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 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 461-465 next last
To: Coyoteman
As you said, No problem. You do religion, I will stick to science.

Let us look at this Science the act of knowing knowledge.

I do believe you know the theory of evolution pretty well. I have studied it more over the years to be up on the lie you hold as scripture.

So in your science show us an example of any new information being added to any organism.

Show us any new species different than the host it started from. Not variety, variation or adaptation, these are not examples.

Show us one instance where in a laboratory they created life from non living chemicals, this means a self replicating organism.

If by chance you can not I would have to say that the theory you adhere to as fact is in fact a faith based religion, unrepeatable, untestable, unprovable.

Just one thing of the Bible prove how it is mere chance that the people of Israel have been coming back (about 2000 years after they were broken up as a nation as prophesied) to the place that God had given them in the time of Mose's and that such a small nation has as prophesied kept its enemy's outside it's borders. How many would hate them.
321 posted on 06/03/2007 10:59:42 AM PDT by Creationist ( Evolution=alternative to believing in God to justify their moral shortfalls and animal behavior)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
Repeat a lie long enough and loud enough and they will believe it.

That is those of weak minds and thinking process of national education systems where you are not taught how to think but what to think.
322 posted on 06/03/2007 11:02:18 AM PDT by Creationist ( Evolution=alternative to believing in God to justify their moral shortfalls and animal behavior)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Evolution is not science, so you are right why should the American public be forced to pay for your religious belief to be taught in public schools.

What you define as science is a theory that is based upon an idea created century's ago and has been accepted as a theory that has no testable, repeatable, observable corroboration.

The theory of evolution could be dropped out of books today and would never effect the outcome of any field of study.

And do not bring up the hogwash of how variation is evolution and you need the Theory to predict how a variety will change its color, size or shape, as that is not a new species in any way, no new information.
323 posted on 06/03/2007 11:10:28 AM PDT by Creationist ( Evolution=alternative to believing in God to justify their moral shortfalls and animal behavior)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: Creationist
The answers to those questions have been provided again and again, and just like my radiocarbon links they have been ignored.

So, for the lurkers, here is everything compressed into two links:

First, PatrickHenry's List-O-Links (now the Un-Missing Links).

Second, Mark Isaak's Index of Creationist Claims

324 posted on 06/03/2007 11:28:32 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

Comment #325 Removed by Moderator

To: DaveLoneRanger
Why are human bones and human artifacts NEVER found buried together with dinosaur remains anywhere on earth? Why are dinosaur bones NEVER found buried anywhere on earth in upper strata, but only in much deeper strata that is more than about 65 million years old?
It's not always so simple or easy as a dino leg sticking out of the earth in the right way.

Wrong answer. The reason dinosaur remains are not found with human bones and human artifacts is that dinosaurs died out something like 65 million years earlier!

If dinosaurs were around during the last, say, 10,000-20,000 years, their bones would be found all over the place, as are the late Pleistocene fauna. They are not there!


Otherwise, evolutionists wouldn't have deluded themselves into their old-age beliefs.

Son, with this Flintsones nonsense you keep pushing, you are the one whose beliefs are being shown to be to be without evidence.

326 posted on 06/03/2007 3:15:16 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: celmak

I’ve been following this issue since the midseventies. I used to hear creationists debate evolutionary scientists. Invariably, the evolutionary arguments call for a certain set of faith-assumptions at certain key points, especially the overarching unprovable assumption that nature has always worked the same way in the past (uniformitarianism). If a thinker is granted any set of faith-assumptions he wishes, and is then allowed to shout down any other set of assumptions, then the thinker can erect a theory impenetrable to disproof, by simply clubbing the opposition out of the picture.

The question is ultimately a religious or philosophical question, not a scientific question, no matter how many graphs, recreations, or museum “how-it-might-have-been” exhibits one might erect. Our big cultural mistake has thus been not recognizing the religious nature of the question itself.

Sir Karl Popper, said by some to be one of the great philosophers of science (and certainly not himself a creationist, as he ridiculed theists), said:

“I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program—a possible framework for testable scientific theories. It suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does all that.

“This is of course the reason why Darwinism has been almost universally accepted. Its theory of adaptation was the first nontheistic one that was convincing; and theism was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that an ultimate explanation had been reached.

“Now to the degree that Darwinism creates the same impression, it is not so very much better than the theistic view of adaptation; it is therefore important to show that Darwinism is not a scientific theory, but metaphysical. But its value for science as a metaphysical research program is very great, especially if it is admitted that it may be criticized and improved.” (Unended Quest, Fontana Books, 1976).

Popper is not saying much for Darwinism, because just about any strange idea can be “criticized and improved upon.” At any rate, my point is that the word “metaphysical” is merely a way of tap-dancing around the word “religious.” Granted, many (perhaps most) of those who accept Darwinism (now the term is “neo-Darwinism”) are also theists; but I can’t see how anyone can survey history, examine the controversy with an open mind, and fail to see that the real driving force for the acceptance of evolutionary ideas is that it puts all those “woodenheaded fundamentalists” in their place. As Harvard paleontologist Richard Lewontin stated:

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,…in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Some translation: Lewontin’s last sentence is a metaphysical declaration of his “prior adherence” to a personal faith? Does it sound “scientific” to speak of rigging your experiments (“create an apparatus…”) to produce materialistic (atheistic) explanations? For a long, long time, it is has been the voices of the Lewontins, the Dobzhanskys, and the Huxleys, with this sort of passionate religious belief in the self-organization of matter, that have controlled what is put in textbooks and what is displayed in museums. Any theory or point of view can reign supreme if its proponents are allowed to protect it in this way.


327 posted on 06/03/2007 3:58:45 PM PDT by Phantom4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Creationist
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.

Let's see how many fields of science you have to NOT trust: Physics, geology, archeology, astronomy, biology, geneology, ...

328 posted on 06/03/2007 8:05:50 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: Creationist
Show us one instance where in a laboratory they created life from non living chemicals, this means a self replicating organism.

(scrolling back about a hundred years) ...Show us one instance where a man has flown in a heavier than air aircraft ...

329 posted on 06/03/2007 8:08:37 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: Phantom4
Sir Karl Popper, said by some to be one of the great philosophers of science (and certainly not himself a creationist, as he ridiculed theists), said:

“I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program—a possible framework for testable scientific theories. It suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does all that.

It seems you get you knowledge from the biased creationists' websites that intentionally distort the truth for their benefit. Read on about Popper:

Many Creationist books have printed this quote:

"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme - a possible framework for testable theories." Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography 1976, La Salle, IN: Open Court Press

If you read the book, Popper is actually raising the famous "natural selection is a tautology" objection. Popper recanted two years later:

"I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. ...

The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological."

Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind, Dialectica 32:339-355, 1978. See 344-346 for this quote.

and he repeated the recantation three years after that: "... some people think that I have denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as paleontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth; or to say, the history of literature, or of technology, or of science. This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested."

Letter to New Scientist 87:611, 21 August 1980

330 posted on 06/03/2007 8:16:59 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
There is NO geological or archeological evidence of the flood.

Bunk.

That is your evidence of the great flood. Thank you.

331 posted on 06/03/2007 8:18:43 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

Comment #332 Removed by Moderator

To: DaveLoneRanger
What did you think of that list of fossil anomalies?

That article was written by "John Woodmorappe," a high school science teacher whose real name is Jan Peczkis, and who is a creationist.

I didn't waste my time reading it. I read a previous article, "The non-transitions in ‘human evolution’—on evolutionists’ terms" by the same author, and it turned out to be garbage.

Did you know he supports evolution? The article I just cited claims modern man, after the Tower of Babel incident, gave rise to Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis. That is a rate of evolution several hundred times greater than science proposes, and in reverse!

Do you see why I didn't bother with "Woodmorappe"?

333 posted on 06/03/2007 8:41:10 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]

Comment #334 Removed by Moderator

To: DaveLoneRanger
to hone in on the one claim I didn’t bother to chock full of the same links and arguments you’ve seen before.

Whatever. I have seen many references to the 'fact' that evolutionists don't adjust for the global flood but not any posts to show that their was a global flood.

335 posted on 06/03/2007 8:49:40 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger; Coyoteman

I can’t help but notice that the list of misplaced fossils massively overrepresents such microfossils as spores, pollen, foraminifera, and other small fossils such as conodonts. Of the larger organisms given (relatively speaking, they’re still small), most are marine.

Such small fossils and marine fossils will be especially prone to reworking, in which erosion and runoff carry soil containing fossils to be deposited in crevices in older rock, or surges of water or submarine landslides churn up underwater sediments.

I notice there is only one instance of misplaced vertebrate bones (excluding the unreferenced!! case). I’m suspicious that this is not actually anomalous. The paper is “A New Early Oligocene Beaver of the Genus Agnatocastor from Kazakhstan.” The Oligocene is fairly early in the Tertiary period, yet the chart says that the fossil is from the late Tertiary. Considering the authors called the beaver an early Oligocene beaver, I suspect that this is a case of a fossil being “anomalous” because the creationist reader supposed, “Oh, that’s too early for a beaver, I’ll put it here instead!”


336 posted on 06/04/2007 12:36:18 PM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: Phantom4
As Harvard paleontologist Richard Lewontin stated:

Isn't he a self-avowed Marxist?

337 posted on 06/04/2007 12:49:27 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
Scrolling back how ever far you would like show us one instance man has ever made life from non life.

Your faith is strong grasshopper but the stone statue will never talk.
338 posted on 06/04/2007 5:54:59 PM PDT by Creationist ( Evolution=alternative to believing in God to justify their moral shortfalls and animal behavior)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
Your claim, Let's see how many fields of science you have to NOT trust: Physics, geology, archeology, astronomy, biology, genealogy, ... is with out merit.

I believe in physical laws that govern this universe. I even know when, not an exact date but approximately 6000 years ago the First Law of Thermodynamics was put into effect when God ended his work on the seventh day.

Why physics better applies to my belief in creation than evolution.
Everything starts in order and works toward disorder, why hey that is exactly how it is happening and is exactly how it is explained in the Bible when God said Adam's sin cursed even the ground.

Archeology has never disproved the Bible and has only validated it.

Fossils are better explained by a global flood than your belief of a long slow process burying a creature with a 1/4 inch of sediment a year.

Geology again is better explained with the fountains of the deep erupting in the Atlantic which created the depressions in the Pacific and the ring of fire.

Biology needs no lies of elements in a pool of warm water being struck by lightning mutating and natural selecting or billions of years to be taught. That nonsense could never be spoken in a biology class and would never harm the learner on the processes of life.

Genealogy if you mean that you believe you are a scion to a simian well then that would be a true statement. Or do you believe you are a scion of an artichoke.
I do believe that we all are of one blood, Adam and Eve.

Astronomy, I do not adhere to all the explanations that are speculative with a presupposition of old age.
339 posted on 06/04/2007 6:25:23 PM PDT by Creationist ( Evolution=alternative to believing in God to justify their moral shortfalls and animal behavior)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
You start your testing process with the presupposition that long and slow process have created what you are about to test.

Is this not true. Have you ever just once thought to test an object that you and your colleagues have set in your mind to be millions of years and test it for young ages?

With this assumption comes the test the product of which if it supports your predetermined conclusion is kept as fact, but if the date you does not you discard the information as a product of contamination.

Do you deny that young ages of an object that you have presupposed to be millions of years old are discarded?
340 posted on 06/04/2007 6:36:05 PM PDT by Creationist ( Evolution=alternative to believing in God to justify their moral shortfalls and animal behavior)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 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