Tuassic Park

[Starrman]

I happen to live about a half-mile away from this place. I didn't even notice it until the other day, but now I am wondering if I should pay a visit.

What makes me sick is that it is clearly aiming for kids. What can I do?

http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/entertainment/visual_arts/11794857.htm

Take special note of the list of tired Creationist arguments listed.

 

[I'll_buy_that]

you might want to post a bit more, i didn't want to register for an Ohio paper. Anyway, why not stop by and give a review here?

 

[Starrman]

you might want to post a bit more, i didn't want to register for an Ohio paper. Anyway, why not stop by and give a review here?

Good point - I had registered years ago on this computer so it didn't ask me to sign in. Here are the main arguments against an old Earth in the article:

• Castings from the Ica stones unearthed in archaeological digs in Peru show drawings of dinosaurs killing humans. ``There's a lot of evidence that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time,'' he said. This would make the world relatively young and incompatible with the Big Bang theory of evolution.

• Astronauts found only an inch or two of dust on the surface of the moon, not the many inches that would have accrued from billions of years, he said. Likewise, the sediment on the bottom of the ocean is only a few thousands of years old, he said.

• Minerals have never spontaneously created life. They are beautiful, but nonproductive in that sense. ``The cell is a complex organism and the building blocks are proteins and amino acids that have to be lined up just right. What's the probability of that happening by chance?'' he asked.

• Oil can be held under pressure in rocks only for 10,000 years before it dissipates, he said. Therefore, gushers can't be millions of years old. And what about the Burning Tree Mastodon, the ``big elephant'' that was discovered in Newark? Scientists found 18 living organisms in its intestines, Sanderson said.

Gotta love the 'former science teacher' who runs the place refer to the 'Big Bang theory of evolution'.

I may stop by tomorrow, so if anyone has a quick rebuttal for these that would be great, otherwise I will make sure to find them myself before I go.

 

[JLam]

If you're worried about falling into the clutches of a zealot, relax. Sanderson doesn't even use the word God. ``I've said nothing about a deity,'' he said. ``You don't have to talk about God'' to appreciate the creation theory.

Then, 2 PARAGRAPHS LATER

The creation section, called Opening the Doors to Truth, contains seven portals, one for each of the seven days. Passages from Genesis accompany each day of the biblical creation model.

Then,

One of Sanderson's gifts is a passion for teaching the Bible, said the Protestant husband and father of five.

Hmmm....he says nothing about God, but he's a minister and plasters his museum with passages from Genesis. How can you NOT laugh at this logic?

If I go into a bank and hand the teller a note that says "Would you kindly give me all the money in your drawer?", would I be able to defend myself by saying "Well, I never actually used the word 'robbery' "???

You want to make your little museum, fine. Just don't pretend it's about science when it's really about trying to push your version of a creation myth down the throats of the rest of us.

 

[ohms]

• Castings from the Ica stones unearthed in archaeological digs in Peru show drawings of dinosaurs killing humans. ``There's a lot of evidence that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time,'' he said. This would make the world relatively young and incompatible with the Big Bang theory of evolution.

The Ica Stones are generally considered to be fakes by non-creationists.

Wikipedia article

 

[Dr Adequate]

Castings from the Ica stones unearthed in archaeological digs in Peru show drawings of dinosaurs killing humans. ``There's a lot of evidence that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time,'' he said. This would make the world relatively young ...

Two questions spring to mind. The first: if there is "a lot of evidence", why has he chosen to produce as evidence something which archeologists deride as crude fakes, which have no archeological provenance, and which are easy and cheap to manufacture, and for which suckers will pay high prices?

The other question is, why would the survival of a bunch of dinosaurs up to (almost) the present day make the world "relatively young"? It wouldn't. It would make dinosaurs relatively recent.

Astronauts found only an inch or two of dust on the surface of the moon, not the many inches that would have accrued from billions of years, he said. Likewise, the sediment on the bottom of the ocean is only a few thousands of years old, he said.

Listed by Answers in Genesis amongst their list of "arguments which creationists DEFINITELY should not use."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

Minerals have never spontaneously created life. They are beautiful, but nonproductive in that sense. ``The cell is a complex organism and the building blocks are proteins and amino acids that have to be lined up just right. What's the probability of that happening by chance?'' he asked.

Two straw men. Obviously life is made of organic chemicals, not minerals. And no-one claims that the cell was produced by chance. Natural selection was involved.

Oil can be held under pressure in rocks only for 10,000 years before it dissipates, he said. Therefore, gushers can't be millions of years old.

Again, what of it? There is indeed a hypothesis by a geologist called Gold that some oil is of relatively recent date, though he is a lone voice on this issue. But showing that some gushers are young (if Gold turns out to be right) is not the same as proving that the Earth is young, nor does Gould himself say so. No geologist claims that oil is the same age as the Earth --- in fact, they're unanimous that it isn't.

And what about the Burning Tree Mastodon, the ``big elephant'' that was discovered in Newark? Scientists found 18 living organisms in its intestines, Sanderson said.

Well, "what about it?" indeed. What on Earth is this meant to prove? Mammoths are indeed of fairly recent date, and certainly lived at the same time as humans. Many well-preserved mammoth corpses have been found. This information does not help us to find the age of the Earth.

 

[Mongrel]

you might want to post a bit more, i didn't want to register for an Ohio paper. Anyway, why not stop by and give a review here?

Derail, sorry.

If you're a Firefox user you can Google for an extension called "bugmenot", it provides a database of Usernames and Passwords for a lot of the free signup sites. I'd link to it but it looks like the IT guys have been having fun with the Firewall again

/Derail