Skip to comments.Creation Museum Marries Adam, Eve and Dinosaurs
Posted on 05/26/2007 9:24:34 AM PDT by Sleeping Beauty
Some Scientists Worry That Sophisticated Center Will Distort Children's Views of Science
According to an ABC News poll, 60 percent of Americans believe God created the world in six days. In Petersburg, Ky., this weekend, a creation museum is opening that depicts a story far from what you may have learned in science class.
Exhibits at almost every natural history museum teach that dinosaurs are millions of years old, and that they died out long before human beings existed. But at the Creation Museum, they say God created dinosaurs and humans at the same time.
The Creation Museum, designed by the same man behind some of the attractions at Universal Studios in Florida, is a $27 million, high-tech sensory experience with animatronic dinosaurs and a movie theater with seats that shake.
The museum is intended to convince visitors that evolution is wrong and that the biblical story of life on earth from Adam and Eve to Noah's ark is scientifically verifiable.
The museum depicts Adam living with animals, including a dinosaur.
Ken Ham, the president of Answers in Genesis, the group that is funding the museum, says that only "secular scientists" would maintain that the first humans never lived with dinosaurs.
"[Scientists] can say that, but what's their evidence?" Ham says, insisting that "All land animals were made on day six."
Mainstream scientists worry that because the museum is so technically sophisticated, it could be effective in giving children a distorted view of science.
"That they'll show up in classrooms and say, 'Gee, Mrs. Brown, I went to this spiffy museum last summer and they say that everything you're teaching me is a lie,'" said Eugenie Scott, the executive director of the National Center for Science Education.
Ham believes that's what should happen.
"And I say, great. Amen. That's what this place is all about," he said. "It's meant to challenge people."
The stakes are high. The museum argues that evolution jeopardizes people's belief in the Bible and leads to social ills like pornography and abortion.
"In an evolutionary world view, why should you have things like absolute morality? Why would it be wrong to kill someone?" said Jason Lisle, of Answers in Genesis. "I'm not saying that evolutionists aren't moral. I'm saying they have no reason to be moral."
[more at the link]
Here is the only true thing said in the article.
As always, your transitional fossils will be found out to be its own species, not in transition at all.
So everything is in transition is it?
Can you point to anything in existance that is changing from one species to another species?
Tiktaalik to the rescue?
In the April 2006, issue of Nature, Daeschler, et al. reported the discovery of several fossilized specimens of a Crossopterygian fish named Tiktaalik roseae. These well preserved specimens were found in sedimentary layers of siltstonecross-bedded with sandstonesin Artic Canada.4
Like the other lobe-fin fish, Tiktaalik was declared to be late Devonian (between 385-359 million years old) by means of a dating method known as palynomorph biostratigraphy. This method presumes to date sedimentary rock layers on the basis of the assumed evolutionary age of pollen and spores contained in the rock. Most importantly, the discoverers of Tiktaalik claim that it represents an intermediate between fish with fins and tetrapods with limbs.
Tiktaalik is a fish
Whatever else we might say about Tiktaalik, it is a fish. In a review article on Tiktaalik (appearing in the same issue of the scientific journal Nature that reported the discovery of Tiktaalik), fish evolution experts, Ahlberg and Clack concede that in some respects Tiktaalik and Panderichthys are straightforward fishes: they have small pelvic fins, retain fin rays in their paired appendages and have well-developed gill arches, suggesting that both animals remained mostly aquatic. 5
In other respects, however, Ahlberg and Clack argue that Tiktaalik is more tetrapod-like than Panderichthys because the bony gill cover has disappeared, and the skull has a longer snout. The authors weakly suggest that the significance of all this is that a longer snout suggests a shift from sucking towards snapping up prey, whereas the loss of gill cover bones probably correlates with reduced water flow through the gill chamber. The ribs also seem larger in Tiktaalik, which may mean it was better able to support its body out of water.
Without the authors evolutionary bias, of course, there is no reason to assume that Tiktaalik was anything other than exclusively aquatic. And how do we know that Tiktaalik lost its gill cover as opposed to never having one? The longer snout and lack of bony gill covers (found in many other exclusively-aquatic living fish) are interpreted as indicating a reduced flow of water through the gills, which, in turn, is declared to be suggestive of partial air-breathingbut this is quite a stretch. Finally, what does any of this have to do with fish evolving into land dwelling tetrapods?
Are the pectoral fins of Tiktaalik really legs?
Before we get into Tiktaaliks legs, it might be instructive to consider an old trick question. If we call our arms legs, then how many legs would we have? The answer, of course, is two legsjust because we call our arms legs doesnt make them legs. The same might be said of the bony fins of Crossopterygian fishwe may call them legs but that doesnt necessarily make them legs.
Shubin et al. make much of the claim that Tiktaaliks bony fins show a reduction in dermal bone and an increase in endochondral bone.6 This is important to them because the limb bones of tetrapods are entirely endochondral. They further claim that the cleithrum (a dermal bone to which the pectoral fin is attached in fish) is detached from the skull, resembling the position of the scapula (shoulder blade) of a tetrapod. They also claim that the endochondral bones of the fin are more similar to those of a tetrapod in terms of structure and range of motion. However, none of this, if true, proves that Tiktaaliks fins supported its weight out of water, or that it was capable of a true walking motion. (It certainly doesnt prove that these fish evolved into tetrapods.)
The Bibles account of the true history of the world makes it clear that no fossil can be more than a few thousand years old.
That is not scientific evidence. Science shows an old earth, dinosaurs not co-existing with humans, and no flood. You can dissemble all you want, it won't change a thing.
Someone has duped you in to believing that you are incapable of studying for yourself. As if all books that were translated from another language cannot be understood by someone who doesn't speak the original language.
This was a tactic that was perpetuated by the Catholic Church during the Dark Ages, and which also makes the Reformation such a monumental turning point in Church history. Luther's finest contribution to mankind was his desire to get the Word of God into the individuals hands, and was the impetus for the migration of some of the brightest minds in Europe to flee the Catholic Church to America.
That is not to say that a person who choose a mans opinion over straightforward scriptures cannot be a believer. It just means that they are going to be injured along the way as God drags their resisting lives to the destination of his choosing, rather than walking alongside God enjoying a rich relationship.
It is you that is saying that the soil is that old, not us.
But even if that old, there is a Creationist view that can account for an Old Universe, but a recent creation-the Gap theory.
The Bibles account of the true history of the world makes it clear that no fossil can be more than a few thousand years old. That is not scientific evidence. Science shows an old earth, dinosaurs not co-existing with humans, and no flood. You can dissemble all you want, it won't change a thing.
Ofcourse it won't change anything because you do not want to know the truth.
You want to believe the lie.
I gave you existent dinosaur bones, something you said couldn't exist.
Call it what it is.
A religious interpretation of natural history.
I find that take incredibly myopic however.
True. I was not aware of those. But the article does not support your idea that they are of the same age as humans (ca. 5000 years). And this article shows they are about 69.1 ± 0.3 million years old. It also shows that:
Microbeam PIXE has revealed that calcium and phosphorus are at reasonably expected concentrations in the analyzed dinosaur bone samples. However, significant amounts of iron, zinc, manganese, barium and strontium have been observed to be distributed throughout all dinosaur bone thin sections analyzed. Concentrations of many of these elements are at least an order of magnitude higher than those in modern reptilian and mammalian bones [emphasis added].You still can't place humans and dinosaurs in the same time frame.
Since I am a religious Jew who is respectful of, and interested in studying Christian Theology, could someone please tell me which one is the correct version - you know - the one that's infallible, etc. At least with the Torah, it can be read in the language in which it was originally written.
The problem is, unless the symbols within any given language, each have one, and only one meaning, then you face the same logical problem within the system, that you do between the systems.
That said, you can take your hint of sarcasm and shove it up your ass.
Someone has duped you in to believing that you are incapable of studying for yourself. As if all books that were translated from another language cannot be understood.
Thanks for clearing that up. I was not aware that I was incapable of independent study.
Rather than take the time to learn Ancient Greek, Latin and all other ancient languages that the books of the Bible were written in (as you obviously must have done since you have not been 'duped'), I was just asking for advice in the interest of saving time..
So I guess all English translations of the Bible are the correct translations even though they differ greatly.
Once again, thanks for the info.
P.S. If you read a secular book such as Dostoyevsky's works in the original Russian, or even a good French translation, it will be much more detailed and descriptive than most English versions. The basic story is the same, but there are SIGNIFICANT NUANCES between different translations.
Are you denying the differences in the various English translations of the Bible? Or are you saying that even though they disagree with each other, they all have equal validity?
Oh, that’s right, you guys like to start with everything already existing and just ‘evolving’.
Nope. Scientists don’t make unwarranted assumptions. Science is still looking for the answer of creation. They don’t believe it will be found in ancient fables though. They keep an open mind about such things. I guess that’s why religion appeals to so many. Someones scribblings can be declared the final word on a subject and no further analysis needs to be applied.
And Jesus disagreed with St. Augustine about whether the first two chapters of Genesis were literal. I'll stick with Jesus.
So if God created Adam as a full grown man this was meant to deceive? If God did create Adam as a mature man, why couldn't he do the same with the universe?
“Look at the bright side.
Their children won’t be able to compete with ours for jobs requiring real science.”
My son’s about the graduate UCLA with a Physics Degree. Four more kids in the pipeline. Watch out!
“It is extremely interesting that Americans feel so different about this issue. Is it possible that the resticted access to information (i.e. through homeschooling) of certain levels of the American population leaves many people unknowing?”
We feel different about this issue because we are hugely Christian country. Europe is a post-Christian continent.
As for restricted access to information, I suggest you suffer from that in your government schools. How much creation science evidence were you offered? Did you get to hear a debate? Did you get to read anything that questioned Darwinism? Were any of the weaknesses of Darwinian theory exposed? If not, you were brainwashed.
I find this funny. When I attended public school four years ago, there was only one paragraph about evolution in my high school biology textbook.
Evolution in public schools is a non-issue. It is nothing more than a proxy battle between opposing dogmas: ardent, unwavering Atheism, and ardent unwavering Christianity. Both sides are certain that they are correct, and neither is willing to concede.
I do not think that creationism belongs in the science classroom. Evolution is clearly superior in the evidence department, and that’s where it counts. But then again, I do not think it would do any great disservice to students who will likely continue on into careers that have nothing to do with fossils or phylogeny. Ultimately, what is taught in the classroom is of small importance.
The crux of my opinion: it is up to individual jurisdictions to decide what should and should not be taught.
Creationism cannot stand up to genuine scientific scrutiny, and it is this gambit of science that is infinitely more important than what is taught in some grade six science curriculum. This is why creationism will never be taken seriously outside of religious circles.
We have the writings of St Augustine. We do not have the writings of Jesus
An interesting propaganda piece that is heavy on opinion and light on evidence.
No one contests that Tiktaalik was fish. What is important is that it has characteristics that are similar to that tetrapods.
We have the words of both.
I hear this complaint all the time, usually from those who are trying to persuade people the Bible is unreliable.
Some are worded better than others, but the same ideas are presented. The 4 standards in English Bibles are King James, New King James, New American Standard and the New International Version. Most churches will teach from one version while many of the parishioners have one of the other three versions in their lap.
Subtle nuances are very different from disagreements. Disagreements convey a different idea, whereas what you find in the 4 main English translations is different wording expressing the same ideas.
The main English translations have been thoroughly combed by the best Religious & Secular scholars.