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 ...
You seem to be suggesting that glaciers and large ice masses would somehow survive a one year global flood. Can you point to any undewater glaciers that we have today to support that contention?
While you're at it, give me the biblical timetable where Noah dropped off the marsupials on Australia, the bison in North America, a few monkeys in both central america and Africa, before first spotting dry land at Ararat.
My version of the bible is really skimpy on those necessary details.
"17": He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.p>"You can interpret any way you wish but please explain what know living animal has a tail as large as a ceder tree, let alone the rest of the statement.
Are you sure the passage was about his tail? And just what are his 'stones'?
I think if you check other translations of the Bible you will find the passage is about his reproductive organs.
The passage doesn't sound like it was talking about size but rigidity, or movement.
"If you read further in the same chapter you will see reference to the beast drinking up the river Jordan, sounds like a large animal to me.
It also sounds like an exaggeration. No animal, including a Supersaurus or an Argentinasaurus could drink up the river Jordan.
They didn't have to get dropped off. At the time of the flood the only continent was Pangaea so they could have sauntered their way home. The continents as we see them today got that way within just a few years of the flood. Just ask Walt Brown, he 'knows'.
Global Politician
Thou Shalt Not Lie: Teaching Creationism and Evolution
Iqbal Latif-Paris - 5/29/2007
http://globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=2888&cid=1&sid=103
School children who see the exhibits in the Creation Museum in Kentucky will be confused when they learn in school that the universe is 14 billion years old rather than 6,000. Those who believe God created the heavens and the Earth in six days about 6,000 years ago say their views are finally being represented by the Christian creators of the 27 million $ sprawling museum.
Exhibits show the Grand Canyon took just days to form during Noah’s flood, dinosaurs coexisted with humans and had a place on Noah’s Ark, and Cain married his sister to people the earth, among other Biblical wonders. Creation Museum in Kentucky have the dinosaurs sail on the ship — Noah’s Ark, to be precise and depicts the Bible’s first book, Genesis, as literal truth.A Gallup poll last year showed almost half of Americans believe that humans did not evolve but were created by God in their present form within the last 10,000 years. Three of 10 Republican presidential candidates said in a recent debate that they did not believe in evolution.
The truth is somewhere nicely poised in between the creationists stance and the Intelligent design proponents. Two books definitely help establish a good position for a seeker of truth..
With his first book, Darwin’s Black Box, Behe, a professor of biology at Lehigh University, helped define the controversial intelligent design movement with his concept of “irreducible complexity.” Now he attempts to extend his analysis and define what evolution is capable of doing and what is beyond its scope. Behe strongly asserts, to the likely chagrin of young earth creationists, that the earth is billions of years old and that the concept of common descent is correct. But beginning with a look at malaria and the sickle cell response in humans, Behe argues that genetic mutation results in only clumsy solutions to selective pressures. He goes on to conclude that the statistical possibility of certain evolutionary changes taking place is virtually nil. Although Behe writes with passion and clarity, his calculations of probability ignore biologists’ rejection of the premise that evolution has been working toward producing any particular end product. Furthermore, he repeatedly refers to the shortcomings of “Darwin’s theory-the power of natural selection coupled to random mutation,” but current biological theory encompasses far more than this simplistic view. Most important, Behe reaches the controversial conclusion that the working of an intelligent designer is the only reasonable alternative to evolution, even without affirmative evidence in its favor.
‘Billions of missing links’ is the second book.
Despite living a century before Karl Popper, the great philosopher of Science, Darwin understood that any genuine scientific theory had to include the possibility of falsification. He therefore suggested in 1872 that if any complex organ (or organism) existed which could not have evolved from successive small steps or “modifications” that his theory would “ultimately break down.” The bulk of this book by Geoffrey Simmons is an attempt to do just that. In it he quickly surveys the plant and animal kingdoms and finds numerous instances of living organisms with traits so unique and highly adapted that, he argues, they could not have evolved in short successive steps.
Dr. Geoffrey Simmons focuses on the millions of structures and systems on the Earth that came about all at once, entire...with no preceding links, no subsequent links, no “sideways” links.
To illustrate, he surveys examples like...
the hummingbird and its circulatory system
insects and insect–eating plants
the role of the thousands of species of viruses
chemical signals and the sensory apparatus that detects them
the self–regulating capacity of the Earth’s ocean/air/soil system
It’s clear: Nature contains only leaps, not links. Only the intelligence and purpose of an all–powerful Designer can explain the intricate creatures, connections, and “coincidences” everywhere.I learned more interesting information about the animal kingdom from this book than I have gleaned in the rest of my life. Stories of the cell from hell, cockroaches running 3 times faster than cheetahs, the weaponry possessed by insects, hibernation and estivation, migration, etc. etc. etc. kept me entertained, amazed, and edified all at the same time. My appreciation for bacteria and even viruses went from zero to 90 in 4 pages.Did you know the pupil of your eyes and the tip of your nose forms an equilateral triangle? The tip of you nose forms another one with the edge of your lips? That a square exists between your pupils and your lips’ edge? In fact your body contains many such wonders. The belly button is the exact center of a circle that you can make with your body. Design or Chance?Interesting...
According to Fritz Ward a commentator the most powerful argument a defender of Darwin could offer would be to take the opposite approach to Simmons altogether. Where Simmons has pointed to hundreds of examples of uniqueness among plants and animals in the natural world, a Darwinist (not a term they like, but much nicer and more accurate than the descriptions they make of ID theorists) might point to similarities in the animal kingdom. The human genome, they note, is very similar to that of a chimp (90-98%, depending on which source you read). Indeed, our genome shares about half the DNA sequences of a banana. Positive proof, they might argue, for a single tree of life. But then again, it could be DNA sequencing is not a very useful measure.
Ronald Cohen sums up the Darwinian predicament very skilfully he says that Darwin’s challenge to his theory which was “if something could be shown to have not developed through slow steps my theory would absolutely break down”. It certainly has broken down. So now Darwinists say it has not broken down but then they themselves put forth unobserved scenarios to try to preserve the theory. Big Surprise, evolutionary scientists are humans too all of them have a bias like all humans.
Iqbal Latif-Paris writes for the Global Politician about Islam and related issues
The Ice came after the flood.
1. Early humans would have seen fossils and surmised the existence of such creatures.
2. I am open to the possibility of the survival up until quite recently of some sort of very large dinosaur-like lizards or snakes, that humans may have seen.
3. However, anyone who thinks that humans were alive at the same time as Dinosaurs in the common term of the word i.e. T Rex, Brontosaurus, Stegasaurus, etc, is someone who is either a total moron or is an otherwise smart person who has abandoned all capacity for reason when dealing with religious issues.
Dan Brown got it wrong. The secret of the Holy Grail is not that Jesus had children with Mary Madelene, it's that Jesus was a cross dresser and was, in fact, a woman. This explains why the woman in Da Vinci's last supper is leaning away from him.
I should write a book, it is bound to get a lot of press coverage.
And the scientific basis of your assertion is...?
Well you got me. It probably isn't a reference to the reproductive organs.
"I believe it is a larger animal than that of a hippo or elephant, which I am sure is not what is referred to in the scripture."
Neither what you believe nor what I believe can be taken as verification that Sauropods lived at the same time as man. Objective evidence such as a sauropod fossil found along with human fossils or artifacts would be much better, yet all of the artifacts and human fossils we have found are in stratigraphic layers much younger than every dino fossil ever found.
In any case, how would finding that dinos did not die out as early as thought be evidence for a global flood? Is the existence of modern whales, sharks, crocodiles, coelacanths, etc. evidence for a global flood.
Hippo.
Interesting that you take the quote from a creationist website instead of from the bible. Why?
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
There is really no need to get into this in detail, as it has been argued a kazillion times. Even if one thinks carbon dating is wildly off, simple observation of fossils in soil layers, etc. can tell any casual observer the different types of animals that lived in different time periods.
Tail/Tree Metaphor
Behemoth, in the passage, is said to have strength in his hips and powerful muscles in his belly. However, the next verse after that is a victim of quote-mining and quoting out of context. Job 40:17 says:
“He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.”
But is often interpreted to mean:
“His tail is like a cedar: the sinews (or tendons) of his stones are wrapped together.”
This would mean that the tail of Behemoth was as big and thick as a cedar tree, which cannot be assumed from the original text. Thus, reinforcing the notion that Behemoth was sauropod dinosaur, as unlike the tail of an elephant and the hippo, sauropod dinosaurs have long, thick tails similar to the trunk of a tree.
Allan K. Steel, on Answers in Genesis gives out what he claims to be a technical explanation of Behemoth by presenting a list of various translations of Job 40:17 and concludes that the tail of Behemoth was like the trunk of a cedar tree. Thus, Behemoth, according to Steel, was indeed a dinosaur because its tail is exactly like a cedar tree.
The verse in does not say “His tail is like a cedar.” The verse actually says, “He moveth his tail like a cedar..” which means that it does not necessarily indicate the size of the tail, only the motion pattern. It could be reasoned that the tail moved like the branches of a cedar tree in the wind.
[edit] Alternate meanings of ‘tail’
The word ‘tail’ in Job 40:17, may have nothing to do with cedar trees or animal tails. It could be that ‘tail’ may have been a euphemism for a male sex organ!
In the New International Version (NIV), the verses in question are translated as the following:
“What strength he has in his loins; what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar, the sinews of his thighs are close-knit...”
This version could indicate that the animal moved parts of the loin-region, such as the phallus, around aggressively, whether in heat or not. Following the symbolism of strong, well-functioning phalli being a metaphor for masculine courage, the verses continue to demonstrate the behavior and dependence on God of the creature, indicating the humility of a creature that would appear to have no need for humility.
The NIV version does not, like other versions, make any specific mention of the belly possessing a navel, but simply states “the muscles of the belly”. The NIV also avoids association with loose interpretation of “testiculorem,” found in the Latin Vulgate Bible.
Therefore, the NIV in particular does not specifically insist that the tail is identical in size to a cedar tree, making a sauropod interpretation unnecessary; nor does it make mention to properties of the animal in a way which would rule out such an interpretation. The emphasis though, is clearly on the strength of the animal’s loins, regardless of the kind of animal and regardless of the size of the tail. The point of the verse appears to have nothing to do with proving whether Job saw a sauropod or not; but is a lesson in not questioning divine providence by showing examples of other creatures who would appear to have a reason to and yet do not.
In comparison to the translation of these verses by professional translator Stephen Mitchell in 1992, who wrote and published in closer association with the Vulgate his own translation of The Book of Job, the verses read:
“Look: the power in his thighs, the pulsing sinews of his belly. His penis stiffens like a pine; his testicles bulge with vigor.”
This version very strongly suggests that behemoth, whatever it was, was a creature in heat at the time of description. In no way does this interpretation suggest a whiplash tail. Instead, the verses refer to the sexual display behavior of Behemoth - that of a mammal.
Evolution, as most biologists view it, is the process of allele fixation within a population due of differential reproductive success. How the first 'life' formed is not necessary for the study of that process. Just as chemistry can be studied and performed without knowing how the universe started, the common descent of Homo and Pan can be studied quite well without knowing how the first proto-life started.
"Or how would you evolve with out origins.
Interesting how anti-evolutionists lump in the ToE (biological evolution) with abiogenesis, solar evolution, cosmology, and even atheism. Even though all of those fields can be studied (relatively) independently and refuting one does not affect the others, combining them into one box allows them to claim they have all been debunked because a single very specific fossil has not been found. It is also interesting that every time a new fossil is found that supports the ToE, or a new star is witnessed forming, or the BBT gets a boost, the goal posts get moved to new territory.
You are quite correct, we could not have evolved without origins, however, the study of that evolution is not reliant on how the first organism was created (by nature or by God).
Is it necessary for you to know exactly how the first car was made to enable you to drive successfully, or to become a mechanic?
The "word of the Lord" does not say man lived with dinosaurs.
So you don't think the birds at the insects? How about spiders, what did they eat?
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.