Ars Technica visits the Creation "Museum"

One of the commenters in the ensuing thread found this amusing little article (http://www.cbc.ca/cp/Oddities/070607/K060725AU.html) detailing how the Creation Museum had to remove a 55 sec video with an actor portraying Adam due to said actor's other.... hobbies.

Most amusing, really.

And I thought people were kidding about the dinosaurs with saddles...

Something that bugs me....

If dinosaurs and humans were contemporaneous (for any creationists reading this -- that means 'existed at the same time')... then where the hell are they now?

I figure anyone who had a mastodon available would prefer that to an elephant any day of the week for doing heavy lifting

And for riding -- I'm sure a fast predator that can catch dinner for both of us while on the road would be preferable to a dumb-ass mule who needs extra food and water -- as well as a helluva lot more fun! (wheeeeeee)

?

With this, why are we stuck with little old indian elephants and ponies?

Did we get extra hungry?

Wasn't there room on the ark?

what is it?

WHERE DID THE DINOSOARS GO? THE PUBLIC DEMANDS AN ANSWER!!!!

The picture of the veggie raptors with Eve confuses me. Wasn't 'original sin' the reason for the end of vegetarianism, according to the bible-ites? And if original sin hadn't happened yet, why is Eve wearing clothes? I hate it when they can't even get their fabricated history right...

And if original sin hadn't happened yet, why is Eve wearing clothes?

It's all well and good to acknowledge that things were different before the fall, but here and now vaginas are evil.

#3: "If dinosaurs and humans were contemporaneous (for any creationists reading this -- that means 'existed at the same time')... then where the hell are they now?"

Well, obviously all the horned ones were too busy having fun and splashing around in the water to get on the ark, and drowned. The protagonist of this story was misidentified by the Irish Rovers, who made it into "The Unicorn Song" .

(As for what happened to the other, non-horned dinos: don't ask questions!) :)

That place will never make it long term. For all it's slick displays it is well, stupid. I don't care what polls say most Americans even if the compartmentalize much will recognize this for the stupidity it is and once the novelty goes away so will the museum.

Well most museums get new exhibits periodically so people will return several times to see different things. I kinda doubt there's every going to be any new creationism exhibits. Unless maybe they decide to have that kid come in and show people how stalactites are made with epsom salt.

#8: "Unless maybe they decide to have that kid come in and show people how stalactites are made with epsom salt."

Don't forget the Ray Comfort "Ecology of a banana" exhibit and the ever popular "Pygmies vs. Dwarfs: The Unresolved Paradox".

I have a set of photos from the creation museum up on flickr:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bradbrad/sets/72157600323932617/

My favourite bit from all of this is the part about the finch 'kinds'.

From the LA Times article a month ago: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-creationist20may20…

The glass display case, soon to be filled with a variety of finches, could be in any natural history museum. It is set among exhibits on frogs and lizards, across from a gift shop and a diorama of life in ancient times...The text below the display case says scientists are "puzzled" by the varieties of finches. "The Bible provides the explanation," it says. "In the beginning of time, six thousand years ago, God created every kind of bird, including the finch kind, and He gave them the ability to 'multiply on the earth.'"

Not knowing much about finch taxonomy, I looked 'em up on Wikipedia:

The family scientific name Fringillidae comes from the Latin word "fringilla", meaning chaffinch, a member of this family that is common in Europe. The taxonomic structure of the true finch family, Fringillidae, is somewhat disputed, with some including the Hawaiian honeycreepers as another subfamily (Drepanidinae) and/or uniting the cardueline and fringilline finches as tribes (Carduelini and Fringillini) in one subfamily; the euphonious finches were thought to be tanagers due to general similarity in appearance and mode of life until their real affinities were realized[citation needed]; the buntings and American sparrows were formerly considered another subfamily (Emberizinae). Przewalski's "Rosefinch" (Urocynchramus pylzowi) is now classified as a distinct, monotypic family with no particularly close relatives (Groth 2000)....
There are many birds in other families which are often called finches. These include many species in the very similar-looking Estrildids or waxbill family, which occur in the Old World tropics and Australia. Several groups of the Emberizidae family (buntings and American sparrows) are also named as finches, including the Darwin's finches of the Galapagos islands, which provided evidence of Darwin's theory of evolution....
The systematics of the cardueline finches are contentious

Yes, finches are certainly of a definite 'kind' all right. There's no doubt at all what constitutes a member of the finch 'kind', no sirree. Without question, they are obviously the work of God who produced discrete 'kinds'.

When I see stuff like this, I think sometimes that Scott H, PZ, and the rest are letting these guys off easy.

As annoying as it is that such fodder is being presented as scientific truth, as opposed to a mere belief system, at this museum...seeing "them crazy" evolution theorists protest and get so heated at the museum's opening (see: http://thenewsroom.com/details/346739/Science+and+Technology?c_id=je) is a little jarring. It just seems like a waste of time for them, because the minds behind this museum have INTENSE religious conviction behind their "scientific" beliefs.

Something that bugs me....

If dinosaurs and humans were contemporaneous...

I've asked that question myself many times even to creos. Never got an answer.

We know that the (baby) dinosaurs got on the ark along with the 99% of known terrestrial life that is now extinct, giant amphibians, synapsids, post cretaceous mammals, giant dragon flies etc..

Presumably they got off the big boat.

So where are our dinosaurs? We miss our dinosaurs. There is a big oopsy in there somewhere. I blame it on poor post deluge planning or incompetent dinosaur husbandry.

I've never got an answer. One non-creo poster said supposedly the US petroglyphs show dinosaurs. Sure along with weird humanoids that are space aliens and demons. But those petroglyphs could have been done before the big boat and floated into place during the runaway subduction.

I'm sure there is an answer. When someone is just making up implausible stories, one more ad hoc explanation isn't going to make a bit of difference.

Yo creos, enlighten the heathens. Where are our dinosaurs, giant dragon flies, deinotheres etc.?

Absolutely, Brownian. We should sic the ornithologists on them. Beat 'em upside the heads with hardcover Sibleys.

#3 WHERE DID THE DINOSOARS GO? THE PUBLIC DEMANDS AN ANSWER!!!!

Tasted like chicken.

With the stuff about the guy who plays Adam these people may want to consider that another spiritual belief is valid: karma.

They can't have been eaten, Bifrost. As 'great lizards,' dinosaurs would be unclean, according to Leviticus 11:29.

Having been raised by creationists, it's unfortunate to know all too well how this level of ignorance is convincingly scientific to them. I remember asking about the dinosaurs and other logistical problems as a kid, and my father explaining that the flood resolved all such issues (Creationists really don't know that Leonardo, among others, disproved this notion centuries ago). My grandmother's position for debunking creationism was that "monkeys still exist today, why would some evolve into us but not others". I was amazed even as a child that no one bothered to find out why "evolutionists" would hold such apparently strange beliefs. Creationists invent questions from their own ignorance and project them onto "evolutionists". (Flood and monkeys, btw - these are the standard ignorant beliefs and "gaps" of every creationist/church I grew up with). They ask questions that they don't know there have long since been answers to, and don't bother to find out if they are the right questions. It's really just sad. Hope it's okay to share a more personal perspective - don't mean to interrupt the thread. I know the creationist movement presents a very real assault on science, but for me, I pity them more than anything.

Look at the last picture in the article. Is anyone else a little creeped out by the way Adam has his arm around that sheep?

Where are the dinosaurs today? That is a very good question, and it's very easy to answer.

If, as according to the historical records in the Bible, two of every kind of land-dwelling, air-breathing animal was aboard the ark, then logically, they also got off the ark. So what happened to them?

First, realize that a global flood would drastically change the environment of the world. Survival for dinosaurs (and other "larger-than-life" creatures) could have been quite difficult after the flood.

Second, consider that after the flood, in Genesis 9 is when God gave permission for man to eat meat. Thus, imagining that dinosaurs could have been hunted for meat, their skin, or as trophies (we mount deer heads, wouldn't a dinosaur head be cooler?) is not unreasonable. And this idea is supported in tribal stories passed through generations, and through several pictographs that illustrate man hunting, using, or worshiping creatures that look like dinosaurs.

Third, realize that species go extinct every day. Just consider the Komodo dragon, which could be extinct within a short time. The movie The Freshman illustrates this well. Watch that movie, replace the Komodo dragon with a dinosaur, and it still doesn't seem unreasonable. The dodo bird is another example of a creature that has gone extinct (that we know).

Fourth, also realize that we don't conclusively know that no dinosaurs are alive today. This is impossible to prove, because it would require observation of the entire planet at the same time. Just consider that we're still discovering new species that we'd never seen before.

#15 and #17: I'm so glad there's a place on the web where one can have such erudite discussions! :)

#17: "They can't have been eaten, Bifrost. As 'great lizards,' dinosaurs would be unclean, according to Leviticus 11:29."

Maybe they died because they were so sad about their 'unclean' status and that they couldn't be eaten. As opposed to shellfish, who couldn't care less. Little bastards.

Nipping through the pictures on Flickr, I came across this one, which naturally brought up the question not only about where the terrestrial dinos went (in this little creationist scheme) but also what of the rest? Where are the plesiosaurs and all their marine fellows? Surely they were not drowned in the Flood, and Ken's little displays are quite clear the it's only land animals on the Ark. Did they all freeze in the "big chill" after the Flood (see two pics before the one above for that display) and if they did how did fish survive? Marine biologists are waiting with bated breath to know.

Best comment from that flickr page:

There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live :D

Newique, (may be creo museum docent):

First, realize that a global flood would drastically change the environment of the world. Survival for dinosaurs (and other "larger-than-life" creatures) could have been quite difficult after the flood.

Told you so. Poor post deluge planning. One would think an omniscient supernatural being might have realized that after the earth's surface had been under miles of water for months that recovery might be just a little bit difficult. Really, the fossil record is clear. At least 99% of all known terrestrial life is now extinct. The number of dinosaur genera is estimated at 1500 with multiple species per genera. Talking about 5,000 to 10,000 species here minimum. This people, is a very low recovery and evidence of a screwup.

Oh well, if 99% of what I tried failed, I might be working for Ken Ham too. Whatever.

PS Now about those petroglyphs of North American Jews (misnamed as "Indians") hunting dinosaurs. What are all the weird looking humanoids? Space aliens, demons, or both.

PSS Good point, I can imagine primitive nomads hunting dinosaurs with a bow and spear. Surely in the unlikely event they managed to take down a T. rex, there should still be some trophies stashed around somewhere. Make a great heirloom.

Yo, BDaly - Way to go! Excellent comments. Too bad you had to pay money to get in... unless you scammed your way in?

"This people, is a very low recovery and evidence of a screwup."

God runs FEMA too?

Any more hand waving, and newIQ will take off. Considering that almost no land plants would have survived being submerged for 40 days and a depth of a few miles (4 to cover Everest, 3.2 to cover Ararat), plant life would have been all but destroyed (and the bible doesn't say anything about Noah bringing all the plant kinds for his cruise. Of course, the lack of evidence for such a flood is nothing compared to what biogeography tells us about what lineages are present on different continents, islands, etc. Noah distributing "types" to geographically separated areas, that just happens to match the scientific evidence is as logical as Santa Clause distributing presents via home invasion.

From the CM site: "Present changes are too small and too slow to explain these differences, suggesting God provided organisms with special tools to change rapidly."

This would explain why the Flood was a failure. God wanted to destroy all the undesirables, saving only righteous Noah and Family. Immediately after the extermination of the rest of humanity, the survivors' God-given 'special tools to change rapidly' caused the undesirables to be generated anew in short order, giving us a world where God despises most of the people living.

This is very helpful, as it shows that God has been hatching hare-brained schemes since Creation, which in hindsight we now can see was a colossal blunder.

NewIQ, one quick question... how many? 2 and only from each "type" or 7 males, 7 females of the clean ones?

Sorry NewiQue, but I refuse to half-ass the word of the bible. If the flood changed the global environment or climate, the bible should say so. And 'realisations' you're asking us to make would be the result of human reason.

Go look at the photos of the museum and see how choosing human reason over the word of god leads to suicide, drug use, homosexuality, liberalism, pages torn from library books, potholes, and the need for tomato juice to remove the smell of skunk spray.

Stick to the word of god or human reasoning. Understand that if you choose to mix the two, you're letting your human reason supercede the word of god. Now how would that look to JC when the rapture comes?

Survival for dinosaurs (and other "larger-than-life" creatures) could have been quite difficult after the flood.

You do understand that not all dinosaurs were brontosaurus-like behemoths, right?

Narc:
Newique thinks the behemoth was a Brachiosaurus.

Also note that she never responded to my response, on that blog, and she probably won't respond to any of the responses here. (S)he seems to be a hit and run troll.

With the stuff about the guy who plays Adam these people may want to consider that another spiritual belief is valid: karma.

Isn't karma supposed to only work in the next life?

They can't have been eaten, Bifrost. As 'great lizards,' dinosaurs would be unclean, according to Leviticus 11:29.

That would make the mosasaurs unclean, not the dinosaurs.

Second, consider that after the flood, in Genesis 9 is when God gave permission for man to eat meat. Thus, imagining that dinosaurs could have been hunted for meat, their skin, or as trophies (we mount deer heads, wouldn't a dinosaur head be cooler?) is not unreasonable. And this idea is supported in tribal stories passed through generations, and through several pictographs that illustrate man hunting, using, or worshiping creatures that look like dinosaurs.

Only if you wouldn't know a dinosaur if it bit you in the proverbial ass.

As I told you last time: I study these animals, and none of them looks like anything described in any myth anywhere on the globe.

Fourth, also realize that we don't conclusively know that no dinosaurs are alive today.

Well, there are some 10,000 species of birds, so...

This is impossible to prove, because it would require observation of the entire planet at the same time.

Do you have any idea of how many known fossil species there are? (Just the known ones alone.) Even if all of them have by now shrunk to a single breeding pair (which is unsustainable), the world would be chock full of them.

Science isn't about proof. Science can't prove, only disprove. It can, however, give you probabilities.

Just consider that we're still discovering new species that we'd never seen before.

Eh, sure. But have a look at what those species are (don't forget to read the other three parts; the link just leads to the first). The most unexpected one discovered within the last half-century or so is a rodent from Laos the size of a guinea pig. (Its closest known relatives lived some 10 million years ago.)

Really, the mapinguary is one thing; Sauroposeidon is another.

There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live :D

So Chuck Norris is natural selection plus the occasional asteroid impact?

Considering that almost no land plants would have survived being submerged for 40 days and a depth of a few miles (4 to cover Everest, 3.2 to cover Ararat), plant life would have been all but destroyed

"Almost"? "All but"? You're kidding.

Brownian has a very good point...

Okay, I've read the article and gone through the Flikr album and the most impressive thing to me were the comments added to the pictures. For $20 million, they've got a huge room of BOREDOM. I've seen better dinosaur displays in small cities like Vernon and Courtenay, BC. The dioramas look pretty cheezy, and most of this so-called museum seems to be poster boards. Take any kid with an interest in prehistory to the Royal Tyrell in Alberta, after seeing that, they're going to sneer at the Creation Museum. You may have to drag your older sons away from that hawttee Eve, though.

markbt73 @#19,
You are obviously projecting your twisted, filthy, gawdless librul morals (or lack of, more properly!) on that saint and father to us all, Adam. I'm sure he has only the purest thoughts and best intentions towards that sheep. After all, wasn't this before the Fall, and that temptress, that whore, Eve, tricked him? Then again, perhaps the sheep was simply more accommodating to a quick roll in the hay...

You do understand that not all dinosaurs were brontosaurus-like behemoths, right?

No. Of course NewiQue does not know about this.

Where are the plesiosaurs and all their marine fellows?

The giant squid ate them, of course.

Здравстсуйте, Давид!

"...a single breeding pair (which is unsustainable)"

Really?

"Almost"? "All but"? You're kidding.

Just this scientist's preference not to talk in absolutes. Maybe a seed or two could make it, but not enough to reseed the planet with the plant life we have today (especially with biogeographic distribution). The "flood" fails for the kind of magical thinking that only a myth could include.

Newique imagined: Thus, imagining that dinosaurs could have been hunted for meat, their skin, or as trophies (we mount deer heads, wouldn't a dinosaur head be cooler?) is not unreasonable.

Hmmmmm, creationists hunting T-rex's with spears. I'm starting to like this more and more.

Yep, it sure seems like a neat idea, despite the dearth of evidence.

I think creationists really do dream up theories after being drunk all night.

Marktb73 @19, I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks that way.

Robster,FCD @27, provides the final piece to the puzzle as to whether or not people at dinosaures to extinction after the flood. Of course they did, what else would the eat. Think how long it would take to re-establish an agrarian lifestyle. Just waiting on a good apple tree would take years. Also everyone knows that a totally carnivorous diet is not good for you, so there is a good reason for the decline in mankind. Simple when you examine the facts.

Ah, Brownian (#30) - is that a skunk in the 2nd last photo ?

I thought Eve was attending to her beaver while listening to an iPod, and that that was the reason for her spaced out smile.

So if there was no death in Eden befor the Fall, what would have happened if a sauropod had accidentally stepped on Adam or Eve? Did the FSM give them the cheat codes for unlimited lives?

If Christians put half as much the effort into actually reading and understanding real science that they put into devising elaborate building projects, gathering money for them, and constructing them to their idols, you'd have a pretty educated group of people. Or, at the very least, a group more apt to actually give something some thought before rejecting it out of hand because a singular book tells them to.

Having grown up Catholic, one thing I do know is Christians feel the need to "dress up" their place of worship every so many years. It's like each church tries to outdo the next in decor, layout, size and gallantry. And notice how just about no new church built in the last 10 years names itself after a saint. Now it's really marketing-savvy stuff like The Door (seriously), Crossroads, Cornerstone, etc.

I stopped going to church years ago for many reasons, and the gossipy, money-spending, coffee klatch club nature of today's church was one of those reasons.

As for where the creationists think the dinosaurs went - isn't there one of those nutcases who thinks there still are dinosaurs in Africa?

Wow!! They spent $27 million and this is the best they could do?...a crappy looking Triceratops with a saddle and Eve in a mexican blouse with a dinamation raptor.

Why didn't they ask GOD to send them a better design team?

Also it isn't too surprising that they (i.e. Creationists) are still using the straight-line-evolution of horses, way-to-go 60 years out-of-date idea!

Keith,
I believe 'Dr.' Don Patton is the fellow you are thinking of, being that he is a Creation Geologist and all he must be right about dinosaurs in the Congo, he's even said as much...plus he said GOD said so.
He had the nerve to come to my university when I was an undergraduate and claim to have found human remains right next to those of Stegosaurus, he had even more nerve to claim the bones had been replaced with malachite...to top it off he even brought a bone from the human-malachite-replaced skeleton...which turned out to neither be a human bone, nor to contain any malachite (an oversight on his part I'm sure). He was rather angry and rebuked me in the name of Jesus when I pointed out that their wasn't any malachite...and that it was a chicken femur.

With the stuff about the guy who plays Adam these people may want to consider that another spiritual belief is valid: karma.

Isn't karma supposed to only work in the next life?

They can't have been eaten, Bifrost. As 'great lizards,' dinosaurs would be unclean, according to Leviticus 11:29.

That would make the mosasaurs unclean, not the dinosaurs.

Second, consider that after the flood, in Genesis 9 is when God gave permission for man to eat meat. Thus, imagining that dinosaurs could have been hunted for meat, their skin, or as trophies (we mount deer heads, wouldn't a dinosaur head be cooler?) is not unreasonable. And this idea is supported in tribal stories passed through generations, and through several pictographs that illustrate man hunting, using, or worshiping creatures that look like dinosaurs.

Only if you wouldn't know a dinosaur if it bit you in the proverbial ass.

As I told you last time: I study these animals, and none of them looks like anything described in any myth anywhere on the globe.

Fourth, also realize that we don't conclusively know that no dinosaurs are alive today.

Well, there are some 10,000 species of birds, so...

This is impossible to prove, because it would require observation of the entire planet at the same time.

Do you have any idea of how many known fossil species there are? (Just the known ones alone.) Even if all of them have by now shrunk to a single breeding pair (which is unsustainable), the world would be chock full of them.

Science isn't about proof. Science can't prove, only disprove. It can, however, give you probabilities.

Just consider that we're still discovering new species that we'd never seen before.

Eh, sure. But have a look at what those species are (don't forget to read the other three parts; the link just leads to the first). The most unexpected one discovered within the last half-century or so is a rodent from Laos the size of a guinea pig. (Its closest known relatives lived some 10 million years ago.)

Really, the mapinguary is one thing; Sauroposeidon is another.

There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live :D

So Chuck Norris is natural selection plus the occasional asteroid impact?

Considering that almost no land plants would have survived being submerged for 40 days and a depth of a few miles (4 to cover Everest, 3.2 to cover Ararat), plant life would have been all but destroyed

"Almost"? "All but"? You're kidding.

Brownian has a very good point...

You do understand that not all dinosaurs were brontosaurus-like behemoths, right?

No. Of course NewiQue does not know about this.