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 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 461-465 next last
To: Ping-Pong
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep (the word "was" should have been translated as became - the world became without form) And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3.And God said, "Let there be light:" and there was light. 4.And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5.And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

I think it is interesting that on day one, which Peter tells us that a day with the Lord is as a thousand years the first thing God says is "Let there be light:", and so many other places Christ is referred to as the light.

This earth contains the evidence that something earth shaking occurred millions of years ago, and I have read and heard about how super volcanoes can completely shield the sunlight from this earth. We all witnessed what that 9 + earthquake and ensuing tsunami did, a couple of years back, throw in some super volcanoes and mega hail stones, some meteor hits and there would be some major damage done to this earth. Might even shake the earth's rotational balance a few degrees.

201 posted on 05/27/2007 11:46:30 PM PDT by Just mythoughts (Finally, global warming, the sun has come out after weeks of rain, maybe I won't be planting rice...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
'T. rex has the silliest looking "vegetarian" teeth I have ever seen.'

T. also has a rather large nose (and kinda tiny hands) but let's not be rude. I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea about why I don't want him in the Garden of Eden.

202 posted on 05/28/2007 12:19:52 AM PDT by Nova
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesTheDog

“As I keep saying, and you keep missing, the word tail is used as euphemism in that passage”

I understand your point completely. I just think you are completely wrong about this. If you forget about hippos for a moment(and any other animal of that time period) and read the passage without a pre-conceived bias, there is no reason to think that it euphemistically refers to a penis. Absent any extant information the word most likely does not refer to a penis.

Were there other passages in the OT that rendered that word ‘penis’ in context then you would be able to conclude this. But without a pre-conceived notion your argument falls apart.

I don’t know what the animal the passage refers to is — and neither do you. We both have our beliefs and that’s all.

“Like I said, this has been the standard interpretation for centuries, the creationist exegesis is a modern misinterpretation.”

Please provide some evidence of this.


203 posted on 05/28/2007 6:26:51 AM PDT by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

“See The Paluxy Dinosaur/”Man Track” Controversy, which contains links to many other web pages on the subject. “This web site provides a collection of articles reviewing the history of the Paluxy controversy and evidence involved, articles on other alleged out-of-order fossils and artifacts, and information and links on dinosaur tracks in general.”

The links will not open.


204 posted on 05/28/2007 6:47:50 AM PDT by tmp02
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

“T. rex has the silliest looking “vegetarian” teeth I have ever seen. You want vegetarian teeth, try elephants, or compare mammoth and mastodon (grazers and browsers) for two different vegetarian tooth styles.

Nowhere close to T. rex dentition.”

By looking at human teeth, can you tell if they have herbivore or carnivore teeth?


205 posted on 05/28/2007 6:56:40 AM PDT by tmp02
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: tmp02
“See The Paluxy Dinosaur/”Man Track” Controversy, which contains links to many other web pages on the subject. “This web site provides a collection of articles reviewing the history of the Paluxy controversy and evidence involved, articles on other alleged out-of-order fossils and artifacts, and information and links on dinosaur tracks in general.”

The links will not open.

It works for me, but here it is again (as a url, rather than a link):

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/paluxy.htm

206 posted on 05/28/2007 7:47:36 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Lil'freeper

Tiptoe thru the tulips with me.


207 posted on 05/28/2007 7:49:26 AM PDT by big'ol_freeper (It looks like one of those days when one nuke is just not enough-- Lt. Col. Mitchell, SG-1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentIsTheProblem

“First of all, those of us who follow said document refer to it as the “Torah” or “Eterneal Covenant,” not the “Old” Testament.”

You mean that Christians don’t follow it or study it? The Christian tradition is to call it the Old Testament. I’ve never heard anyone say it is not for Christians.

“Second, you’re using a bad translation... and using it as if it was the original.”

Really? I looked up the original word in question and then searched to see where else it was used. I found 70-odd references to the same word and looked through those references. Therefore, I am not even talking about translations, I’m talking about instances where that one word was used and what the meaning of it was in the other passages.

I think that’s a thorough way to find what the meaning of that word actually was. To expand it out and say that it’s a euphemism is really reaching.


208 posted on 05/28/2007 7:56:55 AM PDT by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: tmp02
By looking at human teeth, can you tell if they have herbivore or carnivore teeth?

By studying teeth, scientists can tell a lot about the uses of different tooth forms.

Humans have the teeth of an omnivore, that is, different types of teeth for different functions. Bears, also omnivores, actually have pretty similar tooth forms, except they have much larger canines.

In humans, the molars and premolars are more for grinding, while the incisors and canines are more for cutting. (In most carnivores the canines are much larger, meant for stabbing.)

Take a look at the back teeth in a dog or cat. Those differ considerably from our molars: those teeth, called carnasials, are sharp, and meant for tearing meat. You can't do much grinding with pointed teeth.

Even the teeth of mammoth and mastodon, both "elephants," differ considerably from one another as one is a grazer (eats grasses and other ground-level plants) while the other is a browser (eats the various parts of woody plants).

Tooth wear is also another indicator. Microscopic wear can tell you a lot. Scientists are doing this kind of study on our early ancestors to learn more about their diets.

The pointed teeth of T. rex simply don't fit the pattern of grinding teeth.

209 posted on 05/28/2007 8:02:44 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: Nova

My opinion is based on conversations that I have had with several priests and clergy members. Their interpretation of the Bible is that all animals, reptiles, insects and humans lived in harmony when they lived in the Garden of Eden. It was not until Adam and Eve disobeyed God’s orders that all hell broke loose.


210 posted on 05/28/2007 8:15:22 AM PDT by Riptides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: webstersII
I understand your point completely. I just think you are completely wrong about this. If you forget about hippos for a moment(and any other animal of that time period) and read the passage without a pre-conceived bias, there is no reason to think that it euphemistically refers to a penis. Absent any extant information the word most likely does not refer to a penis.

I direct you to M. Tullius Cicero's letter to L. Papirus Paetus at Naples: "The ancients called a tail a penis; whence comes the word penicillus ("paint-brush"), from its similarity in appearance. Nowadays penis is regarded as an obscene word." Independent confirmation that in ancient literature the word tail could be used as a euphemism for penis.

Please provide some evidence of this.

Numerous historical biblical commentaries identify behemoth as a hippopotamus or a similar animal. That includes the commentaries written by John Wesley and John Gill, to name a few. Historical depictions of behemoth show him as various known living animals like hippos or bulls, not as anything that could be remotely described as saurian:
211 posted on 05/28/2007 9:58:23 AM PDT by DiogenesTheDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts; Diego1618
I think it is interesting that on day one, which Peter tells us that a day with the Lord is as a thousand years the first thing God says is "Let there be light:", and so many other places Christ is referred to as the light.

Apply that same theory to "darkness was upon the face of the deep"

Colossians 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness and hath translated us into the kingdom of His dear son;
Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Proverbs 4:19 The way of the wicked is as darkness: they know not at what they stumble

Satan rebelled and God cast him to earth. Was he the darkness God referred to when He said, "Let there be light"...and God divided the light from the darkness"?.

This earth contains the evidence that something earth shaking occurred millions of years ago....Might even shake the earth's rotational balance a few degrees.

I agree. There is scripture that tells us about the age before this one and what happened at that time. One is spoken by Jesus in Matthew 13:35:
That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, "I will open My mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the Foundation of the world."

Foundation is #2602 in Strong's. Katabole, kataballo. E.W. Bullinger compared the uses of the word and finds the correct meaning as casting down, or overthrow, disruption, ruin. A friend also told me of another place that tells us of that time. "It is not scripture, but the Book of Jasher, is quoted twice in the OT, Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18 therefore, some credence should probably be given to this:"

"Jasher, speaking of the creation (Jasher was the son of Caleb...a contemporary of Moses), says in 1:4-5, "And the abyss fled before the face of the light, and divided Between the light and the darkness. So that the face of nature was fomed a second time."

I believe that the katabole was so intense and shook earth so much that it was knocked off it's axis. If I'm not mistaken, it is 90% off of true north now.

......Ping

212 posted on 05/28/2007 10:38:48 AM PDT by Ping-Pong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Dangit! How can they argue with you if you keep answering all their questions?


213 posted on 05/28/2007 11:18:01 AM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts; Diego1618
After someone let me know my mistake, I realized that not only is earth off it's axis - I'm off my rocker - earth is 90 miles off true north, not 90%.

Sorry for the error.....Ping

214 posted on 05/28/2007 12:17:23 PM PDT by Ping-Pong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: HitmanLV

I must say that you have taught me something today. I never realized that Jewish and Christians had differing perspectives on when life begins. I, like you, feel strongly that life begins at conception, and must be protected from that point on. However, I do agree with the fact that life begins at birth is not irrational. Thank you for teaching me something today.


215 posted on 05/28/2007 3:29:13 PM PDT by ga medic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: ga medic

You’re welcome. Seeing how different cultures, religions, and religious traditions look at this situation demonstrates that different conclusions can be drawn. It’s a touchy subject because opinions are driven primarily by emotion on the most dogged of each side of the argument.

I use the example of Jewish tradition and Jewish cultural law because it is the root of the Judeo-Christian tradition. There is disagreement even within that tradition. My point is only that the idea that life begins upon birth isn’t irrational and has a historic and theological basis.

Actually, old Jewish law I think said life begins when the infant’s head exits the mother’s body, or if it is feet-first, when a majority of the infant’s body is outside of the mother’s body. As we can see, there’s a whole range of possibilities here.

Be well, and if you find more info in your own research, please share, as it is a strong interest of mine.


216 posted on 05/28/2007 5:10:44 PM PDT by HitmanLV ("5 Minute Penalty for #40, Ann Theresa Calvello!" - RIP 1929-2006)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

It is not the teeth that tell what they eat, but what is in their stomach. If there is meat in the stomach, then it is a meat eater and if there is leaves/etc, then it is a herbivore. Of course, one dinosaur stomach does not make a trend. Teeth, in some cases, have been proven wrong.

T-Rex could ear meat and leaves.


217 posted on 05/28/2007 5:25:42 PM PDT by tmp02
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: Ping-Pong

I knew that the 6000 year figure for the age of the earth was based on the lifespans of many people mentioned in the bible. The bible is rich in genealogies that lead up to the birth of Christ. Anyway, I googled and found this site that explains the 6000 year calculation. I don’t believe this but I just thought I’d throw it out there. I don’t see why evolution can’t just be viewed as one of gods many miracles.

“There are five (and only five) Biblical steps necessary to determine the age of the universe. For a graphical representative of the following explanation click here.

1. Genesis 5. These genealogies cover 10 generations, from Adam to Noah, and reveals that Noah died when the earth was 2006 years old. Click here to view a table created from Genesis 5.

2. Gen. 11:10-32. These genealogies cover 9 generations, from Shem (the son of Noah) to the death of Terah (Abraham’s dad). This genealogy will give you the age of the earth at the death of Terah, who is the father of Abraham, as 2081. It is very interesting to note that Terah died the very year Abraham received the promise of God in Genesis 12:1-4. It is very true that we will not receive any of the promises of God until we obey the conditions of those promises. God had told Abraham to depart from: (1) his country, (2) his kindred, and (3) his father’s house. Abraham did not receive any of the promises of God until he obeyed completely. We, like Abraham, will receive none of the promises of God until we obey completely. Click here to view a table created from Genesis 11:10-32.

It is interesting to note that Abraham was born the same year Noah died, when the world was 2006 years old. According to Genesis 12:4, Abraham was 75 years old when he received the promises of God. Add 2006 to 75 and we discover the world was 2081 years old when the promise was given to Abraham concerning the coming Saviour and the blessings of God upon the nation of Israel.

3. Galatians 3:16,17 declares, “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. 17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.” Abraham received the promise when the world was 2081 years old. Now, add the 430 years spoken of in Galatians 3:16,17 to 2081, and we discover the world was 2511 years old when the law (the Ten Commandments) was given.

Also read Exodus 12:40,41. “Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years. 41 And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt.”

The sojourning of the children of Israel (in Canaan: during the lifetime of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: in Egypt (see Exodus 6:16-20) during the life of Levi, Kohath, Amram, and Moses.

4. I Kings 6:1. This verse will bring us up to the fourth year of Solomon’s reign.

I Kings 6:1 states, “And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD.”

Now we can add another 480 years to 2511 and we get find it is 2991 years from creation to the fourth year of Solomon’s reign.

5. Using any secular history, look up the date when Solomon reigned. This will be in the area of 1015-975 b. c. If you like, you can go through the books of I and II Kings and prove that Israel went into bondage to the Assyrians in 722 B. C. and Judah went into bondage to Babylon in 606 B. C.

Because we know from secular history that Solomon reigned about 1,000 years before Christ, we can add 1,000 years to 2,991 (the age of the earth when Solomon began to reign) and you get 3991 (the approximate age of the earth when Christ was born.)

I think everybody knows it is approximately 2000 years the time of Christ until now. So add 2000 years to 3991 and you get 5991. That is pretty close to 6,000 years.

It is very clear, is it not, that the Bible proves the age of the universe to be approximately 6,000 years old.”

http://independencebaptist.org/6,000%20Year%20Old%20Earth/6,000_year_old_earth.htm


218 posted on 05/28/2007 5:27:13 PM PDT by Witchman63 ("Don't immanentize the eschaton!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: Witchman63
It is very clear, is it not, that the Bible proves the age of the universe to be approximately 6,000 years old.”

And it is very clear that science disproves the age of the universe as being approximately 6,000 years old.

219 posted on 05/28/2007 6:35:16 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Recovering Ex-hippie

Why don’t they just open a Flintstone’s Theme Park? I’m with you, it’s embarressing.


220 posted on 05/28/2007 6:38:54 PM PDT by Bogtrotter52 (Reading DU daily so you won't hafta)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 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