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]

[blowfish]

The fact is that even bone should not have lasted millions of years.

How do you know? What evidence do you have to support this assertion?

[fortheDeclaration]

AiG again. I have already showed how they mislead. Go find a reputable source.

Stop straining at gnats.

Typical of Evolutionists, do not deal with the substance of the article.

Now, I am waiting for your link to that picture with the dinosaur with the saddle on its back.

[fortheDeclaration]

Dino dinner hard to swallow?
A preliminary analysis by Ryan McClay, AiG–USA

January 21, 2005

A recent fossil discovery in China has evolutionists scratching their heads over a mammal’s last meal.

The fossilized remains of a small dinosaur (psittacosaur) have been found in the belly of a dog-like mammal named Repenomamus robustus. Researchers have also found a second fossil that they have named Repenomamus giganticus. This second fossil has been described as “breathtaking” and “about the size of a modern dog.”1 This is a real surprise for evolutionists because evolutionary assumptions say that mammals living during the so-called “age of the dinosaurs” couldn’t possibly have been that big; rather, they had to be small to better avoid the huge reptiles. It has some evolutionary scientists quite concerned, for it challenges what they have believed for years.

While the discovery is a particular shock (from an evolutionary standpoint) because one part of the evolution model may need to be drastically changed, it isn’t shocking for creationists. Creationists believe that man, mammals and dinosaurs originally
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0121dino_dinner.asp

[fortheDeclaration]

However, in a situation where the dinosaur bone has been prevented from being invaded by mineral-rich water, one would expect that over millions of years, even locked away from all bacterial agents, dinosaur bone would, in obeying the laws of thermodynamics,3 just disintegrate from the random motions of the molecules therein.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i1/dinosaurbones.asp

[fortheDeclaration]

B. What is required to prove the evolution case to you and to me?

1. Show us thousands of series of fossils which prove that a slow process of evolution “created”, one after the other, thousands of new complex biological designs. For example, there should be a series of fossils to show the slow, gradual evolution of a backbone. There should be a series of fossils to show the step-by-step evolution of reptile scales into bird feathers.

2. Devise an experimentally testable theory of genetics to explain how evolution “created” a backbone or changed reptile scales into bird feathers.

3. Discover the mechanisms of genetics and embryonic development which are able to “create” complex new biological designs.

4. Show us the evolution of complex new biological designs happening in nature today.

http://www.parentcompany.com/creation_essays/essay45.htm

[blowfish]

However, in a situation where the dinosaur bone has been prevented from being invaded by mineral-rich water, one would expect that over millions of years, even locked away from all bacterial agents, dinosaur bone would, in obeying the laws of thermodynamics,3 just disintegrate from the random motions of the molecules therein.

Are you serious, man? I assume you're willing to apply the same "logic" to things like calcite and apatite crystals. How about granite, while you're at it?

Please, do yourself a favor. Take some introductory physics classes or something...

[blowfish]

1. Show us thousands of series of fossils which prove that a slow process of evolution “created”, one after the other, thousands of new complex biological designs. For example, there should be a series of fossils to show the slow, gradual evolution of a backbone. There should be a series of fossils to show the step-by-step evolution of reptile scales into bird feathers.

The fact that you choose to disregard the existing fossil record is not my problem.

[fortheDeclaration]

However, in a situation where the dinosaur bone has been prevented from being invaded by mineral-rich water, one would expect that over millions of years, even locked away from all bacterial agents, dinosaur bone would, in obeying the laws of thermodynamics,3 just disintegrate from the random motions of the molecules therein. Are you serious, man? I assume you're willing to apply the same "logic" to things like calcite and apatite crystals. How about granite, while you're at it? Please, do yourself a favor. Take some introductory physics classes or something...

So you think bones can last 65 million years?

LOL!

[ColdWater]

Link please?

Aig

Do you think they would show his sex organs?

If he had any.

And what makes you think he ate an apple?

That is what I was taught in Sunday School.

[ColdWater]

AiG AGAIN! We have shown (and you acknowledged) their misleading information. They no longer have credibility.

[ColdWater]

So you think bones can last 65 million years?

Fossilized bones do. What is your point?

[ColdWater]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html

Answers in Genesis Ministry generally, and Carl Wieland CEO-Australia specifically, are the principal sources of the creationists’ repeated falsehood that dinosaurs are modern because blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in fresh bone. There are in fact five gross errors in just those few words that originated with Wieland and Answers in Genesis. These falsehoods are found commonly repeated throughout the creationist literature. We have demonstrated above that Carl Wieland, writing for Answers in Genesis, falsely represented this research to his readers. Minimally any objective reader should be satisfied that within the scientific literature, a) “red blood cells” have not been found in dinosaur bone, b) Schweitzer did not say that there were “red blood cells” in her specimens, c) hemoglobin was not found in dinosaur bone, d) Schweitzer did not say that hemoglobin was found in dinosaur bone, e) Wieland has grossly falsified his account of this research, if he ever read the scientific presentations at all. As Wieland never cited the scientific literature, it is presumed that he never bothered to become informed about the issues that he wrote about. If, however, he has read the actual science, he is guilty of more than “willful ignorance”, and has actively lied to a trusting public. Schweitzer did make some early remarks to news reporters that were easily exploited by creationists such as Wieland. Even the popularized version of Schweitzer’s work was distorted through selective quoting and direct misrepresentation. This is a common problem when trying to communicate science - anything that can be misinterpreted by creationists probably will be. But the test of science is in the scientific literature, and at no point did her speculative remarks enter the scientific dialog.

Serious questions of credibility are raised by the falsehoods and misrepresentations exposed above. The dino-blood chimera has been widely promoted by Answers in Genesis. Wieland wrote -

Such is the stifling effect of the evolutionary dogma that scientists can be blinded to the clear implications of their own data. [Wieland 2002]

The irony is palpable. No scientist could continue his or her career guilty of such shoddy work, but we predict that there will be no negative consequence to Wieland or his organization. If you “own” the truth, you apparently needn’t stint at falsehood.

[ColdWater]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html

Although they are not consistent with pyrite framboids, they may indeed be geological in origin, derived from some process as yet undefined; they may have their origin as colonies of iron-concentrating bacteria or fungal spores, or they may be the result of cellular debris, which clumped upon death, became desiccated, and then through diagenetic processes such as anion exchange or others not yet elucidated, became complexed with other, secondary degradation products. [Schweitzer and Horner (1999: 189)]

[fortheDeclaration]

You still owe me two links, which I am waiting for.

As fossils, actual bone should not be in the fossils.

Which is what you were denying was possible in the first place.

[ColdWater]

Schweitzer’s mentor, the famous “Dinosaur Jack” Horner (upon whom Sam Neill’s lead character in the Jurassic Park movies was modeled) is already urging museums to consider cracking open some of the bones in their existing dinosaur fossils in the hope of finding more such “Squishosaurus” remains. He is excited about the potential to learn more about dinosaurs, of course. But—nothing about questioning the millions of years—sigh!

Funny that you should reference Horner:

(Horner):Young Earth Creationists are like the "Flat Earth" people of last century, they latch on to pieces of straw, ignoring the bale.

[fortheDeclaration]

From a link from the same article.

24 March 2005, a team of paleontologists lead by Mary Higby Schweitzer published their discovery of dinosaur soft tissues recovered from the cortical bone of a T. rex femur. The three page paper in Science magazine, published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, presents the striking discovery of apparently preserved organic tissues. These include several cell types that the authors feel able to delineate by direct comparison to modern cells recovered from a recent ostrich femur. (Schweitzer MH, Wittmeyer JL, Horner JR, Toporski JK (2005) Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex. Science 307(5717):1952-1955).

Now, unless you have a link for those two other posts, do not bother me anymore.

[fortheDeclaration]

Bible believers never believed in a flat earth.

The Bible doesn't teach it.

[fortheDeclaration]

Although they are not consistent with pyrite framboids, they may indeed be geological in origin, derived from some process as yet undefined; they may have their origin as colonies of iron-concentrating bacteria or fungal spores, or they may be the result of cellular debris, which clumped upon death, became desiccated, and then through diagenetic processes such as anion exchange or others not yet elucidated, became complexed with other, secondary degradation products. [Schweitzer and Horner (1999: 189)]

[ColdWater]

Bible believers never believed in a flat earth.

Early Christian Cosmology:

It is certain that a few isolated Christian writers explicitly argued against the spherical Earth. Lactantius (245–325) calls it "folly" because people on a sphere would fall down; Saint Cyril of Jerusalem (315–386) saw Earth as a firmament floating on water; Saint John Chrysostom (344–408) saw a spherical Earth as contradictory to scripture; Severian, Bishop of Gabala (d. 408) and Diodorus of Tarsus (d. 394) argued for a flat Earth; and Cosmas Indicopleustes (547) called Earth "a parallelogram, flat, and surrounded by four seas"

There are relatively few historical records of the period between 600 and 1000 for either spherical or flat-Earth thinking (owning to the general scarcity of records from that time). Saint Basil (329–379) argued that knowledge about Earth's shape was irrelevant. Later, St. Boniface (d. 755) accused Vergilius (d. 784) of "teaching a doctrine in regard to the rotundity of the Earth, which was 'contrary to the Scriptures.'" (Catholic Encyclopedia.) Pope Zacharias decided that "if it be proved that he held the said doctrine, a council be held, and Vergilius expelled from the Church and deprived of his priestly dignity." Vergilius believed "that beneath the Earth there was another world and other men, another Sun and Moon." Isidore of Seville (Etymologiae, XIV) taught that the Earth was round, but shaped like a wheel, apparently thinking of a flat Earth. However, Isidore refused to take a clear position on the matter, preferring to report other philosophers' opinions, and he also admitted the possibility of the antipodes' existence.