Dinosaurs frolic with Adam and Eve at creationism museum

afp ^ | may 20, 2007 | Mira Oberman

[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.

[U S Army EOD]

I think we should shoot everybody.

[webstersII]

“The word “tail” is being used as a euphemism for phallus in this passage. “

That is the silliest explanation I have ever heard for this.

The word for ‘tail’ in that passage translated ‘tail’, and it means tail, not phallus, literally or by euphemism. Every other time it is used literally in the Old Testament it means a tail on a creature of one sort of another.

“The word that is translated as “moveth” is chaphets which is used elsewhere to mean “pleasure” or “delight”.”

True, but it is never used in a physical pleasure sense. It is used in the sense of delighting in one’s honor or taking pride.

“The passage is a description of the power and virility of behemoth, which from the context is pretty clearly a hippopotamus.”

Not very likely.

“Not to mention the fact that the presence of a navel”

Where does the passage mention a ‘navel’?

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

I apologize if i offended you or your religion.

I am referring to Creationists as “maroons’ if they refer to this as scientific. I will respect your religion but I will have no respect for those who do not respect our hundreds of years of science that seperate us from the Witch Burning days or from the Muslims that want to bring us back to neanderthal times.

BTW, ( this has nothing to do with the topic)How do the Muzzies..Islamofascists get to use videos and microphones when they would prefer to have us live like cave dwellers?

[cammie]

Don’t be an ass. I not have phrased it well, but you know darn well what I mean.

[PJ-Comix]

Does Eve look like Raquel Welch in this exhibit? I'm thinking of how she looked in 1 Million B.C..

[Axlrose]

The Evo’s are really running scared in this thread. They flock to it to defend their secular junk science.

I hope this is the first of many museums, and i hope more and more of our children are one day taught the truth in schools over the nation.

For too long the secularists in DC have been chipping away at the Christian foundations of this Great Nation, i dream of a day when this is reversed in full.

[cammie]

Only if “running scared” = having all the facts on their side and laughing at this joke of a museum.

[trumandogz]

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

No, but one time I saw an episode of the Flintstones where Fred and Dino and Fred stepped on the same muddy ground and each left footprints.

Therefore, the Glenn Rose footprints must be real.

Do you think we may find the ancient city of Bedrock at the present day Genn Rose Texas?

[webstersII]

“I apologize if i offended you or your religion.”

No need to apologize; what you said was of no real importance to me.

I was merely pointing out your hypocrisy on the subject, because you are asking others to do something that you chose not to do. I thought you wanted to bring this above the level of name-calling and keep it rational.

Yet you still think that’s acceptable to call names, according to what you said here: “I am referring to Creationists as “maroons’ if they refer to this as scientific. “

[zwerni]

i beleive you are misconstruing my statement. I did not say creationism is based on science. That is your wording. Go back and read my original 2 sentence comment and tell me where it is wrong or why it offends you so.

I have all my graduate and post-graduate studies in the sciences and make my living in the sciences. So please do not assume me to have a “lack of knowledge about science”. It is your pomposity that is facile and invalid.

Good day sir!

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

Ok, how about those people who refer to Creationism as science are ignorant. But moreover , they are also ‘dangerous’ because it is this kind of reliogion interfering into science that has brought us the Inquisition, Witch Burning and now Islamofascists.

so maybe, Maroons is too kind a word.

[retMD]

Lets see... Your original two sentence comment in post 41 that you desire me to read was: “real science is not on the side of evolution. It is still only a theory.”

Which implies a significant misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is. I pointed that out. You replied in 114 “yea... so what is wrong with my statement?”

You then threw in the snide “I didn’t realize until you pointed it out just how stupid I really am. I will certainly run all my comments and thoughts by you prior to any future posts. Thank you. You’ve opened my eyes.” I assumed not stupidity, but simple lack of knowledge. If, however, you truly did “graduate and post-graduate” work in the sciences, and “make your living in the sciences” and still do not understand what a scientific theory is, I may have to revise my assumption.

[retMD]

I did not say creationism is based on science. That is your wording

Where did you find me saying that?

[LiteKeeper]

You have got to be kidding! Where did this fantasy come from?

[Nova]

I understand you're saying that:

"Dinosaurs became extinct long before Noah's Ark"

But am I correct that you're also saying "dinosaurs and mammals lived together in harmony in the Garden of Eden until..."?

[Axlrose]

It has also brought us a ban on the evils of stem cell research, opposition to the fag agenda and before the secularists took over DC the banning of unborn child murder.

Sounds like you are a secularist too.

[Axlrose]

I regret that the word of the Lord makes you ashamed to be an American.

Go move to Europe.

[DiogenesTheDog]

Nothing silly about it, it's the only reasonable interpretation if you take an honest look at the facts rather than attempting to twist the passage into an assertion of YEC.

Take a look at the various translations of the passage: • REV: His tail is rigid as a cedar. • RSV: He makes his tail stiff like a cedar. • Septuagint (Greek): He sets up/erects (estesen) his tail like a cypress. • Vulgate (Latin): He ties up/binds (constringit) his tail like a cedar. • Luther (German, 16th C): His tail stretches (streckt sich) like a cedar. • Statenvertaling (Dutch, 17th C): According to his pleasure (Als ‘t hem lust), his tail is like a cedar. • Diodati (Italian, 16th C): He raises (rizza) his tail like a cedar.

Are you saying that all these translations really support the idea that the passage is talking about a dinosaur tail? Indeed, the etymology of the English word penis is "1676, perhaps from Fr. pénis or directly from L. penis "penis," earlier "tail" (cf. Eng. tail in both senses, the sexual one slang)". Like I said, the word tail is being used as a euphemism for phallus, not that it should be translated as phallus every time it appears. Just like today, while the modern english word "tail" can be used as a euphemism, it is also used in its literal meaning.

What is being described is a grass-eating herbivore(which doesn't fit sauropod dinosaurs) that dwells in and near rivers, which fit the hippopotamus perfectly. As does the description of an animal that is aggressive and dangerous if provoked, as fiercely territorial hippos are responsible for more human deaths each year in Africa than any other large animal.

This is how the passsage has historically been viewed. It's how the 17th century Matthew Henry commentary sees it. The 'navel of his belly' (umbilicus in the Latin Vulgate) is mentioned in Job 40:16. And as I've pointed out, only placental mammals(which hippos are and dinos ain't) have navels.

Put simply, an honest interpretation of the passage in Job shows it to be a hippopotamus. A dinosaur simply doesn't fit, for several reasons. The idea that a dinosaur is being described in Job was invented in the last couple of decades by biblically illiterate creationists eager to distort scripture for their own ends.

[dighton]

“This is the way it was” — any questions?

[labette]

I suppose if I had to spend a lot of time in a cave with Raquel Welch....It COULD take my mind off of those mean ol’ dinosaurs outside.