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.

[labette]

See post 68 for a possible reason Neanderthals became extinct.

[billbears]

Most Americans believe in the Bible

I believe in the Bible. I even believe the description in Genesis is how those people of the time understood God's hand in creation. But the earth is more than 6,000 years old and this is the silliest damn thing I've ever seen.

[Ahithophel]

Nice!

[Witchman63]

“There are fiction movies - why not a fiction museum?”

Poses a interesting question. What constitutes a museum. What hoops does a organization and building have to jump through in order to get classified a museum. Are there tax breaks. Are there government grants to be gathered once museum status is granted?

[GovernmentIsTheProblem]

“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.”

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

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

[Riptides]

Yes, I do believe that dinosaurs and mammals did live together in harmony while living in the Garden of Eden.
Dinosaurs were probably vegetarians and not carnivorous.
It was after Adam and Eve sinned that everything began to change for the worse.
Again, that is my humble opinion, I could be wrong. The Garden of Eden was described as “paradise” so I do not believe that there was any blood shed between animals.

[Witchman63]

“Only very EGO CENTRIC Christians believe this! their God is sooo small that they really think he could have only created a world in the way they would have envisioned it being created.”

That is factually incorrect. Many people, be they jews, christians or muslims, believe in a literal translation of the bible. Lets not forget the the origin beliefs of buddhists, hindus and pretty much all the other religions. All have their groups that believe in a “non scientific” explaination for our existence. I ain’t one of them but don’t knock my christian brothers.

[dighton]

If you're not that well acquainted, she can be cajoled into staying around with the old “Baby, It’s Cold There’s Dinos Outside.”

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

The word of the Lord is never in “opposition” to science.
there are many very valid and true Christians who believe in evolution and NOT Creationism. They believe in science and see no problem with the Bible, evolution and other sciences being compatible. The entire Catholic faith and many other Christian faiths and the Jewish faith...have No-—da nada-—problem with evolution.

The word of the Lord is not YOUR word. I am ashamed for a moment for our country that we are going back to the stone ages.

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

and a LOT of Christians and Jews ( forget the Muzzies)do NOT believe in a literal belief in the Bible...hey, which translation? which interpretation?

I am only knocking Christians who MIX science and religion on their OWN terms. Many Christians and Jews see NO problem with evolution.

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

I agree. Why does one small section of Christianity think that they ARE the Republican party?

[Oztrich Boy]

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.

So, basically, he's getting wood?

[BIGLOOK]

The Rosieodonnellsaur hadn’t evolved at the time of Job. It wasn’t till the late Quaternary period of the Cenozoic Era that this strange, malevolent, non breeding creature appeared.

[Ping-Pong]

Where in the Bible does it say there were dinos in the Garden of Eden?...Where in the Bible does it say this earth or heavens are a mere 6,000 years old?....When did Lucifer rebel, and decided that he was going to be god?... Who were the already existing Us and Our in Genesis 1:26?

"Just my thoughts" has terrific questions and they certainly fit in with your statement Billbears.

I think the questions about the beginning of this world and it's age are all answered in the Bible. From the questions asked by JMT I think he also knows.

God tells us in Gen.1:1 that He created the earth. He does not say when. Certainly not 6,000 years ago. Science tells us that it is millions or billions of years old. The Bible does not argue that fact.

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.

There was an age before our present age. There will be one after this. In that first age Satan rebelled and God destroyed it, not the world but that age. The last 1/2 of Gen. 1:2 tells of the beginning of our present time. The dinosaurs were part of that first age.

....Ping

[webstersII]

"it is this kind of reliogion interfering into science that has brought us the Inquisition, Witch Burning and now Islamofascists."

Sounds like you and Rosie are both more scared of Christians than of Islamofascists.

I know, I know. Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean that the whole world isn't out to burn you at the stake.

Pssst. . . be careful, they have spies everywhere. . .

[webstersII]

“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.”

You’re really reaching here; thse statements do not elucidate about what the meaning of that word is. The meaning of the word is determined by common usage in the rest of the OT, and can be further modified by context. There is no other passage in the OT that remotely renders that word “penis”, therefore it’s not a reasonable conclusion.

Job 40:16 has a reference to ‘navel’ in some translations and no reference to it in others. But, given the root word, I agree that it could refer to the navel of the beast (whatever it is).

“Put simply, an honest interpretation of the passage in Job shows it to be a hippopotamus. “

You are twisting this stuff to support your thesis. The hippo doesn’t fit the beast described notwithstanding your attempts to shoehorn it in there.

[Nova]

'Dinosaurs were probably vegetarians ...The Garden of Eden was described as “paradise”...'

Sharing a vegetarian diet with dinosaurs just doesn't seem like "paradise" to me. But I guess I'd have to meet Eve before I could decide.

[Coyoteman]

'Dinosaurs were probably vegetarians ...The Garden of Eden was described as “paradise”...'

Sharing a vegetarian diet with dinosaurs just doesn't seem like "paradise" to me. But I guess I'd have to meet Eve before I could decide.

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.

[taxesareforever]

Scientists are not the ones looking silly here.

I know, its the evos that do. Hee hee hee hee.

[DiogenesTheDog]

You are twisting this stuff to support your thesis. The hippo doesn’t fit the beast described notwithstanding your attempts to shoehorn it in there.

As I keep saying, and you keep missing, the word tail is used as euphemism in that passage, something supported by both etymology and context. The fact that it is used to literally mean tail elsewhere does not invalidate that fact, just as modern day euphemisms have dual meanings. Cicero confirms that the ancients used the word "tail" as a euphemism meaning "penis", and the 1st millennium Aramaic bible, the Targum, renders the word directly as "penis". Like I said, this has been the standard interpretation for centuries, the creationist exegesis is a modern misinterpretation. Given historical interpretations of passage, and the fact that the other half of the passage references the animal's testicles, it's a stretch to interpret it any other way.

Even leaving aside the "tail" in Job 40:17, look at the rest of the description of behemoth. It eats grass like an ox, herbivorous dinosaurs were not grazers but leaf-eaters. Sauropods didn't have molars, they would have been incapable of eating grass. Job goes on to describe a river-dwelling animal. Once again, it doesn't fit sauropods, it does fit the hippopotamus.

Job 40:16 has a reference to ‘navel’ in some translations and no reference to it in others. But, given the root word, I agree that it could refer to the navel of the beast (whatever it is).

A navel is the scar on the abdomen caused by the removal of the umbilical cord. Only placental mammals have umbilical cords. Dinosaurs were hatched from eggs. That means there is no way that the passage refers to a dinosaur.