Creation Museum Marries Adam, Eve and Dinosaurs

ABC News ^ | May 25, 2007 | Staff

[Sleeping Beauty]

Some Scientists Worry That Sophisticated Center Will Distort Children's Views of Science

According to an ABC News poll, 60 percent of Americans believe God created the world in six days. In Petersburg, Ky., this weekend, a creation museum is opening that depicts a story far from what you may have learned in science class.

Exhibits at almost every natural history museum teach that dinosaurs are millions of years old, and that they died out long before human beings existed. But at the Creation Museum, they say God created dinosaurs and humans at the same time.

The Creation Museum, designed by the same man behind some of the attractions at Universal Studios in Florida, is a $27 million, high-tech sensory experience with animatronic dinosaurs and a movie theater with seats that shake.

The museum is intended to convince visitors that evolution is wrong and that the biblical story of life on earth from Adam and Eve to Noah's ark is scientifically verifiable.

The museum depicts Adam living with animals, including a dinosaur.

Ken Ham, the president of Answers in Genesis, the group that is funding the museum, says that only "secular scientists" would maintain that the first humans never lived with dinosaurs.

"[Scientists] can say that, but what's their evidence?" Ham says, insisting that "All land animals were made on day six."

Mainstream scientists worry that because the museum is so technically sophisticated, it could be effective in giving children a distorted view of science.

"That they'll show up in classrooms and say, 'Gee, Mrs. Brown, I went to this spiffy museum last summer and they say that everything you're teaching me is a lie,'" said Eugenie Scott, the executive director of the National Center for Science Education.

Ham believes that's what should happen.

"And I say, great. Amen. That's what this place is all about," he said. "It's meant to challenge people."

The stakes are high. The museum argues that evolution jeopardizes people's belief in the Bible and leads to social ills like pornography and abortion.

"In an evolutionary world view, why should you have things like absolute morality? Why would it be wrong to kill someone?" said Jason Lisle, of Answers in Genesis. "I'm not saying that evolutionists aren't moral. I'm saying they have no reason to be moral."

[more at the link]

[doc30]

So you admit you know nothing of radiometric dating, nor do you understand nuclear physics.

And why would scientists of every type (biology, chemistry, physics, geology, astronomy, etc) who have studies and practiced sceince for years, if not decades, assume there was a global flood when not only is there no evidence of such a thing, but it counters all of the real world evidence. You can live in your own theistic bubble, but it doesn't make what you believe to be true. Or are you saying that all of science, and I mean all of it, is wrong?

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

There is evidence for a global flood. One bit of interesting info is that the pyramids, built before the flood, have evidence of having been covered by water.

There is also evidence that there was a creation that preceeded the Genesis account of the creation of which we are a part. There is evidence of this in both Biblical accounts and in “science”.

[ColdWater]

I know enough about it to know that the Flood would have affected the dating.

Please explain how the flood would have affected U-Pb dating.

[ColdWater]

There is evidence for a global flood. One bit of interesting info is that the pyramids, built before the flood, have evidence of having been covered by water.

I had not heard that one. Where did you find that?

[Coyoteman]

We have as much real evidence for a global Flood as we do for Evolution!

Really? OK, I'll show you just a tiny bit of evidence for evolution, and provide a link to more. Then you show me some evidence for a global flood at about 4350 years ago.

First the link: Patrick Henry's Un-Missing Links.

Now, here is some evidence. I await some evidence of a global flood.

---

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33

Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html

[Coyoteman]

There is evidence for a global flood. One bit of interesting info is that the pyramids, built before the flood, have evidence of having been covered by water.

Hmmmm. Why didn't the Egyptians notice this? You would have thought such an event would have been noted in their writings, as they carefully noted a lot of details of the annual Nile floods.

And what about the continuity of Egyptian culture and physical type before and after the dates purported for the flood?

Sorry, your argument doesn't hold water; it just won't wash.

[Coyoteman]

I know enough about it to know that it is a fact that the evolutionists have to assume that the dates on the RadioCarbon dating are not being affected by changes that came from a Global Flood.

It is archaeologists, soil scientists, and similar experts who use radiocarbon dating. It only extends back some 50,000 years. "Evolutionists" rely more on other forms of radiometric dating.

So we don't account for the global flood in radiocarbon dating? We don't account for pink unicorns either. There is about the same amount of evidence for pink unicorns as a global flood at about 4350 years ago.

[ColdWater]

>>I know enough about it to know that the Flood would have affected the dating.<<

Please explain how your flood affects the following dating methods ...

argon-argon (Ar-Ar)
fission track dating
helium (He-He)
iodine-xenon (I-Xe)
lanthanum-barium (La-Ba)
lead-lead (Pb-Pb)
lutetium-hafnium (Lu-Hf)
neon-neon (Ne-Ne)
optically stimulated luminescence dating
potassium-argon (K-Ar)
rhenium-osmium (Re-Os)
rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr)
samarium-neodymium (Sm-Nd)
uranium-lead (U-Pb)
uranium-lead-helium (U-Pb-He)
uranium-thorium (U-Th)
uranium-uranium (U-U)

[b_sharp]

All dating by Evolutionist are based on assumptions of what is being dated."

Dating assumptions are not based on what is being dated but on the reliability of natural processes through time - including such assumptions as; new material is deposited on top of older material, radioactive decay rates in the past were the same as present, consistency of ages given by different methods increases the confidence level in accuracy and the 'Laws of Physics' have not been changed by a capricious agent.

Which of those assumptions do you believe to be unreasonable?

[ColdWater]

Which of those assumptions do you believe to be unreasonable?

The speed of light is constant over the centuries?

The rate of decay of isotopes is constant over the centuries?

[b_sharp]

"And something just somehow happened to come out of nothing!

If you insist that everything must have a time, place and initiator then, unless your God is outside the laws of Physics, he/she/it too needs to have a beginning. If you claim that your God is outside the laws of physics because he/she/it created those laws, those laws which you demand for everything other than God, then anything else said to originate those laws is also outside them. Simply put, if you created those laws they did not exist before you created them so do not apply to you.

"Since it is impossible for something to come out of nothing, either God is impossible or Evolution is.

This is a non-sequitur with a built in false dichotomy. It may be impossible for something to come from nothing in this universe but your own statements claimed that because God is outside of time and I assume not of this universe he is exempt from that condition. What I have claimed is that the universe we are currently discussing, that which contains all we see and all we are, did not originate in itself. This means its origin is also outside of time and this universe (itself) so is also exempt from the previously mentioned condition of needing a cause.

Since Evolution with the upper case E usually denotes biological evolution as opposed to the sweeping and all encompassing 'evolution' I'm sure you can think of many cases where both Evolution and God could exist. If however, for some reason you are including the Big Bang within the definition of 'evolution' then making them mutually exclusive is a problem for you dichotomy since it is possible for a God to exist and the BB to still be the initiator of our universe. It is even possible for a God to be the creator of the BB.

"We acknowledge that we have to start with God as our axiom based on faith.

You acknowledge that as a presupposition to all of your understanding for the universe. That is your right.

"The hyprocrisy comes from the Evolutionists who claim they have 'science' as their guide, when they know that they must believe in the impossible, life coming from non-life.

Life coming from non-life is not the same as something coming from nothing.

Knowledge of what is possible and what is not possible is heavily based upon existing knowledge of the laws of physics and the interaction of the physical components of the system being examined. There is nothing in the origin of life from simpler forms such as non-living replicating molecules that contradicts any of the physical laws. If you have evidence that Abiogenesis in any way contradicts a law of physics, any law of physics, I would be interested in hearing about such. A cite or two would also be nice.

"So in truth, both systems are faith based system.

Its interesting that you are trying to place not only biological evolution but all the other disciplines you define within 'evolution' on the same level as your belief system. It appears you believe your faith is somehow of less value than science. Interesting. Is this an admission that you believe the scientific method produces more accuracy than religion?

A field of study is not considered science because it believes only in what is currently considered possible but because of the methods and processes used to determine what is and is not possible. Science uses specific methods to develop hypotheses, tests and potential falsification criteria, eliminate external affects, then it runs the tests and compares the results of those tests with the hypotheses. From there it draws conclusions. Since the tests are limited by the laws of physics (which I use all inclusively here) the tests are indeed possible and no belief in the impossible is necessary.

Just a note here that impossible and highly improbable are not the same thing. Abiogenesis may be highly improbable but according to the current understanding of the laws of physics, it is not impossible. Unfortunately, since we do not know what the original replicator was composed of nor the environment of its development we can not truthfully produce an accurate probability.

"The only issue is which seems more reasonible and likely.

That may be true but they are of unequal weight. Any probability calculation must take that weighting into account. Evolution, as you define it, is backed by science, which means predictions based on current knowledge have been made, tests run and conclusions developed based on the results of those tests. Your belief system does not use those same, quite provably successful methods as its basis. Any decision made must include the belief system basis and account for the different weighting.

Any justification you can make for God to be outside the requirements of the universe can be made for the origin of the universe itself. That singularity, or whatever it was, was not contained in the universe, was not subject to the same laws as our current universe, and was outside of time.

"So, now you are making the Universe 'god' and a different Universe."

No I am not, I do not assume, as you do, that only a 'god' can make a universe, I only assume that the conditions outside the universe do not necessarily follow the same 'rules' as inside the universe. I am stating that the same conditions you have applied to enable you to give God the 'Uncaused Cause' attribute can also be applied to anything outside of this universe's time and space. It is an argument against your position that God does not need a creator because he is outside of the constraints of our universe. If you have other reasons for believing God does not need a creator but the universe does then present them.

The universe that we live in did not explode within its own space, it was not a matter of matter exploding from a central point and filling available space, the very space we live in was contained within that initial singularity. That singularity could have resided in a different universe or, as some have suggested for God, existed within the 'void', a place of no substance, time, or space and as such, again like God, was not subject to the same laws of physics (including causality if you want to call that a law) inside the universe.

"It still doesn't explain where this 'different' Universe came from.

When you can explain where God came from I will explain where the host universe came from although that is but one possibility.

"And from rocks came life!

Crappy straw man. Life is not something mystical and magical, it is the interaction of chemical processes which in combination function in a specific way. No one said that life came from 'rocks' but from far simpler molecules. Complex molecules are found in space, they are not unusual.

"You can spin it anyway you want, but you have life coming from non-life."

Yes I do, but as mentioned before this is not the same as something coming from nothing. My 'spin' was saying no more than 'life' does not describe a sharp line but is a matter of defining an arbitrary point based on fuzzy criteria within the chemical world. Even now there are some 'things' (prions and viruses to name two) which show some but not all properties of life that are definitely not 'non-life as you define it but are also not life such as ourselves. As long as we can observe 'things' which bridge the gap between non-life and life then life from non-life is not impossible.

I hope that you haven't gotten the idea that life cannot come from non-life from Pasteur's tests because the conditions, requirements and predictions are significantly different in Abiogenesis so his work is not applicable.

"And where did these chemicals come from?"

The chemicals used in all life (and non-life for that matter) are the atoms/molecules created in the BB, in the heart of stars, and in the violence of supernovae and comet/meteor impacts.

"Poof-like magic they were there and they just happen to combine to form some kind of life and that just happened to survive to form a more sophisciated kind of life and before you know you have mankind (give or take a few billion years).

You can attack anything by oversimplifying it but it is a hollow victory.

The molecules, including amino acids, and sugars were created by supernovae and impacts. They float around in space and have been found in meteorites. They have even been created in the lab by simulating an impact.

The only part that is difficult is the combining of those complex molecules into a simple replicator. We do not know how that happened. Our current lack of knowledge about that process does not equate to it being impossible unless you believe we know everything that we can possible know already.

Once the replicator exists then selection can guide it to develop beyond its simple origins. To what extent we do not know, but that is not a reason to stop looking.

"Yea, that is real science there!"

See my description of science above.

"And from single cell life came Man! Yes indeed, as did all other animals and plants. However, current organisms are the result of a trial and error regulated build up from simple beginnings. Do you have a problem with trial and error, or complexity coming from simplicity?

"You talk about fairy tales!"

Yes I have heard yours many times.

"Well, you have heard because it is true."

By what definition of 'true'? Are you talking scientifically verified or 'inspired' truth?

"Yes, I have a large problem with living cells going from the simple to the complex by 'evolution'."

That isn't what I asked. I asked if you have a problem with the process of trial and error. I asked if you have a problem with complexity forming from initial simplicity. We can discuss their application to evolution after we determine where the problem lies.

"It doesn't happen that way...

You sound very sure of that. What are you basing this conviction on?

"... and evolution has never shown anything to do so.

Evolution has shown many times that complexity can result from simple beginnings. The eye is but one example. Since you have loosely defined evolution to include the BB, abiogenesis and biological evolution then I will include the models of those processes. There are dozens of computer models which show the success of evolutionary processes to build complexity, including some where the 'life forms' were not controlled by the programmer who but simply changed the environment those 'life forms' inhabited. The results not only show complexity increase in the individual forms but complex interactions between evolved forms that were never programmed into the simulation.

Even if this does not show that Abiogenesis is a fact it certainly shows that random changes within a selecting environment produces the complexity you deny can happen. This has also been accomplished in models of chemical reactions.

I'm still interested in finding out your basis for claiming abiogeneis is impossible.

"What does occur is adaptation of the species, but not the changing of the species into another species, becoming a more complex and different species.

What physical limits are there on adaptation to prevent it from accumulating and resulting in speciation?

How do you define species?

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

Now this is compelling science isn't it

" As compelling as your pseudo science, which has to start with a different Universe operating under different laws and then move from non-life to life and simple life to complex life."

The question of non-life to life and simple life to complex life has nothing to do with the origin of the universe because before they can even be considered the existence of the universe is taken as a given. In fact the existence of matter and energy is taken as a given.

Care to define pseudo science for me?

"Man, you talk about having a faith!"

So, faith is bad?

[b_sharp]

"Christ called those people names who deserved it, since they were deceiving the people, just like evolutionists are.

So tens of thousands of scientists are deceiving people? Hundreds of thousands of educators are deceiving people? Tens of millions of laypeople who believe in evolution are deceivers?

You just called a whole lot of people liars, including me.

[b_sharp]

"But you have to have faith as the root for your system, not observation and experimentation (science)."

The BB is heavily researched and verified.

Whether a God started the BB or not is irrelevant to the science of evolution. That continents move, that geological strata builds up over time, that organisms leave specific traces in the rocks, that fossils show common descent, that DNA shows common descent, that mutations can cause morphological changes, that selection can fix an allele, that drift can fix an allele, have all been heavily researched.

For you to say that any or all of this science is not science because we don't know what started the universe is nonsense. If God created the BB, or it happened because of an instability in the void, or was born from a black hole in another universe, the manner of its origin does not interfere with the study of the rules and processes within the universe one iota.

[b_sharp]

"For the lurkers, the tree dating is also based on conjecture and assumptions."

The assumptions it makes are quite simple; that trees most frequently form one tree ring every year and that we will be able to tell when they don't. Both of these assumptions are based on observing living trees and the environments they live in.

All of science makes assumptions. Are you trying to say that all of science is invalid because it has initial assumptions? That is a hell of a statement considering how we are communicating, we travel and how we produce and collect food.

Sorry, but starting with assumptions is not a bad thing, it is a necessary thing. It is only when those assumptions are unreasonable given the subject can they be considered unusable.

If you want to debunk dating methods you need to show that they are unreasonable not that they exist.

So, why are the two assumptions I mentioned unreasonable for dendrochronology?

[ahayes]

Since you claim there is no evidence for evolution, you are saying that there is no evidence for the flood.

Zing!

[b_sharp]

"If the Flood was real then it would affect dating.

How would it affect dendrochronology? How about radiometric dating? Stellar dating? The Hubble constant? Any of the absolute dating methods other than Carbon?

"So the evolutionists have to disregard that issue and assume their own long date paradigm.

As for your ad hominem against Dr. Brown, that is typical evolutionist methodology.

It is only an ad hominem if the comment is unrelated to the veracity of the subject under debate and is intended to redirect the discussion. My comment goes directly to his ability to evaluate the evidence and draw valid conclusions. If you can show his idea that the Earth is the origin of the asteroids is valid I will withdraw my comment.

"Brown isn't the only Creationist who states this.

So what? I don't know their work, I am familiar with some of Brown's work and the refutations of it.

"But the idea put forth by Evolutionist that our current Universe is based on an 'alternative Universe' is suppose to be 'good science'!

Reread my post. It was an argument against your contention that God is the only 'thing' beyond the present laws embodied by 'this' universe.

Care to logically refute my argument, or is an appeal to emotion all you intend on doing?

[ahayes]

One would think Snelling could have gone to a more recent source if dating methods are as bad as he would like you to think. Instead he digs up some confusing results from a paper in 1976. I guess that was the best he had to work with, and besides, that makes it safer since few people can pull up the original source and see what they say.

[b_sharp]

"We have as much real evidence for a global Flood as we do for Evolution!

Really? Care to make some predictions of what we should find if the Flood happened and then compare it to what we do find? Don't base your predictions on what has been found and then make them fit the data, create a fresh set of predictions based on the known laws of physics and what can be reasonably expected by that mass of water.

As the water comes down, what erosion patterns should we find?
As it flows up from the deeps, what energy requirements are necessary and how much heat is produced? How much will that heat raise the temperature of the oceans? Should we find evdience of that heat in current geological features?
How fast will the glaciers melt and how much will the water rise?
How will the skeletons of the masses of dead animals accumulate? How will the speed of water level increase affect that accumulation?
How will the sediment settle out of the water as it evaporates?
What would the average salt content of the ocean be? How much salt should be found in dried up basins?
What would be the average flow rate of streams and rivers at the beginning of the flood, the mid point of the flood and at the point where the water level drops below continental features?
How fast could the water evaporate?
What sediment types should be found on the continental shelves? What types on the continents themselves? How much soil should be left?

All of this can be done before considering the actual data and be based on known processes. That is just a taste of the question which need to be asked before you can make logical predictions. Once you've done that then compare the reality to the expectations.

None of the apologists have done this. What they have done is examined the data and post hoc formed 'predictions' that can be matched up to the data. To make those predictions fit they ignore and/or twist the natural laws. This is why I brought up the idea that the Flood contained enough energy to fling a substantial chunk of Earth's mass into orbit beyond Mars.

That type of 'science' produces evidence with nowhere near the weight of evidence gained through methodological naturalism (the scientific method).

[b_sharp]

"All dating by Evolutionists is made to fit their own evolutionary paradigm."

Yes, we are all very evil people determined to make sure you never get to Heaven.

[b_sharp]

"Sorry, your argument doesn't hold water; it just won't wash."

Cman, you're all wet!