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 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 461-465 next last
To: Creationist
Does a new car have an appearance of age.

It does show the result of the evolution of the car over the decades. The 'new car' did not suddenly get built. The design evolved in response to environmental pressures.

381 posted on 06/06/2007 1:06:47 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: js1138; Creationist
I doubt if you can find anyone on this forum ignorant enough to agree with you on this one.

I am sure that Creationist could prove you wrong on this one ...

382 posted on 06/06/2007 1:08:36 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]

To: Creationist
Those who can not except God and the Genesis account can not grasp the concept that God who is all powerful could create a total working system with the lights from the stars already visible here on earth.

But the point is, if we are observing light from a star that has taken millions of years to arrive here, then obviously the Universe is older than 6,000 years. Unless you disbelieve the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second.

383 posted on 06/06/2007 1:09:17 PM PDT by jimmccleod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: Creationist
Expain how a fish does not rot when it by your belief takes thousands or millions of years to deposit the material over it.

Because our "belief" does not say that the fish was lying about for years.

Creationist straw men. Garbage in, garbage out.

384 posted on 06/06/2007 1:24:13 PM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: Creationist
Mutations are never benifical, and information is always lost not gained.

Baloney.

385 posted on 06/06/2007 1:25:08 PM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: ahayes
Because our "belief" does not say that the fish was lying about for years.

How long does your belief say that 'the fish' was lying about? Hours? Most fish rot away in a few hours.

386 posted on 06/06/2007 1:29:28 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: ahayes; Creationist

Disregard my last reply to you. It was meant for Creationist.


387 posted on 06/06/2007 1:32:08 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

Hours? I don’t think so.


388 posted on 06/06/2007 1:32:31 PM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 386 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

Good, I was confused.

I found a gar this spring on the creek shore nearby. It was just skin and skeleton, probably died some time that winter. It would have made a respectable fossil.

I wanted to keep it but my husband wouldn’t let me because it smelled. :-(


389 posted on 06/06/2007 1:33:56 PM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 387 | View Replies]

To: Creationist
My Bible the King James version which is the word of God Jesus, says for me to find out, discover, validate what is said for myself.

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?

390 posted on 06/06/2007 1:34:24 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 366 | View Replies]

To: ahayes
I wanted to keep it but my husband wouldn’t let me because it smelled. :-(

As kids, we used to go gar fishing. When we got to hot and bored we would go swimming among them. Of course we used to go swimming in alligator infested ponds at night to cool off also.

391 posted on 06/06/2007 1:37:24 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 389 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
I doubt if you can find anyone on this forum ignorant enough to agree with you on this one.

I am sure that Creationist could prove you wrong on this one ...

I'm not so sure. Even the creationist websites accept "micro-evolution" and bacterial adaptation. I haven't seen many on FR try to argue against that.

392 posted on 06/06/2007 2:54:47 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: js1138; Creationist

Let’s put it up and see?

Respond to this if you agree that “Mutations are never benifical, and information is always lost not gained.”


393 posted on 06/06/2007 2:56:59 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 392 | View Replies]

To: balch3
we are winning the intellectual battle against Darwinism

What do you mean winning? You already have won, apparently. Or did you miss all of the several hundred announcements of the demise of Darwinism over the last 160 years?

The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm

In the magical world of antievolutionism saying makes it so. No messy stuff like original scientific research necessary. So go and celebrate already.

394 posted on 06/06/2007 2:59:13 PM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 365 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
Respond to this if you agree that “Mutations are never beneficial, and information is always lost not gained.”

Honk if you're brain dead?

395 posted on 06/06/2007 3:03:37 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 393 | View Replies]

To: celmak
I did not say anything: I wrote something.

There are plenty of legitimate attacks to make, but this isn't one of them. One of the definitions of "say" is "to indicate, show, convey." Look it up.
396 posted on 06/06/2007 3:06:04 PM PDT by newguy357
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
Mutations are never benifical, and information is always lost not gained

This is disproved constantly, indeed routinely. (There are whole areas of microbiology, even of industrial microbiology, that wouldn't work at all if it were true.) Just one example below, from this page. Not the portion I highlighted at the end. There's no question that these were new mutations, not variations that already existed:

P.E. Hansche and J.C. Francis set up chemosats to allow evolution of a single clonal line of beer yeast in a phosphate limited (due to high pH) environment. (A chemostat is a device that allows the propagation of microorganisms in an extremely constant environment.) The yeast clones grew slowly for about the first 180 generations when there was an abrupt increase in population density. This was later shown to be due to better assimilation of the phosphate, presumably due to an improvement in the permease molecule. (Permease is an enzyme that controls what is allowed to come into the cell through the yeast's cell membrane.) After about 400 generations, a second improvement in cell growth rates occurred because of a mutation to the yeast's phosphatase (an enzyme that improves the cells ability to use phosphate). The phosphatase became more active overall, and its optimal pH (the pH where it is most active) was raised. Finally, a third mutant appeared after 800 generations that caused the yeast cells to clump. This raised the population density in the chemostat because individual cells were no longer being washed out of chemostat (which is one of the methods that the chemostat uses to maintain very uniform conditions) as quickly as they had prior to the mutation. (This is just speculation on my part, but I wonder if it wasn't under some similar conditions that multi-cellularity became favored over unicellularity - perhaps on a sea bed or river bottom.)

This experiment was repeated, and the same mutations occurred, but in different orders. Also, in one replication, the processing of phosphate was improved by a duplication of the gene that produces phosphatase. This is experimental evidence of an extremely important mechanism in evolutionary history! It is also a particularly elegant experiment because not only was all of this adaptation shown to occur in clonal lines (descended from a single individual), but the authors also determined the exact mutations that caused the improved adaptations by sequencing the genes and proteins involved.

Francis, J.E., & Hansche, P.E. (1972) Directed evolution of metabolic pathways in microbial populations. I. Modification of the acid phosphatase pH optimum in Saccharaomyces cervisiae. Genetics, 70: 59-73.

Francis, J.E., & Hansche, P.E. (1973) Directed evolution of metabolic pathways in microbial populations. II. A repeatable adaptation in Saccharaomyces cervisiae. Genetics, 74:259-265.

Hansche, P.E. (1975) Gene duplication as a mechanism of genetic adaptation in Saccharaomyces cervisiae. Genetics, 79: 661-674.


397 posted on 06/06/2007 3:10:50 PM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 393 | View Replies]

To: celmak
There called

Obviously you are a product of the public school system ...

398 posted on 06/06/2007 3:13:08 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
Damn typos...
Note the portion I highlighted at the end.

399 posted on 06/06/2007 3:15:46 PM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies]

To: Creationist
"You said, Archeology has NEVER validated the flood."

"http://www.earthage.org/polystrate/Fossil%20Trees%20of%20Nova%20Scotia.htm"

this nonsense has been refuted more time than my cat has dandruff flakes so I won't bother with it. TalkOrigins has a short explanation of what really happened, you might want to take a look at it.

"http://www.antaresfossils.com/green_river_rare_fish.htm Expain how a fish does not rot when it by your belief takes thousands or millions of years to deposit the material over it."

In fact, the preservation of fossils requires, in just about every case, quick coverage.

One of the assumptions that modern science makes is that historical events can be seen in terms of current events, where events we observe today are physically consistent with events in the past. Today we see cataclysmic events all the time - floods, droughts, landslides, mud slides, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes, underwater landslides (slumps) and a number of others, all of which can contribute to trapping and enclosing living organisms quickly. In the past we see evidence of many of these same processes on a local level, not a global level which is required by your belief system.

If you are going to argue against science I suggest you forget about building strawmen.

400 posted on 06/07/2007 10:16:04 AM PDT by b_sharp (The last door on your right. Jiggle the handle. If they scream ignore it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 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