Dinosaurs, humans coexist in U.S. creation museum

Reuters ^ | 1 hour, 39 minutes ago | Andrea Hopkins

[Tim Long]

PETERSBURG, Kentucky - Ken Ham's sprawling creation museum isn't even open yet, but an expansion is already underway in the state-of-the art lobby, where grunting dinosaurs and animatronic humans coexist in a Biblical paradise.

A crush of media attention and packed preview sessions have convinced Ham that nearly half a million people a year will come to Kentucky to see his Biblically correct version of history.

"I think we'll be surprised at how many people come," Ham said as he dodged dozens of designers working to finish exhibits in time for the May 28 opening.

The $27 million project, which also includes a planetarium, a special-effects theater, nature trails and a small lake, is privately funded by people who believe the Bible's first book, Genesis, is literally true.

For them, a museum showing Christian schoolchildren and skeptics alike how the earth, animals, dinosaurs and humans were created in a six-day period about 6,000 years ago -- not over millions of years, as evolutionary science says -- is long overdue.

While foreign media and science critics have mostly come to snigger at exhibits explaining how baby dinosaurs fit on Noah's Ark and Cain married his sister to people the earth, museum spokesman and vice-president Mark Looy said the coverage has done nothing but drum up more interest.

"Mocking publicity is free publicity," Looy said. Besides, U.S. media have been more respectful, mindful perhaps of a 2006 Gallup Poll showing almost half of Americans believe that humans did not evolve, but were created by God in their present form within the last 10,000 years.

Looy said supporters of the museum include evangelical Christians, Orthodox Jews and conservative Catholics, as well as the local Republican congressman, Geoff Davis (news, bio, voting record), and his family, who have toured the site.

FROM 'JAWS' TO EDEN

While the debate between creationists and mainstream scientists has bubbled up periodically in U.S. schools since before the Scopes "monkey trial" in nearby Tennessee 80 years ago, courts have repeatedly ruled that teaching religious theory in public schools is unconstitutional.

Ham, an Australian who moved to America 20 years ago, believes creationists could have presented a better case at the Scopes trail if they'd been better educated -- but he's not among those pushing for creation to be taught in school.

Rather than force skeptical teachers to debate creation, Ham wants kids to come to his museum, where impassioned experts can make their case that apparently ancient fossils and the Grand Canyon were created just a few thousand years ago in a great flood.

"It's not hitting them over the head with a Bible, it's just teaching that we can defend what it says," he said.

Ham, who also runs a Christian broadcasting and publishing venture, said the museum's Hollywood-quality exhibits set the project apart from the many quirky Creation museums sprinkled across America.

The museum's team of Christian designers include theme park art director Patrick Marsh, who designed the "Jaws" and "King Kong" attractions at Universal Studios in Florida, as well as dozens of young artists whose conviction drives their work.

"I think it shows (nonbelievers) the other side of things," said Carolyn Manto, 27, pausing in her work painting Ice Age figures for a display about caves in France.

"I don't think it's going to be forcing any viewpoint on them, but challenging them to think critically about their evolutionary views," said Manto, who studied classical sculpture before joining the museum.

Still, Looy is upfront about the museum's mission: to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with nonbelievers.

"I think a lot of people are going to come out of curiosity ... and we're going to present the Gospel. This is going to be an evangelistic center," Looy said. A chaplain has been hired for museum-goers in need of spiritual guidance.

The museum's rural location near the border of Kentucky, Ohio and Indiana places it well within America's mostly conservative and Christian heartland. But the setting has another strategic purpose: two-thirds of Americans are within a day's drive of the site, and Cincinnati's international airport is minutes away.

The project has not been without opposition. Zoning battles with environmentalists and groups opposed to the museum's message have delayed construction and the museum's opening day has been delayed repeatedly.

The museum has hired extra security and explosives-sniffing dogs to counter anonymous threats of damage to the building. "We've had some opposition," Looy said.

[CottShop]

[Putting aside quibbles about the accuracy of this statement, I take it you accept that the Cambrian period commenced approximately 542 million years ago and ended approximately 488 million years ago, and that you are therefore not a young earth creationist. Correct?]

No. I'm arguing that there was an explosion of fully formed species at one point. I've left out the fact for now that my belief is that it was not that long ago. I don't take a position on whether it was 6000 years or 10,000 as I'm not convinced one way or the other that God's 'days' were 24 hour days in the beginning- God did say one day is as a 1000 years. But there is nothing concrete indicating what the literal days were during creation.

[Again, putting aside your notion of "basically nothing" pre-Cambrian, I take it from this statement that you accept the existence of transitionals in the fossil record from at least the Cambrian period forward. Correct?]

Again no- there is no evidence of 'transitionals' in the fossil records- Fish with legs? Sorry- all it is is fish with legs. The genetics show that clams have always been clams, birds have always been birds etc etc etc. there are no genetics indicating half one species, half another. The earth should have mountains of transitional species fossils as Darwin himself noted- the fact is, there aren't, but there are completed species that shopw up all at once. Creation? Nah- can't be- has to be something else- right?

[As for your "built in protection levels" that prevent speciation, you seem to be contradicting yourself. It certainly appears that you accept the existence of "transitionals", yet you state:]

I do accept transitionals?

[Are you contending that speciation does not occur, but that the fossil record nevertheless contains transitionals?]

No what the records clearly show is adaption- NOT NEW information in species. This is a VERY important key point to understand if you're going to argue further this on this issue.

[And with respect to your "protections", what, precisely, are these "protections"? Invisible force fields of some sort? Or maybe armor plating? Or some kind of "DNA-acide"? Since this is the first I've ever heard about "built in protections," perhaps you could be a tad more specific, or at least direct me to some kind of literature on the subject.]

Nope- they are little dynamite packages that are set with trip wires- when an invading mutation tries to thwart the gen code, WHAM!- seriously though the protections are built in coding that prevent seriuous degredations from taking place that would alter species specific instructions- there are several layers, and the deeper we look into the tiniest structures and processes, the more intricate these protections become. A study of cellular construct will show you the immense complexities and protections I'm talking about.

[CottShop]

[If radiocarbon dating is only good for 50,000 year-old specimens, or younger... how do we get the ages of older specimens? I can see where we can extrapolate ages of geological formations from what is in each layer, etc, but how do we know, for example, how old a rock is?]

They don't know- Carbon dating is uselss past about 4000 years (not 50,000 as asserted by advocates) due to several factors as I've laid out previously- Coyote evidently found a 'Christian' who has bout into the lies yet ingores the evidences presented that show WHY carbon dating AND the 'other' methods coyote claims are used with accuracy are infact innacurate- But argue with him if ya like- He'll simply keep posting the same stuff as though there were no evidences showing the innacuracies of dating methods, and present his links as though none of the innacuracies really matter.

[dread78645]

Those would fit in a pretty small space.

What would?
Lions, tigers, panthers, hyenas, leopards, and jaguars?

[Coyoteman]

there is no evidence of 'transitionals' in the fossil records...

False. This is a transitional. Note its position in the chart which follows (hint--in the upper center).

Your claim ("no evidence of 'transitionals' in the fossil records") is meaningless as you seem to lack the training to have a valid opinion in this particular area.

---

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33

Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html

[CottShop]

[I asked some creationists to prove their assertions, and I got nothing but the usual hyperbolic spin, the scientific ignorance and the usual common sense disconnect.]

Bull patties- what you got was a powerful lot of fact that you conveinently ignored claiming it was not valid simply because the word God or Flood or some other pet peeve word was mentioned in the articles- You completely ignored the scientific facts, and zero'd in on NON issues in regards to the scientific facts- but- nice attempt at spinning your failure to address the facts presented. Might fool some I suppose- but those hwo see through the bull won't fall for it Central. For every fact presented- you've issued a 'It's invalid because they aren't 'real scientists because they hold Christian ideals' Yet even the secular sciences don't stoop to such banal arguments and take them seriously because the facts they present ARE serious matters that have plagued the evolution theory for centuries now. You're tactics might work with those who don't care to check out the foundations of the arguments- but really are nothing more than a smokescreen thrown up because you can't address the real issues being presented.

[CottShop]

Sorry Coyote- that is FAR from settled and has MANY problems of it's own- Just ask any scientist- http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter10_1.php

[DungeonMaster]

What would? Lions, tigers, panthers, hyenas, leopards, and jaguars?

Yes. Full grown is definitely not necessary.

[Coyoteman]

You should read the links you post.

That link you posted (http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter10_1.php) spends a lot of time following scientists' arguments over classification, then concludes that there are no pre-human ancestors so creation must have occurred.

The arguments cited in that website show instead that transitionals are indeed present. That's why these fossils are the subject of so much debate over classification, with some favoring Homo and others favoring Australopithecus -- they are intermediate between the two!

Rather than supporting the contention you had hoped, your link shows the opposite.

[billbears]

I remember as a boy, my father reading to me about, how on Glossopteris Sunday, Jesus rode into Jeruselam on the back of an Apatosaurus.

I shouldn't laugh but that's just funny right there.

[CottShop]

well by golly- they mentioned creation and the sudden appearance of FULLY FORMED man, so that automatically dissmisses the facts- Getting tired of this- The main point was totally ignored by you- Clear manipulation during assembly of skull fragments to support the preconceived notiuon of evolution.
"It has been confirmed by many researchers today that these creatures are members of the Australopithecus series. All of their anatomical features reveal that they are species of ape."

'Some favoring homo- some favoring Austra' then 'there is indeed transitionals'

Nope- there is indeed uncertanty and much speculation but no clear transition in species

"The fossil record shows that there is no evolutionary link between these extinct apes and Homo, i.e., human species that suddenly appears in the fossil record."

"Even the evolutionist Richard Leakey states that the differences between Homo erectus and modern man are no more than racial variance:

One would also see differences in the shape of the skull, in the degree of protrusion of the face, the robustness of the brows and so on. These differences are probably no more pronounced than we see today between the separate geographical races of modern humans. Such biological variation arises when populations are geographically separated from each other for significant lengths of time.83"

"Neanderthals were a human race, a fact which is admitted by almost everybody today. Evolutionists have tried very hard to present them as a "primitive species", yet all the findings indicate that they were no different from a "robust" man walking on the street today. A prominent authority on the subject, Erik Trinkaus, a paleoanthropologist from New Mexico University writes:

Detailed comparisons of Neanderthal skeletal remains with those of modern humans have shown that there is nothing in Neanderthal anatomy that conclusively indicates locomotor, manipulative, intellectual, or linguistic abilities inferior to those of modern humans.86 "

[longtermmemmory]

Then they wonder why creationists are conisdered loonies.

[CottShop]

and by the way- you are STILL ignoring the serious problem of the lack of transitional species that should be littering the earth and easily found- instead- you present contentious scant bone fragments as your 'proof' which are in no way proven, and infact, other evidences point ot hte fact that they are indeed not transitions at all? That's the best evolution can do? Throw up some VERY iffy fragments and call it transitional? Darwin himself admitted that if life evolved, there would be VAST amounts of trial and error going on as species struggled to use the random mutations to their advantage in order to 'evolve' into other species (although Darwin didn't understand that mutations could nbot possibly produce evolution- ) and there should be excessively copious amounts of these 'trial and error' 'transitional' fossils found- yet htere are none- all we find are completed species fossils going back as far as cambrian age when they came on the scene in abundance- fully formed. This is a major problem with the evolution model- one that can't be brushed off by claiming that because a site mentions that a sudden appearance suggests creation, then the FACTS that they present are invalidated- sorry- but the factes are never invalidated until PROVEN wrong by counter facts- Which has never happened in regards to the facts presented about lack of transitional species.

[CottShop]

wow what a brilliant rebuttle of the facts- By golly- you've shown us all up with thqat whitty and inspired piece of drivel. When you think you might wanna discuss the facts- stop by again- if you can't rise to that, then I'm sure there are some immature forums where you can all sit around and throw insults out at Christians all day long and slap each other on the back as though you've accomplished something significant-

[atlaw]

I'm arguing that there was an explosion of fully formed species at one point. I've left out the fact for now that my belief is that it was not that long ago. I don't take a position on whether it was 6000 years or 10,000 as I'm not convinced one way or the other that God's 'days' were 24 hour days in the beginning

So the Cambrian was sometime in the last 6 to 10 thousand years . . . With that, I'll take my leave from the conversation.

[tmp02]

Can anyone tell me how SIN evolved? 80 Billion years? Was it two substances colliding? Where did LOVE evolve from? I'm sure it is from nothing...

[CottShop]

I didn't expect any less- we've been arguing young earth here and providing evidences for suchj and pointijng out that if you beleive in old earth then you HAVE to put your faith in faulty dating methods and adopt a dogmatic beleif that eovlution and old earth are fact despite evidences against it- you'd have to be willing to ignore the evidences and instead rely on speculation and faulty methods- You'd also have to put faith in the fact that sciences have shovelled complete garbage into our heads by using absolute lies to support their ideology, and have nothing concrete to back up their claims- you'd also have to ignore the fact that evolution is a biological impossibility, and ignore the fact that left hand amino acids could NEVER make the impossible leap to protiens- after ignoring that- you'll have to ignore the fact that mutations can not create the NEW information necessary for the theory to be correct.

[CottShop]

and so on and so on- yep- takes a heaping lot of faith to ignore the impossiblities and insist on evolution and old earth- Ah- but evolution and old earth is 'reaL science' right?

[longtermmemmory]

No problem, you have a nice day.

See you at the next flat earth society meeting.

[DoctorMichael]

Some people will believe anything Bump.

[woollyone]

And, I for one, sure am thankful that we evolved from having only three fingers on each hand and three toes on each foot like they had back in Fred's day.

We've come a long way.

Psalm 19:1