructs for the total length of time is spoken to with specificity. There is nothing in scripture by accident. And you are either uninformed or mischaracterizing it on purpose.

If you will reread my post, I specifically stated that I do not subscribe to the so-called "gap theory." So I would agree with you that the Bible does not support it.

It also doesn't allow for great durations of time substituted for a standard 24 hour day. Plants cannot go without light or polination for millions of years without dying. Birds can't go for millions of years without food.. etc. Each act of creation sets support for the next and establishes conditions that require the next in short order. It nullifies any case for vast periods of time - no ifs ands or buts.

If anyone else is interested, I'll explain why the grammatical construction in the Hebrew allows for an old universe, while restricting the life on earth to a relatively short period of time.

Not in light of other scripture you can't. Scripture states plainly that all things that God created were created in that 6 days and on the seventh he rested. All things. If there was something prior, then something was created other than in those six days and you're back to calling God a liar again. So, no, you can't establish that either in the language or in the text. The text argues flatly against it. God knew what he was doing and left no room for wiggling.

I don't. I do not accept Darwinism or any other modern theory of evolutionary ascent. I believe the Bible, that God created life on the earth in the six literal days as described in Genesis chapter 1.

So then you're arguing another heresy and giving rise to confusion. Do yourself a favor before you damage yourself further - and I'm not talking your ego. Read Genesis - not for what you're looking for; but for what it says. Then read the rest of the OT and NT references to the six day creation. By the time you're done, you will come to the understanding that you're teaching a false doctrine. If you fear God, you'll understand the weight of that. If your heresy causes the 'least of these' to err from faith, what does it say.. you are lumped in with false teachers at that point. I'd recommend following the scriptural warning to bridle your tongue and then read it instead of looking for excuses for your heresy. Friendly advice.

[Havoc]

Consequently, it possible to misinterpret the meaning of the Hebrew word “yom” (meaning day) to mean only a 24 hour rotation of the earth rather than perhaps an “era” since such is certainly possible in our own tongue

Nope. Yom is associated with the definite article and a specific modifier in all cases. You're not arguing grammer, you're arguing theory. You are outside the bounds of Grammer and the literal defined meaning of the words within the grammer. IE - you're filibustering with a falacy.

Far more important than the quarrel over specific meanings of individual words, there is the more important issue of the message of the Scripture

Neither is more important than the other. The words define the message. You're into double-talk and you've shown your hand. "we can't be burdened with the words - we have to look at the ..." Pure cultism and Pure hogwash.

[Lucky Dog]

If so, then you need to define your terms.

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 substutiting God’s will/guidance and Providencial hand in determining the changes rather than “random.”

Have I adequately addressed your challenge?

[Inyo-Mono]

He is.

[balrog666]

You seem to be missing this fun discussion!

[Havoc]

Consequently, you and I, as creationists, would be best served in this argument of creationism versus Darwinism to quarrel less with other creationists and more effectively with the Darwinists.

NO. Consequently, you and I, as creationists or more importantly, AS CHRISTIANS are limited to what the scriptures actually say - Not what we'd like to assign to them to make ourselves feel better or to make some philosophical stance look ok. The minute you compromised on what scripture actually said, you joined them in calling God a liar. If you're standing against them, you're standing against yourself because there is no difference between you and the darwinists. Physician, heal thyself!

[Guyin4Os]

If humans and dinosaurs had co-existed, humans would have been eaten to extinction.

Yes, assuming they lived in the same places on the globe. But not a very scientific assumption.

[Guyin4Os]

...you're teaching a false doctrine...

Specifically what "false doctrine" am I teaching... in your "humble" opinion? Certainly not evolution, for I do not believe in it or teach it. Certainly not the "day-age" theory, because I neither believe it nor teach it. Certainly not the "gap theory" because I do not teach that either. Please clearly state what "false doctrine" I teach.

[Havoc]

You're sitting there trying to misconstrue words in scripture and arguing that they don't mean what they say. You tell me what you're arguing - if you're so confused you don't know, then you should go back and read what you've said and ask yourself if you said what you meant.

[Guyin4Os]

You have charged me with teaching a heresy, now be specific. If you cannot be specific then retract the scurrilous charge.

[Havoc]

You have charged me with teaching a heresy, now be specific. If you cannot be specific then retract the scurrilous charge.

You're assigning meaning both in definition and in grammer that perverts the message of the scripture. And that is heresy and blasphemy at once - a twofer. I'm glad you think it scurrilous; but, it isn't merely a charge. You've done it. The pretention isn't necessary, neither of our egos is particularly important - the souls are. Look to yours.

[Guyin4Os]

First, you haven't even heard my exegesis of Genesis 1:1,2, since I have not yet given it in this thread. Second, you have charged me with "heresy" that is, "teaching false doctrine" without being specific as to what that "false doctrine" is that I have supposedly taught. Third, you presume that my ego is what is driving this discussion. It is not.

If you wish to discuss this in more detail, I am willing. But I suggest that in the future, before levying the charge of "heretic" that you first hear a person out. Have a nice life. This is all I will say to you in this thread.

[Dimensio]

Yes, assuming they lived in the same places on the globe. But not a very scientific assumption.

Except that the "evidence" that you cited (for which you presented no references) would require exactly that.

[Lucky Dog]

you're filibustering with a falacy.

Please note the following definition from Strong’s (an unimpeachable source for ancient Hebrew and Greek definitions and usage along with translation guidance):

Strong’s OT:3117

yowm (yome); from an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figurative (a space of time defined by an associated term), [often used adverb]:

KJV - age, + always, + chronicals, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever (-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (... live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+age), (full) year (-ly), + younger.

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

I think you will note that the most authoritative source in the field allows that the Hebrew word could mean either a 24 hour period or a “figurative period of time.” Additionally, you will note that the English translation can also mean an indefinite period of time.

Neither is more important than the other. The words define the message.

You are only partially correct in this assertion. If there is no message to be conveyed, then words are meaningless. Consequently, the message is, prima fascia, the most important item. However, I will concede that words define the message with the proviso that a number of words can define the same message, thus making the exact wording relatively of far less importance.

Beyond “words” which may, or may not, “define the message,” my point was that quarreling over potentially trivial shades of definition with a non-native language speaker is far less important than understanding the meaning of the passage and its entire message. As there are no longer any native speakers of ancient Hebrew, there can only be scholars who have opinions about the intended definitions of a word from that language. If you wish to present credentials to me certifying your scholarship in ancient Hebrew, I will be willing entertain you assertions as somewhat authoritative. Otherwise, your opinion is no more valuable than any one else’s.

You're into double-talk and you've shown your hand. "we can't be burdened with the words - we have to look at the ..." Pure cultism and Pure hogwash.

Your inferences and chosen wording to convey them are quite insulting and unnecessary if you are interested in debate rather than ad hominem attacks. For your information, my opinion conveyed earlier is exactly that which was conveyed in class to me by a seminary professor of the largest conservative Protestant denomination in the nation. While this very learned scholar and I are both human and consequently subject to error, I find that you are also subject to this foible and, perhaps, more so for the absolute definitiveness with which you attempt to assert your points as unassailable.

[Just mythoughts]

"I take it from your response that you cannot refute my post..."


I can refute your misguided, arrogant post, but what's the point, you do not know that the devil was created before man in the flesh was.

[Just mythoughts]

"You are the one proposing that the flood happened. The burden is on you to prove it."


Not my job to prove to the blind what they are not given to see.