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.

[b_sharp]

Damn! I guess I should have read your post before sending mine. Oh well, I suppose it needed to be repeated.

[HitmanLV]

It’s ok to have an emotional reaction, it’s just not good to be driven by them so much that you can’t see the other side’s point. As I have written elsewhere on this thread, there is a legitimate ambiguity as to where life begins - different cultures treat it differently. Rational, reasonable people can disagree. The point that you can’t see that is the point that you check out of a good analysis of the issue.

[Coyoteman]

Damn! I guess I should have read your post before sending mine. Oh well, I suppose it needed to be repeated.

Great minds think alike!

(Actually, its just basic science.)

[Major_Risktaker]

Wordy McWord. You're so right. And I'm saying that as someone who's both religious and on the right...too many people are starting to believe that the laws of this country and the laws they they find in their Bibles should be one and the same. I can think of another country that works that way...Iran.

Rabbinical Courts Versus Civil Courts In Israel

Reading will free your mind.

[cammie]

I know about the duality of the Israeli civil/religious court system, but what’s your point? You aren’t arguing that it is a GOOD thing, I would hope.

[Creationist]

1 Corinthians, chapter 1

"27": But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

II Peter 3:

3: Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4: And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

5: For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

7: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

[Creationist]

You asked,
Would you mind explaining to me why the existence of dinosaurs at the same time as humans would lend support to the Biblical flood, or be evidence against evolution?

First I believe as many young earth creationist that the earth is only 6000 years old or less.

Second If that is true (which is my belief and the visible evidence of the world and stars better support my belief than evolutionary beliefs. And Evolution is more faith based than that of Jesus of the Bible), the fossil evidence we find is best explained by the rapid burial of a global flood. As would the coal fields, Niagara Falls, Grand Canyon, ect. ect.

If dinosaurs were around with man (which I believe) than the earth is not billions or even millions of years old.

There is no way todays long and slow actions could create large fossil beds we see, unless you really believe that an animal laid there for million of years while sediments buried it.

And on another note man made objects have been found in coal fields.

If you think AIG is a god fearing site with creationist views you are sadly mistaken, they adhere to billions and millions of years which is contrary to the Bible.

The physical evidence for a global flood is in front of your eyes in sedimentary rock, the great coral reef, bristol cone pine, redwood forest, Mississippi Delta, lack of sediment in the Ocean, polystrate fossils, Toutle river,

[Creationist]

It is not possible to show those who do not wish for a creator to see the evidence.

As long a you are happy in this present world, who cares what will happen for your actions against the one who created you.

You have a belief in a hypothesis that takes more faith the believing in God.

Evolution is a theory that has no repeatable tests, no evolution happening now, processes that are imagined in the minds of people that can not be proved.

Long and slow does not explain the visible conditions we see.

[Coyoteman]

No problem. You do religion, I will stick to science.

[Coyoteman]

The physical evidence for a global flood is in front of your eyes in sedimentary rock, the great coral reef, bristol cone pine, redwood forest, Mississippi Delta, lack of sediment in the Ocean, polystrate fossils, Toutle river,

That is Bristlecone pines.

The oldest is about 4,700 years (that's older than the purported global flood, which is generally placed at 4,350 years ago).

There are also standing dead Bristlecone pines that are older. By comparing the sequences of tree-rings, a continuous sequence can be established of about 12,600 years.

These tree-rings can be counted, one by one. That's twice as old as the 6,000 years you claim.

If you don't like that, there are trees in Europe that go even older, as do ice cores and glacial varves. The evidence is massively against a 6,000 year old earth. That is a religious belief which has not been confirmed by any reputable science.

Secondly, there is absolutely no scientific evidence that dinosaurs co-existed with humans. If you are thinking of using the "human" footprints in Texas as evidence, it is widely agreed that they are fakes. (The closest you are likely to find is the Flintstones.)

All of the other items you cite as "evidence" have been shown to be incorrect. Science is not a matter of wishful thinking; you need evidence. "What ifs" don't count.

[Non-Sequitur]

bump

[Coyoteman]

Evolution is a theory that has no repeatable tests, no evolution happening now...

Why do you assume evolution has stopped?

These things take time. Lots of time. As a young earth creationist, you are not used to thinking in terms of millions of years as scientists do, and as the evidence suggests.

6,000 years is a very short time in relation to the scientifically-documented age of the earth, or the age of living organisms.

I suspect our third molars are somewhere in evolutionary transition. And I hope for our descendants' sakes that our knees and lower backs improve over time as well!

[Creationist]

That is Bristlecone pines. The oldest is about 4,700 years (that's older than the purported global flood, which is generally placed at 4,350 years ago).

You assume as do all who do not accept that they are fallible that the dating of the tree is an exact science.

You assume that Ice core samples are proof of age. But unless you know the exact time of the freeze and thaw cycle at every day of the past your Ice core age is useless.

You assume that man can date things based upon the observed of current events.

This is not science this is assumption. You have not discounted a thing but only have proved yourself more adhered to the fallible man than that of the Infallible One True God Jesus.

[Coyoteman]

You assume as do all who do not accept that they are fallible that the dating of the tree is an exact science.

You assume that Ice core samples are proof of age. But unless you know the exact time of the freeze and thaw cycle at every day of the past your Ice core age is useless.

You assume that man can date things based upon the observed of current events.

And those assumptions can be tested. For example, counting tree-rings works pretty well. There are periodic volcanic events with historically-known dates which were large enough to show up in the tree-rings. That is one of the cross-checks on the assumptions of the radiocarbon method.

There is a lot more good information in the links below. You prbably won't read them, but the lurkers are invited to take a look:

ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth Creationists

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.

This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.

Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)

How does the radiocarbon dating method work? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)

How precise is radiocarbon dating?

Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions?

Has radiocarbon dating been invalidated by unreasonable results?

Tree Ring and C14 Dating

Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.

Radiocarbon -- full text of issues, 1959-2003.

[Creationist]

No problem. You do religion, I will stick to science.

When are you going to do science, because the theory of evolution is not science.

There is nothing about evolution that is scientific. It is a lie based upon assumptions that do not adhere to the physical properties of this world.

Evolution requires faith to believe, that is not science.

Evolution has never been observed to create another species.

Chemical evolution has never created life, no matter how much money you spend.

Natural selection selects and does not chose which takes intelligence.

Mutations destroy and have never made a stronger organism. Hiroshima, Chernobyl, oil spills, solar activity, all destroy and have never produced a new organism.

Radio carbon dating is not a science as pertaining to obtaining dates of objects. It is a flaw from the start science. It assumes from the very moment that the specimen is chosen.

The tester assumes the object is billions of years old, the tester assumes that the date if it fits their objective is correct, if the date is not to their liking the object is discarded as is said to have been contaminated.

All this is because the tester assumes that long and slow is how it has always been denying the fact of all the visible evidence that a global flood has happened.

[Creationist]

Coyoteman,

You believe,6,000 years is a very short time in relation to the scientifically-documented age of the earth, or the age of living organisms.

You rest you eternal soul upon the minds of men who can not tell is asprin is good or bad for you depending upon the day of the week,
The theory you worship has had to be revised every week as discoveries have been made this you claim as truth and science.

Your mind is so hardened to the lie of evolution that you can not except the truth that 6000 years is enough time for everything to have happen just as you see it.

Your logic has closed your mind to spiritual things that happen before you daily.

You assume which is not scientific by any means that I do not believe in science,

Far from it I just do not accept the science of long and slow, evolution is how we got here (or any evolution for that matter, and do not give examples of adaptation or variation)

Your faith in man will get you some day, you will see the truth,

I pray it is before it is to late.

[Coyoteman]

Radio carbon dating is not a science as pertaining to obtaining dates of objects. It is a flaw from the start science. It assumes from the very moment that the specimen is chosen.

The tester assumes the object is billions of years old,

As I figured, you didn't even look at the links I posted.

They clearly state that radiocarbon dating only works up to about 50,000 years, not the billions you repeatedly claim.

You have shown that not only do you know little about science, but also that you are unwilling to learn any science even when the details are presented to you.

You have also shown that there is no need to listen to anything you have to say about science.

Good night.

[Creationist]

There is no need to look over the links you posted to sites that I have already look upon before.

The sites are not scientific in nature pertaining to dating old objects, they as all those who do not believe in God except assumption as science.

When you start with a presupposition that there is no God and that the book of Genesis is not 100% accurate than everything you look at on this earth and in the stars is very very old.

Your logic is your down fall, you will not except anything that pertains to the earth as young because you believe that the dating methods are correct.

You accept assumption as science, you accept speculation as science, you accept unproved ideals as science.

[Coyoteman]

You accept assumption as science, you accept speculation as science, you accept unproved ideals as science.

You have shown that nothing you say pertaining to science is to be trusted. Why do you even bother?

[Creationist]

Your posts do not prove that radiocarbon dating is accurate.

There are written by those who believe they are, accepting assumption as fact.

Dating things of a known age does not prove that they can accurately portray results of objects of unknown dates.