Ken Ham poses with dinosaur models in his unfinished $25 million Answers in Genesis museum.
Posted on 05/23/2005 3:29:06 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Ken Ham has spent 11 years working on a museum that poses the big question - when and how did life begin? Ham hopes to soon offer an answer to that question in his still-unfinished Creation Museum in northern Kentucky.
The $25 million monument to creationism offers Ham's view that God created the world in six, 24-hour days on a planet just 6,000 years old. The largest museum of its kind in the world, it hopes to draw 600,000 people from the Midwest and beyond in its first year.
Ham, 53, isn't bothered that his literal interpretation of the Bible runs counter to accepted scientific theory, which says Earth and its life forms evolved over billions of years.
Ham said the museum is a way of reaching more people along with the Answers in Genesis Web site, which claims to get 10 million page views per month and his "Answers ... with Ken Ham" radio show, carried by more than 725 stations worldwide.
"People will get saved here," Ham said of the museum. "It's going to fire people up. If nothing else, it's going to get them to question their own position of what they believe."
Ham is ready for a fight over his beliefs - based on a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, the first book of the Old Testament.
"It's a foundational battle," said Ham, a native of Australia who still speaks with an accent. "You've got to get people believing the right history - and believing that you can trust the Bible."
Among Ham's beliefs are that the Earth is about 6,000 years old, a figure arrived at by tracing the biblical genealogies, and not 4.5 billion years, as mainstream scientists say; the Grand Canyon was formed not by erosion over millions of years, but by floodwaters in a matter of days or weeks and that dinosaurs and man once coexisted, and dozens of the creatures - including Tyrannosaurus Rex - were passengers on the ark built by Noah, who was a real man, not a myth.
Although the Creation Museum's full opening is still two years away, already a buzz is building.
"When that museum is finished, it's going to be Cincinnati's No. 1 tourist attraction," says the Rev. Jerry Falwell, nationally known Baptist evangelist and chancellor of Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va. "It's going to be a mini-Disney World."
Respected groups such as the National Science Board, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Science Teachers Association strongly support the theory of evolution. John Marburger, the Bush administration's science adviser, has said, "Evolution is a cornerstone of modern biology."
Many mainstream scientists worry that creationist theology masquerading as science will have an adverse effect on the public's science literacy.
"It's a giant step backward in science education," says Carolyn Chambers, chair of the biology department at Xavier University, which is operated by the Jesuit order of the Catholic church.
Glenn Storrs, curator of vertebrate paleontology for the Cincinnati Museum Center, leads dinosaur excavations in Montana each summer. He said the theory of dinosaurs and man coexisting is a "non-issue."
"And so, I believe, is the age of the Earth," Storrs said. "It's very clear the Earth is much older than 6,000 years."
The Rev. Mendle Adams, pastor of St. Peter's United Church of Christ in Pleasant Ridge, takes issue with Ham's views - and the man himself.
"He takes extraordinary liberties with Scripture and theology to prove his point," Adams said. "The bottom line is, he is anti-gay, and he uses that card all the time."
Ham says homosexual behavior is a sin. But he adds that he's careful to condemn the behavior, not the person.
Even detractors concede that Ham has appeal.
Ian Plimer, chair of geology at the University of Melbourne, became aware of Ham in the late 1980s, when Ham's creationist ministry in Australia was just a few years old.
"He is promoting the religion and science of 350 years ago," says Plimer. "He's a far better communicator than most mainstream scientists."
Despite his communication skills, Ham admits he doesn't always make a good first impression. But, that doesn't stop him from trying to spread his beliefs.
"He'd be speaking 20 hours a day if his body would let him," said Mike Zovath, vice president of museum operations.
Ham's wife of 32 years agrees. "He finds it difficult talking about things apart from the ministry," Mally Ham says. "He doesn't shut off."
Ham said he has no choice but to speak out about what he believes.
"The Lord gave me a fire in my bones," Ham says. "The Lord has put this burden in my heart: 'You've got to get this information out.'"
Okay. Does the oven's magnetron generate the same frequency as the speed of light? Also, how am I to be certain what I am measuring is really a wave without taking someone else's word for it?
Believing in God does not matter...as they say, even Satan believes in God. Its what you believe about God that matters.
One is free to "believe" that the bus barreling along the highway does not exist, despite the physical evidence to the contrary; that will not change the result of stepping out in front of it.
One is free not to believe that one day we will stand before the God of the Bible and receive the justice we all deserve for our sins; not believing it will happen does not change the result that it will.
If evo is true, God did not create, if evo is true, God did not come to save us...I can not believe it. The evo evidence being sited does not convince me otherwise.
"Okay. Does the oven's magnetron generate the same frequency as the speed of light?"
Do you think that English should be the official language of the United States?
I believe microwaves are smaller than light waves, such that they are not visible to the eye. At least that is what I have been told. Has someone lied to me about this?
http://www.answers.com/topic/magnetron
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/on-line/electron/section5/magnetron.asp
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/M/Ma/Magnetron.htm
http://www.tpub.com/neets/book11/45i.htm
:-)
"Not quite sure what youre getting at because I dont use the term scientific in my response."
Scientific evidence and divine revelation are not identical. I don't care if you didn't use the term "scientific," that was the parallel you attempted to draw.
"One is free not to believe that one day we will stand before the God of the Bible and receive the justice we all deserve for our sins; not believing it will happen does not change the result that it will."
Unfortunately, there is no _evidence_ to support your thesis.
"If evo is true, God did not create,"
I see your problem; you refuse to acknowledge that the theory of evolution says nothing about religion.
What, pray tell, prevented the Creator from creating evolution, aside from your childish demand that he run His Universe as you wish?
Not only so, but I believe every orange ought to be an apple and every apple an orange. If I am going to directly measure the speed of light, I reckon the best thing to measure is the light itself, don't you? Why thrown in extrapolations when we can measure the real thing with a microwave, a ruler, and a chunk of chocolate?
Well, if you really think that English should be the official language of the United States, then please do everyone a favor and learn how to write it competently.
Frequency and velocity are not synonymous.
Yes.
Google the electromagnetic spectrum. The wavelength of the EM in a microwave oven is far longer than visible light. However, they are both the same stuff and travel at the same speed in a vacuum.
It truly is argumentum ad stupidum.
aside from your childish demand that he run His Universe as you wish?
The only thing childish is your communication method.
why dude, why?
At the risk of being called "lazy" I'll take your word for it. What assumptions must I make to accept your proposition as true? None at all?
Now you are just being silly. I think I am being had here.
No. It is a failure on your part to comprehend the relationship between faith and facts. Is it not you who said "I trust my own understanding of physics?" You further mischaracterize my attitude toward learning as one of deliberate ignorance. But I should expect as much from those who fail to distinguish between immutable fact and reasonable conjecture and then set themselves up as preachers in the classroom.
On the contrary, I'm using the evidence you yourself have posted. You just don't like the way I'm using it.
Speed and frequency are two different things. The frequency is the number of wave crests per second. If you're at the beach and the waves lap up on to shore one every second, that is a frequency of one Hertz. Say each wave at the beach are a yard apart between crests, that's the wave length. The speed of a wave is defined as the wave lenght times the frequency.
Have you ever taken a long phone cord and shook it so it vibraves like a guitar string? Notice if you shake it a little faster, you'll end up with a spot half-way down the cord that looks like it isn't moving. This is a harmonic node. There are also nodes at your hand, and at the phone where the cord is plugged into. The distance away from this center area the cord travels is the amplitude of the wave. These areas of the highest energy are the antinodes. Notice that there are two of them, one on each side of the stationary spot in the middle. In this case the frequency is the number of complete shakes in one second, and the wavelength is the distance from your hand to the phone.
What you are measuring with the chocolate bar or thermal fax paper are the antinodes. These are places where the energy is highest. There are two of them per every full wavelenght. Light and sound can be thought of just like a wave at the beach or a rope, but instead of up and down motion, they have areas of high and low pressure or energy. In areas of high energy, food cooks. In areas of low energy you get cold spots.
So, when the chocolate bar is put into the microwave without the turntable, some areas get hot much faster than others. The hot spots are where the antinodes are. Measuring the distance between the hot spots gives you the distance between two antinodes. This is half a wavelength.
Microwave ovens all work on a frequency of about 2.5 Giga Hertz. This is because this frequency of light excites water molecules. Excitement translates into heat. There may be slight variation in the exact frequency of any particular oven, but all ovens work around 2.5 Giga Hertz. The speed of a wave is defined as the frequency multiplied by its wavelength. Since the distance between two antinodes gives you half a wavelength, multiply this times two. This will give you the speed of light. Hot spots in microwaves are all about 5 to 6 centimeters (2 1/2 to 3 inches) apart.
This is why microwaves have turntables in them, in order to spread the energy around. Without the turntable, food will have hot and cold spots and won't cook evenly.
Now that you know the speed of light, you can do more things like use trigonometry to figure out how far Supernova 1987A is. Light travelling at 3 x 10^8 meters per second from that exploding star took almost 170,000 years to get here. Supernova 1987A is the most distant object measured through direct triangulation, and it is almost 10^18 or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles away.
OR ...
Oh, you've only seen them. Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?
< /Chugabrew>
Silly or not, I'd appreciate a thoughtful answer. Again, no need for citations or links. Tell me what assumptions I must make to accept your propostion regarding the similitude of micro waves and visible waves, namely that they "are both the same stuff and travel at the same speed in a vacuum."
Without the concept of wavelength, frequency and speed of travel have nothing to do with each other.
Wavelength x Frequency = Speed
The frequency of visible light is several orders of magnitude greater than your microwave oven.
The wavelength of your oven is measured in centimeters 12cm (2.45 Ghz).
Visible light is measured in nanometers. Red is around 700nm (428,000 Ghz), a nominal green is about 525nm (570,000 Ghz).
Although your post could have been more brief I appreciate the attempt at explaining things in your own words. I already accept, by faith, the standard scientific rendering of the speed of light, none of which would be possible without intelligent design. It makes for an interesting excercise, however, to examine how we got there and what assmptions have to be made along the way.
It seems to me there may be a leap of conclusions and assumptions when the speed of light is applied to observable phenomenon to arrive at a 4.5 billion-year-old earth, not the least of which is Einstein's postulate that nothing travels faster than the speed of light in a vaccuum.
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.