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.

[ColdWater]

I suppose you know better.

You have evidence that Moses wrote them? Please provide that to your local pastor. Y'all will be famous!

[ColdWater]

The transitionals found in the human, whale, reptile, bird, fish, bivalve lines, and many others would all disagree.

There are no transitions.

The evidence of common descent in the genomes of many organisms would also disagree.

God was smart enough to use common genome sequences where possible.

The age of the Earth, the distance of the stars, supernovae, the Oort cloud and Kuiper belt would all disagree.

The earth is approximately 6000 years old. Due the relativistic time shift, the universe was able to age billions of years in the six days of the creation.

[js1138]

The Bible is not a science textbook, however it does not contradict the scientific principles that man has discovered...

My point is that science certainly contradicts what some people read into the Bible. I would agree with St. Augustine that if your reading of the Bible contradicts well established science, your reading is wrong, and you bring discredit to your religion by stubbornly clinging to false beliefs.

[AndyJackson]

information is always lost not gained

By your predictions, the knowledge of physics at the time of St. Augustine exceeded that of Einstein, whose knowledge exceeded that of Stephen Weinberg. The problem with us trying to create energy from nuclear fusion is taht it was used by Adam and Eve, but as knowledge was lost over the years, we reverted to fision, and pretty soon we will be rubbing sticks together in the woods to cook our food after we hunt down and catch the local deer.

You are nuts.

[AndyJackson]

You have anywhere from 7 to 100 mutations that your parents do not have. Are you demonstrably weaker than they are?

Yes, I am. My parents would have chuckled and prayed that God grant the poor fool enlightment. Me I lack that strength and would call the guy the fool that I think he is.

[Creationist]

You asked,You Bible says to go out and validate the Bible. That means you have to disregard any evidence that you feel does not validate the Bible, right?

It is evident that this is a straw man question that once I answer you will bash me with my words.

Never the less, I believe that any interpretation of the visible evidence of this world that is explained in a way that either deny the existence of God or minimizes the Bible by trying to explain the visible evidence by naturalist uniformitarian ways, (long and slow, evolution, denial of the flood, ect.)

This does not in any way mean for those who except Jesus and God and the creator of the universe, that real science that is provable and testable in ungodly.

One of the first things God commanded Adam to do was to sub due the earth, to have dominion over it and the animals.

[Coyoteman]

Never the less, I believe that any interpretation of the visible evidence of this world that is explained in a way that either deny the existence of God or minimizes the Bible by trying to explain the visible evidence by naturalist uniformitarian ways, (long and slow, evolution, denial of the flood, ect.)

You have made a statement of religious belief.

What does that have to do with science? Are you saying that your religious beliefs overrule science? (See tagline.)

[Creationist]

Only a blind man will argue that there is not a wall in front of their face.

If you which to believe the thick sedimentary layers observed through out the earth are caused by long and slow processes, with sparse evidence of any plant life, erosion, any other sediment change.

It is your belief that small cataclysmic events created these large deposits. That is one heck of a hundred year flood.

We have never seen a continent flooded, sorry.

Though those events do support the evidence in the fossil record, and geological record of the Biblical flood.

You can not ever show how water could cover a complete continent and not the whole world.

You will never be able to show with local level the coal fields.

[Creationist]

As with evolution, mere speculation, with out any evidence, or testable process does not make it a science, but a religion.

[Creationist]

10.) 12% (3 out of 26) random mutations in a strain of bacteria improved fitness in a particular environment.This is just one line, you will notice the information may have made it stronger in one environment only to weaken in another. Loss of information.

And also you will note by deny, that all of these mutations were done in a laboratory by intelligence and not through natural processes. So this is not an example of random (natural) selection of mutations, but a controlled experiment.

Intelligence made it in a controlled environment.

[Creationist]

The whole article is filled with man selected controlled environments, and organisms adapting to harsh environments. This is not evolution, this is variation and adaptation.

[Creationist]

Yea that is a sigh of intelligence I say a car grow new tires the other day.

[Creationist]

Jesus created a working universe with everything fully functional.

This would include making the light visible in every direction. Now yes these objects are far away and the light from them takes quite a long time to reach here, some of the stars may not even exist any more.

Genesis1:
14: And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17: And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

The stars were set in the Heaven's by God visible to us then and now. If God made the light visible to us we and the distance is truly that far away (which I do not doubt) then we are only seeing the light in the middle not that of the beginning.

[Creationist]

by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)

This statement of yours is very true of your religious belief in evolution. I am sorry that your governmentally indoctrinated education does not allow you to think for yourself. You must always answer with a statement that has been predetermined for your response.

Evolution is a religion, it is in no way science.

Evolution can not be seen, and takes faith to believe, this does not make it science.

Evolution can not be tested, therefore it is not science.

Evolution has no proof, therefore it is not science.

So your faith based religious belief that pond scum can come to life and turn into all the living organisms through out this planet is not a science. And your deep rooted knowledge of this fable does not make it scientific.

It is sad that you and all who except evolution as fact do so, so easily like sheep from examples of adaptation and variation or mutations caused by man made chemicals. Thinking that because bacteria is resistant to something not paying attention that it is now weaker in another area.

[ColdWater]

This does not in any way mean for those who except(sic) Jesus and God and the creator of the universe, that real science that is provable and testable in ungodly.Of course, any science that is not in accordance with your bible is automatically unprovable and non-testable.

[ColdWater]

Jesus created a working universe with everything fully functional.

According to AiG, Adam was created without a male appendage and neither Adam or Eve were capable of reproducing.

[ColdWater]

And your deep rooted knowledge of this fable does not make it scientific. It is sad that you and all who except evolution as fact do so, so easily like sheep

Scientist accept evolution, YEC'rs except evolution. You must be a product of the public school system.

[Bogtrotter52]

“i dream of a day when this is reversed in full.”

So do I....oh wait a minute...those are nightmeres

[music_code]

But what IS plain, is that none of this could possibly have arisen purely through chance and time acting on matter (which of course also begs the question of where the matter came from in the first place).

How is that plain? Do you have some inside information which physicists, cosmologists, astronomers, chemists and biochemists all lack? Care to publish that information and claim your Nobel?

I have read articles and books which describe the immense magnitude of complexity found in a single cell...or a strand of DNA...have you watched those Discovery programs which show the behavior of bees in a hive, or other such marvels of nature?

The point is, you don't have to be a scientist to appreciate that there is incredible complexity to living things (one might even say 'irreducible' as in the eye, though I realize that's a touchy word for you evos).

I operate in two professions. One is that of computer programmer and the other is that of musician. Now, when I want to produce a screen or a report or a file update for my company, I have noticed that I actually have to write the instructions to create the program. As much as I might wish for it, the hardware, operating system, and software elements just won't fuse themselves together to make what I want, all by themselves (even when I try giving them the whole afternoon to do it). No; I must use my intelligence to assemble the elements of the code in such a manner that they work with the operating system and hardware platform to produce the object I want.

Similarly, when I create a music track, my guitar doesn't strum itself into the recording device on the correct track using the correct chords in the correct time all by itself. Funny, the drum synthesizer, bass, keyboards, and vocals all have the same problem - they need intelligent guidance and actual execution by the operator to actually create a musical accompaniment track.

My brother-in-law is a general contractor. He has noticed that houses don't build themselves, either. It takes planning and execution by a crew of his workers to produce what the customer wants.

Now, if these inamimate objects require intelligent planning and execution to create these things...how much MORE, do you suppose, creative intelligence and power would be needed to produce a human cell? The eye? The animal kingdom? The stars in the universe? Does the One who made the eye, not see? Does He who made the ear, not hear?

Science is defined by its methods. Science evolves. It applies functional selection to weed out bad ideas. The science of evolution is not one field, but a collection of many, each of them use well tested, effective scientific methodologies to discover the traits of nature. These fields are all interrelated, a discovery in one affects the rest.

Did you mean anything serious by this blather? You know, I thought science was the discovery of the nature and laws of reality through observation, hypothesis, testing, analysis, evaluation, and conclusion. What you have said is pretty mushy, and appeals to conclusion by consensus.

Facts, however, are stubborn things, and could care less about how many people from different fields of study decide to agree on the veracity of something they want to be true, no matter how desperately they want it.

And sorry...there are no transitional fossil forms. Not one. I'm sure you realize, also, that there would have to be many, many of them - more in fact than the number of fossils that man has discovered and classified from 150 years ago until today.

[music_code]

It was not the bible till man recognized it as the bible. Collections of old writings do NOT a bible make.

Let's see now...these old writings were authored by more than 40 different men, from all walks of life, on 3 different continents, in 3 languages, across about 1600 years in time, makeing collusion impossible...yet they tell one cohesive story. Further, many of the prophecies of the older writings have already been fulfilled. Archaeological evidence confirms the writings as well. The writings themselves contain claims to be the Word of God - claims which can be tested.

These are some of the factors that argue for the veracity of the writings and validate their collection into the book we call the Bible.