Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dinosaurs frolic with Adam and Eve at creationism museum
afp ^ | may 20, 2007 | Mira Oberman

Posted on 05/26/2007 4:48:47 PM PDT by celmak

PETERSBURG, United States (AFP) - Dinosaurs frolic with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and an animatronic Noah directs work on his Ark in a multimillion dollar creationism museum set to open next week in Kentucky.

Designed by the creator of the King Kong and Jaws exhibits at the Universal Studios theme park, the stunning 60,000 square foot (5,400 square-metre) facility is built for a specific purpose: refuting evolution and expanding the flock of believers in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

"You'll get people into a place like this that you can't get into a church with a stick of dynamite," said founder Ken Ham from his office overlooking the museum's manicured grounds.

Polls consistently show that nearly half of Americans believe God created humans in their present form less than 10,000 years ago. Only about 13 percent believe God played no part in the origin of human life.

Ham does not blame evolution per se for society's ills. He believes that sin has been around since Adam and Eve took their fateful bite of apple about 5,700 years before Charles Darwin published "On the Origin of Species."

But he says the theory of evolution has been used to undermine the validity of the literal truth of the Bible, heralding a dangerous age of moral relativism which can be blamed for everything from racism to the Holocaust.

Located just outside of Cincinnati near the intersection of the states of Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio, nearly two thirds of the population of the United States lives within a 650-mile (1,050-kilometer) drive of the Creation Museum.

It is expected to draw at least 250,000 people a year when it opens on May 28.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: adam; adamandeve; bible; christianity; creation; creationism; crevo; darwin; darwinism; dinosaurs; embarrassment; eve; evolution; evolutionism; fazalerana; fsmdidit; gardenofeden; genesis; god; holocaust; hughross; humor; inthebeginning; jehovah; noah; ntsa; phylosoppy; racism; religion; revisionisthistory; science; sin; yahweh; yecapologetics; youcantfixstupid
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 461-465 next last
To: celmak
You ignored my question about Carbon-14 Dating. So I'm guessing you don't care much for discussions on scientific subjects.

But do you have any opinion on why the dinosaurs died off? I doubt you believe in the popular theory about a catastrophe brought on by a large meteor impact, but do you have an alternate theory of why they died off in the past few thousand years while humans did not?

Or do you have complete contempt for all subjects scientific?

121 posted on 05/26/2007 8:27:57 PM PDT by Nova
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: celmak

Walt Disney Studio collborated as “science experts” with help from PETA.


122 posted on 05/26/2007 8:30:07 PM PDT by ZULU (Non nobis, non nobis Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam. God, guts and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nova

I did the name ‘The Alverez Hypothesis.’ Sounds cool!


123 posted on 05/26/2007 8:31:32 PM PDT by HitmanLV ("5 Minute Penalty for #40, Ann Theresa Calvello!" - RIP 1929-2006)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: gracesdad
Before you make fun of somebody else’s education, you should check your own out.Oooh, a Flinstone comeback! Do you subscribe to the looneytoones like the rest of the Lib Evo's on this thread?
124 posted on 05/26/2007 8:37:31 PM PDT by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Nova
You ignored my question about Carbon-14 Dating. So I'm guessing you don't care much for discussions on scientific subjects.

You ignored my data, so why bother?

125 posted on 05/26/2007 8:39:23 PM PDT by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: zwerni

yea... so what is wrong with my statement?

That your statement shows you are not familiar with what science means by the word "theory." From a quick search, here's a summary. Note the definition of "theory":

"Theory & Law A scientific theory or law represents a hypothesis (or group of related hypotheses) which has been confirmed through repeated testing, almost always conducted over a span of many years. Generally, a law uses a handful of fundamental concepts and equations to define the rules governing a set of phenomena. "

126 posted on 05/26/2007 8:42:36 PM PDT by retMD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: celmak
"You ignored my data, so why bother?"

I have no idea what that means. What data did I ignore?

127 posted on 05/26/2007 8:44:09 PM PDT by Nova
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: zwerni
Here's a more extensive definition: "A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory." "

The point isn't stupidity, it's lack of knowledge about science. Learn more about science, and you may understand why creationism masquerading as science is disturbing.

128 posted on 05/26/2007 8:47:18 PM PDT by retMD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: zwerni
yea... so what is wrong with my statement?

Your statement was:

real science is not on the side of evolution. It is still only a theory.

Since you asked:

Your statement suggests that evolution is not "real science" but that it is only a "theory."

That shows gross ignorance of how science operates. There is no higher level of explanation in "real science" than "theory."

That is why I recommended the definitions on my FR homepage and quoted two of them to you in a previous post. You really should study those definitions.

Your statement, "It is still only a theory" presupposes that there is some higher level of explanation in science. Proof maybe? Wrong. Proof is for mathematics, good whiskey and photography, not science. No theory is ever proved. They can be disproved, but never proved.

The primary source of "It is still only a theory" is creationist websites, and they are not a good source of scientific data.

You asked, "so what is wrong with my statement?" Please cross check what I have written above on some of the science sites and in good dictionaries, and see for yourself.

129 posted on 05/26/2007 8:54:00 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: celmak

you ever heard of the Glenn Rose, TX creation museaum and the dino prints that intersect real human foot-prints..


130 posted on 05/26/2007 8:56:34 PM PDT by JSDude1 (www.pence08.com.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JSDude1
you ever heard of the Glenn Rose, TX creation museaum and the dino prints that intersect real human foot-prints..

They are phonies.

131 posted on 05/26/2007 8:58:56 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: celmak

What did Adam and Eve decide to do all day long there?


132 posted on 05/26/2007 9:01:59 PM PDT by BobS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nova
"I have no idea what that means. What data did I ignore?

You threw me when you answered post 115, I thought you were someone else.

As far as I know, Carbon-14 data is unreliable past 50,000 years. But this is not my area of expertise, Carbon-14 is more for archaeologists; I prefer biology. So since I answered your question, answer this:

Does "Lucy" fit in with the line of human evolution?

133 posted on 05/26/2007 9:17:26 PM PDT by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: celmak

You’re the one who was making fun of other people’s education while misspelling half a dozen words yourself.

Any museum alleging that dinosaurs and men lived together on Earth is a joke.


134 posted on 05/26/2007 9:28:09 PM PDT by gracesdad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: padre35; Coyoteman
You may laugh until you pass out sir!

Actually the proper form of address would be Dr. Coyoteman.
Doc's also a masterful flute player, but I doubt you'll ever hear him.

135 posted on 05/26/2007 9:43:50 PM PDT by ASA Vet (Pray for the deliberately ignorant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: gracesdad
Another good comeback, that's 2 in a ro-ro! LOL !!!

Goodnight, pleasant dreams ;)

136 posted on 05/26/2007 9:48:42 PM PDT by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Guess you forgot about that “rib-thing” then. :-)


137 posted on 05/26/2007 10:06:50 PM PDT by Reverend Bob (Read my lips, no more Pawlenty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentIsTheProblem
"Book of Job speaks of the “behemoth” with “a tail like a cedar.” Sounds vaguely familiar."

The word "tail" is being used as a euphemism for phallus in this passage. "Stones" is in the original Hebrew the word for testicles, which is why in the Vulgate it's translated as "testiculorem". The word that is translated as "moveth" is chaphets which is used elsewhere to mean "pleasure" or "delight".The passage is a description of the power and virility of behemoth, which from the context is pretty clearly a hippopotamus. Not to mention the fact that the presence of a navel means that the creature being described is a placental mammal and thus not a dinosaur.
138 posted on 05/26/2007 10:11:04 PM PDT by DiogenesTheDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: ASA Vet

“But I doubt you will ever hear him”

So does that mean that he won’t be playing at the opening gala for the Creation Museum?


139 posted on 05/26/2007 10:14:43 PM PDT by padre35 (we are surrounded that simplifies things-Chesty Puller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy

American Fundamentalism???
Oh, you mean Patriotism.
God and Country kind of stuff.
Only 120 years old? What happened in 1887 that brought all that about?


140 posted on 05/26/2007 10:46:42 PM PDT by IrishCatholic (No local communist or socialist party chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 461-465 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson