Updated 04:40 pm.EST, Sat November 21, 2009

Education|Wed, Dec. 03 2008 09:24 AM EST

Hundreds of Complaints Force Zoo to Break Ties with Creation Museum

By Eric Young|Christian Post Reporter

A high volume of complaints have forced the Cincinnati Zoo to pull out of a special business partnership with the Creation Museum in nearby Petersburg, Ky., after running for less than three days.

  • Creation museum
    (Photo: Answers in Genesis)
    Visitors observe the life-size, animatronic Utahraptor, a velociraptor-type dinosaur whose remains were discovered in Utah in 1993, at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky.

The two institutions had come together to offer a special ticket package that gave visitors the opportunity to drop in on both at a discounted rate while promoting one another at the same time.

According to the Creation Museum’s founder, Ken Ham, however, the zoo received hundreds of complaints, many of which were opposed to the faith and ideas that the museum presents.

“It’s a pity that intolerant people have pushed for our expulsion simply because of our Christian faith,” Ham said, expressing disappointment in the zoo’s decision but also understanding of its perspective.

“Some of their comments on blogs reveal great intolerance for anything having to do with Christianity,” he added.

The Creation Museum, which cost $27 million to build, is a 60,000-square foot facility that opened last year in May and revived the creation/evolution debate among Young Earth creationists, Old Earth creationists, anti-creationism evolutionists, and theistic evolutionists.

Packed with high-tech exhibits that include animatronic dinosaurs and a huge wooden ark, the museum attempts to align the Bible’s literal account of creation with natural history. The museum’s founder, like many other Young Earth creationists, believes dinosaurs appeared on the same day God created other land animals.

Critics, however, both non-Christians and Christians who are against a literal interpretation of the Bible on life origins, have protested and spoke out against the anti-evolution display, worried that their children will be affected. The controversy garnered the new exhibit a large amount of media coverage.

“Frankly, we are used to this kind of criticism from our opponents,” Ham said regarding the latest controversy, “and so being ‘expelled’ like this is not a huge surprise.”

Despite the zoo’s decision, Ham said his museum would continue promoting the “excellent zoo” on its website and in printed material that is passed out inside of the museum.

“We are committed to promoting regional tourism,” he explained.

Furthermore, the museum will still provide $9 off of the ticket prices (the amount of the discount under the original agreement) from Dec. 2 to Dec. 11, with the exception of Saturday, Dec. 6. "Get the Museum/Zoo Discount Anyway," the museum website says.

Beginning on Dec. 12, the museum will have up its special Christmas display, which includes a live outdoor nativity scene and a special lighted “Road to Bethlehem” trail. Visitors to the museum grounds will also be met with hayrides, seasonal lights and decorations, holiday food, and events and activities for children. Inside the museum, there will be special Christmas exhibits including the Planetarium presentation “The Bethlehem Star.”

“We find the two – Creation and Christmas – go very well together,” says Creation Museum co-founder and spokesperson Mark Looy, “and we invite our guests to experience each in light of the other at our special ‘Bethlehem’s Blessings – A Christmas Celebration’ this December.”

Located near the Cincinnati Airport, the Creation Museum is a ministry of Answers in Genesis, a nonprofit Christian organization dedicated to confirming the validity of the Bible from the very first verse.

Since its opening in May 2007, the museum has seen over 600,000 visitors.

On the Web:

www.CreationMuseum.org

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4
  • Tue Jan 20, 2009 6:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Both scientists find fossilized bones in sedimentary layers of the earth. Sediment=fossilized mud; mud laid down either by a world-wide flood, OR a sloowwww gradual dusting (which in no way gives good explanation for poly-straight fossils"

    'Dusting'? Come again? F

    Local floods leave beds of sediment/mud in themselves which fossilize organisms too. This would go a long way in explaining why we find successive layers stacked on top of each other which were independently formed at different times, not by a single occurrence, but rather by several occasions. How could a single global flood even explain multiple layers all layered in succession? Obviously one layer would have to solidify prior to those above it, & when you're dealing with about a dozen layers, there is no reasoning a single flood, global or not, would result in such empirical data. Begin to explain that one.

    "the square shape of the grand canyon,"

    Square shape? come again?

    "or the fact that it was rubidium-strontium dated to be older at the top than the bottom)."

    Cite please

  • Tue Jan 20, 2009 6:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Jasonx10

    "People are constantly labeling creationists as 'ignorant' or 'unscientific'."

    Have you looked at Ken Ham's site lately? Kent Hovind? The Way of the Masters Kirk Cameron & Ray comfort? Yeah, they're not very scientific at all.

    "(when is the last nationally televised debate you've seen between a PHD Creationist and a PHD Evolutionist here in America?"

    They happen all the time chap, but they're rarely ever publicly aired on TV for the simple reason of ratings. In the confrontation between science & religion their have been many court appearances. In science conferences opposing views on evolutionary processes & methods are often discussed at great length, the issue is that people like Kent Hovind don't publish their work in the scientific peer reviewed literature, it never even makes it that far as by the time it's given a cursory look over it's shown to be wrong in many counts.

  • Fri Jan 16, 2009 8:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    'pro-science'?

    As if 'science' "says" one thing and creationists say another? Even within evolutionary biology (let alone other fields) you can not get any particular scientist to agree with another on a given matter, so 'science' is not an absolute foundation, but rather a process (one which is being maligned by so many FAITHfully antithetical people today).

    Pro-science, if you were truly 'pro-science', you would understand that the observation of present-day data; empirical evidence, is something that must be viewed through a window of presuppositions (and EVERY scientist makes them). Do not be so naive as to think that somehow 'darwinians are being honest about what they observe and creationists are distorting the facts'.

    Both scientists find fossilized bones in sedimentary layers of the earth. Sediment=fossilized mud; mud laid down either by a world-wide flood, OR a sloowwww gradual dusting (which in no way gives good explanation for poly-straight fossils or the square shape of the grand canyon, or the fact that it was rubidium-strontium dated to be older at the top than the bottom).

    A more adequate name for you might be 'pro-uniformity' (this a faith or a worldview, not an 'irrefutable factual foundation')

  • Fri Jan 16, 2009 8:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Good for AIG. This is intolerance. It's ridiculous how even a private organization is so demonized by people for something that will in no way affect their lives negatively. People are constantly labeling creationists as 'ignorant' or 'unscientific' (arent we Christians the 'intollerant' 'bigotted' ones?). The media generally demonizes creationists, the schools generally do; but the one thing they all have in common is a fear of an open debate (when is the last nationally televised debate you've seen between a PHD Creationist and a PHD Evolutionist here in America? You don't see them for the obvious reason that darwinians enjoy their monopoly on so-called 'scientific fact' and they would prefer most people continue to not understand that our presuppositions about a past we never physically witnessed influence how we view the empirical evidence available to us today).

  • Fri Dec 12, 2008 3:20 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    pro-science, I know who you are. The kind of put downs you have expressed on this thread you have expressed on many other threads but with a different ID. It has gotten you nowhere in the past except to be given the boot by CP. When are you going to stop with the put downs and start communicating your views of science in a respectful way? I really don't know why any of us waste our time with you.

  • Thu Dec 11, 2008 7:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 4

    Yeah, this is a bottomless pit of ignorance and religious extremism.

  • Thu Dec 11, 2008 6:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 4

    Pro,

    I think you've been sucked into this pit even farther than I have!

    Believer's last comment was so incoherent I might be tempted to assume there was not enough mental faculty there to warrant an argument.

    "pro, you're right, that's why [bible, bible, nonsense, irrelevance, bible, nya-nya-I-can't-hear-you...]" Wow.

    So much for apologetics, eh?

  • Thu Dec 11, 2008 3:25 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    believer, do you think you would go to hell if you watched the video I recommended?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI

    I really think, if there is a God, it would not approve of your willful ignorance.

    I really think, if there's a hell, you're going there if you don't stop being lazy and start educating yourself.

  • Thu Dec 11, 2008 3:13 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    pro, you're right that's why His desire is for every person to discover Him for who He really is by coming to accept Him through the person and finished work of His Son, Jesus Christ alone and come to realize that in its original autographs the Bible is the God-breathed, inerrant, plenary Word of God, literally the Word of God which can be wholly trusted and adhered to.

  • Thu Dec 11, 2008 1:16 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    "In my life, God has been faithful in what I have seen right in front of me. He has great credibility with me so I take His word for it and I do not pretend to understand how he could create everything."

    If there is a God, would it approve of people who are too lazy to do the hard work to understand the discoveries of modern science? Would a God approve of people who are willfully ignorant and too lazy to think for themselves? I doubt it.

  • Thu Dec 11, 2008 12:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    "blue, care to discuss the piltdown hoax?"

    There's thousands of fossils, but creationists are only interested in talking about a small handful of hoaxes and mistakes. Piltdown was a century ago, real scientists doubted it, real scientists proved it was nonsense, yet creationists will continue to complain about it for the next thousand years.

    Meanwhile in the real world, scientists continue to make important discoveries to learn more about the history of life. Evolution is already the strongest fact of science, and it grows stronger every day as biologists continue to compare DNA sequences to accurately determine thousands of evolutionary relationships.

    I know creationists are willfully ignorant. I know creationists are too lazy to study science. I know scientific evidence is meaningless to creationists, because they automatically reject any evidence, no matter how powerful it is, if it conflicts with their literal interpretation of Genesis, which was written by scientifically illiterate people thousands of years ago.

    Perhaps there is one creationist reading this who isn't a robot with a cemented shut mind. That creationist should watch this video. Anyone, who has any intelligence at all, would have to agree this video shows beyond any doubt people and chimps share an ancestor. The information in this video is smoking gun proof for the idea people are distant cousins of the other ape species.

    Are there any creationists who are able to think? I doubt it, but here's the video anyway.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI

  • Thu Dec 11, 2008 1:56 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "What caused HIV? This was the question. Where did HIV come from."

    HIV is caused by a virus, and according to biology, it's closely related to SIV. In other words, it's a variant of SIV, it evolved from it's old habitat to a new one.

    "Why is AIDS now a problem when it didn't seem to be recorded in history (or was it?)."

    Keep in mind how much the average life expectancy has risen globally in the past 150 years (nearly doubled). Prior to this, people could have HIV or AIDS and died from something else as sanitation wasn't a big fad just yet. As you might know, it takes a while to go 'full blown', typically at least 18 months, though sometimes 3-5 years. Also, we wouldn't know if it caused their death even 100 years ago for lack of understanding of biology and medicine and how viruses work. Some would invoke the demons or possessed spirits, and not attribute it to the actual virus itself.

    Without understanding virology and biology we couldn't record its causes effectively. We would know people would be dying like with the Plauge, but wouldn't know how to identify it.

    "Perhaps it was limited to the gay population as "dirty needles" didn't exist at the time and thus Paul wrote about "taking into themselves"."

    I doubt it, if you review the % and number of HIV/AIDS cases globally, over 85% are found in Africa, with some countries have a very high infection rate (50%).

  • Thu Dec 11, 2008 1:44 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    DP,

    "They may be wrong. It only takes about 100 years for current science to ask "what were they thinking to come up with that wrong answer".

    For this I would highlight how in centuries past we were ignorant of physics, and as a result Lord Kelvin (who rejected evolution) gave the age of the Earth an age of around 100 million years. Over time the evidence collected and tested has been pushing the age further and further back, we now have a lower limit age around 4.57 billion. It could be slightly older, but it's age matches quite well with other nearby objects like the Sun and the Moon.

  • Thu Dec 11, 2008 1:41 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    "could he not have created everything from Himself as is?"

    Hypothetically speaking, sure. It's also hypothetically possible this is all fake, and we're in 'The Matrix' virtual world. The issue though is this sort of hypothesis isn't at all testable by science (as it appeals to the untestable), so it's not at all possible to be demonstrated positively based on consistent evidence. In a word, it's not falsifiable.

    Take the concept of matter replication specifically food."

    Your grandiose stories deliver a wonder, but they're short on where it counts - evidence. Science and the tests that must be conducted must be done in a falsifiable manner so we can establish reality as it really is and not appeal to magic, angels, gnomes, elves, goblins and other demons which run through the mind. We are rational creatures, but this rationality in science is contingent on what can verified, and used to make accurate predictions.

  • Thu Dec 11, 2008 1:33 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    DP,

    "There is one other thing about radioactive dating. I think it was java man that was suppose to be so very old."

    'Java man' is a type specimen for Homo Erectus (like how 'Lucy' is the type specimen for A.Afarensis), in other words 'java man' is but one specimen of the fossils we have on record for Homo Erectus.

    "It turned out they were dating the dirt next to the bone and not the bone itself. The bone itself showed to be from the 1800's and the dude had arthritis."

    I must stress, with fossils (at least those older than 60,000) when they're found they almost never (or any measurable amounts) have any remaining Carbon 14, and so an slower decay isotope must be used.

    In doing so they are effectively dating the rock in which the fossil is encased, and if you're familiar with the fossilization process the dead organism absorbs the mineralization.

    The only hominid fossil of which 'arthritis' is related is an older Homo Neandethalensis from a Cave in modern Israel, it's one of the older fossils from the Neandthals, and it apparently suffered from arthritis.

  • Thu Dec 11, 2008 1:24 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Please note my arguement isn't saying the 4.5 billion is right or wrong. The arguement is simply saying we don't know as much as we think we do."

    DP, a bit of Socrates in there eh? =) I would agree, we are not all knowing, nor will we ever be I think, but for somethings we have a fair enough evidence which is consistent to justify our beliefs soundly and in principle this is why the age given earlier is used by scientists globally.

  • Wed Dec 10, 2008 11:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    There is one other thing about radioactive dating. I think it was java man that was suppose to be so very old. It turned out they were dating the dirt next to the bone and not the bone itself. The bone itself showed to be from the 1800's and the dude had arthritis. There are stories on both sides of the arguement on this one for sure.

    The point is too many people on both sides of the arguement are more interested in 'winning' than they are in the persuit of knowledge. Numbers can be changed. Info can be twisted. Methods can be "adjusted" intentionally or unintentionally. At this point in the game it takes great faith to accept any position on the origin of man.

    In my life, God has been faithful in what I have seen right in front of me. He has great credibility with me so I take His word for it and I do not pretend to understand how he could create everything.

    Here's one for you. Science says matter and energy are interchangeable. If in fact God is "all powerful" could he not have created everything from Himself as is? Take the concept of matter replication specifically food. Say we get that technology and you make a steak. Will the aged beef really be aged. If you measure it's age and it shows to have been aged for 3 months will it really have been aged for 3 months or was it replicated that way?

  • Wed Dec 10, 2008 11:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "DP, earlier on another thread you were unaware to the link between how HIV results in AIDS, something that has been publicaly known for over 2 decades."

    Actually, earlier in the thread I was saying we didn't know what caused AIDS. Yes it is a result of HIV. In the medical field many refer to AIDS as advance HIV and 'full blown AIDS'. What caused HIV? This was the question. Where did HIV come from. Why is AIDS now a problem when it didn't seem to be recorded in history (or was it?). Perhaps it was limited to the gay population as "dirty needles" didn't exist at the time and thus Paul wrote about "taking into themselves".

    "Now follow that logic with the evidence of 6 independent methods which all give the same approximate age of 4.57 billion years all within a margin of less than 2 %."

    There was a problem at a company I worked at for about 6 years. The manufacture of a piece of equipment gave instructions on how to set it up. It kept breaking. The boss said "I'll give you 2 hours. See if you can figure it out." I did. There was a physical relationship which the manufacture had misused. They applied the physical force applied curve reverse to the effect of the physical effort created by the frame. Thus, each time they did the same thing on 6 different independent applications gave the same results.

    I bring this up to say that, yes you have several different methods saying the same thing. They are all variations based on the same concept of physics. They may be right. They may be wrong. It only takes about 100 years for current science to ask "what were they thinking to come up with that wrong answer". Now, based on their understanding based on technology of the day in some cases is amazing. Still, it was only conjecture at the time. The 4.5 billion years number could be arrived at any number of ways.

    Three salesman check into a motel. Their boss is cheap so they are sharing a room split on each of their business expense accounts. The room is $30 which is $10 each. They get to their room and the front desk clerk sees he made a mistake. The room is actually $25 so he sends five one dollar bills up with the bell hop. The bell hop knows they can't split the money evenly so he keeps $2. Each of the salesmen get $1 back. They spent $10 each and get $1 back so each spent $9 x 3 = 27 + the $2 the bell hop had = $29. Where's the other buck?

    Please note my arguement isn't saying the 4.5 billion is right or wrong. The arguement is simply saying we don't know as much as we think we do. We think we are so smart just like the people 100, 200, 500 years ago thought they were.

  • Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    blue, care to discuss the piltdown hoax?

  • Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Ken Ham on his wife; He is married to Marilyn ("Mally"), whom he describes as a "very, very submissive, supportive wife"
    Ken Ham on a coworker: Controversy arose when Mackay "was excommunicated in the 1980s after making allegations of witchcraft and necrophilia against a fellow member of the ministry.
    ..And Overall: an Old Earth creationist website, has called Ham willfully ignorant of evidence for an old earth and said he "deliberately misleads" his audiences on matters of both science and theology.

    The Creation Museum IS embarrassing, as is its creator. Anyone who believes dinosaurs and man coexisted 'because of writing on a cave' has no capacity for scientific intellect.

  • Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "All that was based on Carbon 14 dating."

    DP, earlier on another thread you were unaware to the link between how HIV results in AIDS, something that has been publicaly known for over 2 decades.

    I can see why you think this now. C14 (carbon dating) only dates to about 60,000 years, so obviously it wasn't the isotope being measured to give the age for the Earth. If you're talking about further back, you'd need to use a slower decaying isotope, something like Potassium Argon or others.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

    "Then it was switched to another dating method which may prove to be accurate or inaccruate."

    Here's what I don't get, and maybe you and others like you aught to mull this one over. I would argue that in your position you contend that 'all radiometric dating methods are widely inaccurate'. Now follow that logic with the evidence of 6 independent methods which all give the same approximate age of 4.57 billion years all within a margin of less than 2 %.

    Also consider of the over 4 dozen dating methods we have at our disposal, not one, not one comes back with ages anywhere in the > 6,000 year range.

    "There is no absolute proof the earth is that old. Only contemporary proof (that which is accepted to be truth now)."

    Right, the same contemporary science used to make atom bombs and nuclear power via understanding physics is somehow wrong when it comes to dating now.

  • Wed Dec 10, 2008 8:03 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    "My views or anyone else's views don't matter. What matters is scientific evidence, and so far all the evidence supports biological evolution and a 4,500,000,000 year old earth."

    All that was based on Carbon 14 dating. Then it was switched to another dating method which may prove to be accurate or inaccruate. There is no absolute proof the earth is that old. Only contemporary proof (that which is accepted to be truth now).

  • Wed Dec 10, 2008 5:21 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    "The answer is that evolutionists are able to do science only because they are inconsistent. They accept biblical principles such as uniformity, while simultaneously denying the Bible from which those principles are derived. Such inconsistency is common in secular thinking; secular scientists claim that the universe is not designed, but they do science as if the universe is designed and upheld by God in a uniform way. Evolutionists can do science only if they rely on biblical creation assumptions (such as uniformity) that are contrary to their professed belief in evolution." -tpique1

    --------------------------------

    TP,

    Nothing in the paragraph above makes any sense. Evolution is not based on inconsistency. Uniformity is not a biblical principle. Nothing in science is derived from the bible. One of the defining features of secular thinking, relative to sectarian thinking, is consistency. Scientists do not "do science" as if it were upheld by a giant turtle (oops, wrong religion. I mean a God!) Science and its principles are based on observation, not a "creation assumption." The only assumption in the bible is that a god magically did everything.

    You clearly have no idea what science is (evolution and cosmology in particular) which is unfortunate. I suggest going to college, or at least reading a few general science books (written by scientists, not preachers.)

  • Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Furthermore, if evolution were true, there wouldn’t be any rational reason to believe it! If life is the result of evolution, then it means that an evolutionist’s brain is simply the outworking of millions of years of random-chance processes. The brain would simply be a collection of chemical reactions that have been preserved because they had some sort of survival value in the past. If evolution were true, then all the evolutionist’s thoughts are merely the necessary result of chemistry acting over time. Therefore, an evolutionist must think and say that “evolution is true” not for rational reasons, but as a necessary consequence of blind chemistry.

    Scholarly analysis presupposes that the human mind is not just chemistry. Rationality presupposes that we have the freedom to consciously consider the various options and choose the best. Evolutionism undermines the preconditions necessary for rational thought, thereby destroying the very possibility of knowledge and science.

  • Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Furthermore, if evolution were true, there wouldn’t be any rational reason to believe it! If life is the result of evolution, then it means that an evolutionist’s brain is simply the outworking of millions of years of random-chance processes. The brain would simply be a collection of chemical reactions that have been preserved because they had some sort of survival value in the past. If evolution were true, then all the evolutionist’s thoughts are merely the necessary result of chemistry acting over time. Therefore, an evolutionist must think and say that “evolution is true” not for rational reasons, but as a necessary consequence of blind chemistry.

    Scholarly analysis presupposes that the human mind is not just chemistry. Rationality presupposes that we have the freedom to consciously consider the various options and choose the best. Evolutionism undermines the preconditions necessary for rational thought, thereby destroying the very possibility of knowledge and science.

  • Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:18 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    I like what "Pro-science: says

    My views or anyone else's views don't matter. What matters is scientific evidence, and so far all the evidence supports biological evolution and a 4,500,000,000 year old earth.

    Notice how he writes the rule book.

    All the evidence, so he says, supports biological evolution. But does it really?

    Science presupposes that the universe is logical and orderly and that it obeys mathematical laws that are consistent over time and space. Even though conditions in different regions of space and eras of time are quite diverse, there is nonetheless an underlying uniformity.

    Since science requires the biblical principle of uniformity (as well as a number of other biblical creation principles), it is rather amazing that one could be a scientist and also an evolutionist. And yet, there are scientists that profess to believe in evolution. How is this possible?

    The answer is that evolutionists are able to do science only because they are inconsistent. They accept biblical principles such as uniformity, while simultaneously denying the Bible from which those principles are derived. Such inconsistency is common in secular thinking; secular scientists claim that the universe is not designed, but they do science as if the universe is designed and upheld by God in a uniform way. Evolutionists can do science only if they rely on biblical creation assumptions (such as uniformity) that are contrary to their professed belief in evolution.

  • Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Many creationists are extremely dishonest, especially the creationists like Ken Ham who make a living lying to children."

    Now, now...Queensbury! I would like your absolute and difinitive unquestional proof that God had nothing to do with the creation of the earth. You will find your 'evidence' will quickly go into the philosophical. How do I know that? If it were fact then there would be no question. At least the Bible admits one must believe based on faith (confidence or trust in a person or thing). You believe in evolution by faith as you have confidence or trust in it).

  • Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:25 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    "Its a fault of mine to be generous to those who disagree with me, even on this subject, I suspect because I once held it to."

    I think it's because science is about the journey of discovory. True science does not say "I have all the detailed answers". After all, the more we learn the more we know. What more do we know? We know there are quite a few more details than we first thought! To every answered question is 100 new questions. That's the addiction of science!

    Translation? You're a scientist and you don't use science as an answer as much as an adventure.

  • Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:13 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Mathelets,

    "Do you?"

    Of course not, I think though the infamous names of radical movements whatever their theological views are much better know than big winners like Kent Hovind or Ken Ham.

  • Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:07 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    ww, it's all artwork, so is the field of anthropology for the most part but evolutionists appear to have no problem believing their "facts".

  • Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:02 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    agent,
    "Kent Hovind anyone? Now he's a real piece of work."

    Guilt by association? Did you really go that low-brow? I don't think anyone here has tried to tar you or any other atheist with the names of infamous atheistist mass-murderers of history. I don't think they represent the average atheistic evolutionist any more than Hovind represents the average Christian creationist. Do you?

    I left you a message at the last article. Probably out till next week. Have a good weekend all.

  • Tue Dec 09, 2008 3:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Very true most likely, but I'm not talking about them.

  • Tue Dec 09, 2008 1:10 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    Kent Hovind anyone? Now he's a real piece of work.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

  • Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:23 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 9

    Many creationists are extremely dishonest, especially the creationists like Ken Ham who make a living lying to children.

  • Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:06 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hi pro

    I agree with you about the dinos and men living together and mathetes is well aware that I disagree with him, we ahve had plenty of good converations. Its just that I don't think Mathetes thinks thats those who disagree with him are liars etc..wrong, yes, but liars, no. Its a fault of mine to be generous to those who disagree with me, even on this subject, I suspect because I once held it to.
    BW
    Steve

  • Tue Dec 09, 2008 2:17 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 8

    blue1018 wrote "I find the creation museum downright embarrassing."

    Yeah. It's a disgrace. Ken Ham, who isn't even from this country, has made America a laughing-stock. If it was up to me Ken Ham would be deported for mental child abuse.

  • Tue Dec 09, 2008 2:10 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 8

    steveh20, I think you didn't see what I wrote. What I meant was could you explain to mathetes why his idea that dinosaurs lived with people might be true on the Flintstones cartoons for children, but it isn't true in the real world. I'd explain it myself, but his idea is so completely wrong, and so against virtually every branch of science, that I couldn't possibly talk about it without dying from laughter. Thanks.

  • Tue Dec 09, 2008 12:50 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 7

    pretty much star. i'd rather be proud of studied science and proven biology and anatomy than bible-hugging literal word-for-word believers. no offense, but that is truth right there.

  • Tue Dec 09, 2008 12:22 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Mathelets, "dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, and man has been around for 10-15 thousand years. Is that right "

    I am wondering how you specifically define 'man' here, b/c if you just mean at the very least anatomically and morphologically, it's more like 190,000 years, at least.

  • Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:45 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    blue1018 - Would it be better if the museum reneame itself as Evolution Museum and put a human in a cage next to an ape and put a name plate on the human's cage that reads, "Mutated Ape"? Would that make you proud?

  • Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:57 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 7

    I find the creation museum downright embarrassing.

  • Mon Dec 08, 2008 5:47 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 5

    I just visited genesispark.com, which lists many artifacts from human history as evidence for dinosaurs living with humans, including those mentioned here. It's all artwork. Is that what passes for evidence in creationist circles? A handful of fanciful creatures in artwork that happen to resemble animals that once lived is not evidence that the artist saw the animal. For every unicorn drawing you produce as evidence, there are a thousand fossils and sediment layers that say otherwise.

    I guess if one considers the bible to be evidence, then one should accept drawings of dragons as well. The standards of science are a little higher. Any zoo should be embarrassed to have ever even considered dealing with a religious theme park. People had a right to be outraged, and the zoo responded appropriately.

  • Mon Dec 08, 2008 12:11 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    viking,
    I can appreciate your viewpoint. I've seen drawings, tapestries, and other artifacts showing a menagerie of mythical creatures, and that's not even close to the number of "beasties" described in literature.
    I think two things set these apart. First, the artifacts from the Romans and Cambodians are identical to modern renderings of those animals' appearances. Since many legends often have a seed of truth in them (giant squid = kraken?), perhaps the dragons of antiquity were in fact dinosaurs. The Hebrew word tannim is often translated as dragons in the Old Testament (some modern translations render it as jackals, but that's probably trying to avoid sounding unscientific). In Job 40, behomoth sounds a lot more like an Apatosaurus ("tail like a cedar tree") than an elephant (tail like a rope)or a hippo (tail like a flap of skin).
    Second, scientific books of any age are likely to be looked upon as simple compared to later research. Yet where would we be without their work; that they are primitive by our standards does not necessarily mean they were wrong. For more on Aldrovandus and Baptista, see Perseus Or of Dragons, by H. F. Scott Stokes. Google Dr. Kenneth Cole for pictures of the stegasaurus in the Angkor complex. Wish I could give you more, but it's from a Powerpoint I did some years back; I apologize for not recording the exact sources of the pictures. Let me know if you cannot find them.

    viking, welcome back. I especially appreciate your insiders view on matters related to education.

  • Sun Dec 07, 2008 5:32 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    hi all sorry for a long abscence. I will take a shot at an explanation for the artworks described as Dinosaurs that mathetes lists
    1. Drawing of a pterosaur in a cave in the Four Corners region of the US, near where Univ of Ohio scientists dug up pterosaur bones in the valley below. Who drew the pterosaurs in the cave?
    2. Roman mosaic circa 200 AD showing two long-necked dinorsaurs (Apatosauri?).
    3. Angkor Thom temple in Cambodia (circa 1200 AD) has carvings of jungle animals, including tigers, monkeys, pigs, and a stegosaurus (the plates on its back are clearly visible).
    4. The Historia Animalium, a European scientific book from the 1500s, listed and described several animals as alive at the time, which we would call dinosaurs.
    5. A naturalist of that time, Ulysses Aldrovandus, recorded an encounter between a peasant named Baptista and a dragon fitting the description of a Tanystropheus on May 13, 1572, near Bologna, Italy.

    I recall many artistic and literary renderings of early civilizations of monsters, dragons, Kraken, griffins, rocs, medusa, manticores, unicorns, mermaids etc, etc, etc, while most of these were clearly fantastical imaginings but in many cases these were identified in what passed for scholarly or "scientific" texts although they would not use that term of the time. A good example is the unicorn which was long believed to exist based on the findings of narwhale tusks and the imaginings of persons at the time. In interpreting early humans artistic renderings it is important to do so in the context of rather than in contradiction to physical evidence. I would though be interested (due to my interest in curiosities and mythic tales) in seeing the depictions you describe if you can direct me to a site where they are viewable.
    Regarding the main article it seems to me that the original offer was a business decision and the change was a business decision based on the customers reaction. It is not surprising since the vast majority of persons including christians world wide do not ascribe to the young earth literalist interpretation views of the museum.

  • Sun Dec 07, 2008 10:56 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Thanks, Steve, I continue to learn from you, geologically + socially.

  • Sun Dec 07, 2008 10:53 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Queensbury rules"

    Indeed...thumbs up!

  • Sun Dec 07, 2008 10:52 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    "Please keep politics separate from science. "

    I'd love to! The only reason evolution has a required place in the science class is because of politics. Our students are taught way more about evolution then they are about hands-on science they will use on the job. I worked with people who could tell you all about evolution but could do simple science required by their job.

    Let's remove politics from the classroom and focus on what we need to learn to keep from being run over by the trade deficit!

  • Sun Dec 07, 2008 10:24 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Woo...genetlmen, lets keep to the Queensbury rules around here. Fair play and decent behaviour at all times. Pro whilst I agree with you on some points I think your comments towards mathetes where wide of the mark, lets just call it the heat of the moment and shake hands....
    Steve AKA The ref

  • Sun Dec 07, 2008 10:10 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    pro,
    What clever fellow you are! While addressing steve, you call me your friend + then you speak poorly of me. Did you think that made it less insulting or libelous? And you still don't get what I was saying: I never said whether the earth is young or old; you only assumed it. Why don't you drop the negativity + give your explanation for the artifacts + scientific books which show dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans? Is that too much to ask?

  • Sun Dec 07, 2008 8:05 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    pro, we're not talking about a flood, but the flood that lasted 40 days and nights non-stop with waters coming down and coming up over the entire earth. Now as you know I do not claim to be a scientist, but I've seen the damage a flash flood can cause so I can only imagine what could happen in a global flood as recorded in the Bible. Plus, what if some of those waters came in the form of a hurricane or a tsunami and we know the horrific damage that can be done by them.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • DVD
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links