Creationism museum opens in Alberta

Yes, but being the kind of Christian that Ken Ham and, apparently, keys, advocates does.The "museum" pits human reason against God's word in display after display effectively informing people that using their brains is not encouraged by GodFor more images and a review of the "museum" in Kentucky go here. Take note of the mention of a "christian academy" called LCA and the link to some excerpts from the biology text used there.Freaky shit.

The burden of proof is not on me, but you, my friend and all the others who put forward the idea of a supernatural entity (for which we have NO evidence). OTOH, my position is well evidenced. The burden again falls upon you to falsify the evidence, although doing so does not automatically make your belief correct, of course.Oh, and I would thank you kindly if you left my brain alone...it goes through all doors with me.

The position that accepts the evidence for evolution as discovered through human reason. I thought that was the obvious position as we were discussing the museum display and its message. Because there is no evidence for it. I admit that I cannot disprove the existence of God, but neither can you disprove the existence of Krishna or Zeus or Mara or Amun (all pretty well known either now or in their time). Does that make you believe in them or do you pretty much ignore them? Yeah, I do have to kind of take it all in in spurts. Laughing so much makes my cheeks hurt.

Way to quotemine.You're well on your way to messageboard martyrdom. Congrats.Do you mind if I ask for your answers to my questions?Do you "ignore" the notierity (well-known-ness) of Krishna or Zeus or Mara or Amun?And if so, why?

So, do you believe in fairies, sprites, nymphs, ghosts, etc? What do "creation" and "man" have to do with each other? What big picture? The big picture of Hindus? The Ancient Aztecs? The Muslims? The Protestants? The Catholics? The Animists? The Buddhists? The Neo-Pagans? The frauds on TV who tell us they speak for our dead loved ones?Of course, science cannot deal with subjective experiences. That is why it can never falsify your experience with "God. That is yours and yours alone. It cannot be repeated. The funny thing is that science does not discount the supernatural...it just cannot quantify it, yet.However, a purely literalist belief in the Bible automatically disqualifies any kind of "human reason."So, what is the "paltry" point of view here? Can you provide us with any non-anecdotal evidence for this?Or, better yet, can you provide us with an example of a theologian who has advanced human civilization in the past 200 years?

Did you?Did you actually read any other religious texts?Did you actually read any other philosophical texts?Did you read any of them in groups besides your own church friends?Did you read anything in the context of your own mind?It amazes me how many people just accept a particular religion/moral/philosophical construct without actually understanding a different way of thinking other than the one which dominates their culture.Do you really think you would have avoided the influence of the Qu'ran if you had lived in Saudi Arabia? Or Iran? Or Jakarta?The answer depends on an "open mind." Doesn't it?Or does your "open mind" begin and end with "evidence" provided by one text?We all have post hoc evidences we like to fall back on, but that does not make any of them true.

What does an animatronic depiction of some people looking into a cave have to do with creation?It's not like you have the actual people looking into an actual cave. Or any proof that anybody found an "empty" tomb.How does one prove a tomb was empty anyway?

So, God needs to use Ken Ham to spread His word instead of presenting Himself to the unbelieving Atheist Scientists?Funny, that.

Where does the bible say that there are ghosts?