Ken Ham: If You Criticize the Creation Museum for Not Teaching Science, You’re Just Intolerant Against Christians

Attendance is declining at the Creation Museum, they’re having trouble raising the funds to build Ark Encounter (the Noah’s Ark Theme Park), and to top it off, they’re getting hammered on their science from actual museums in the area.

In the comment section for a Cincinnati.com article about the Creation Museum, Kurt Percy, the Assistant Manager at Cincinnati Museum Center, writes:

This is not a museum, and this is further proof of that. Please stop referring to it as such. They are not an accredited museum by any association of museums. It is a theme park that misleads the public and it is a pockmark on our region. The fact that someone profits by misrepresenting their faith as science to children and families is shameful. When we wonder why America is falling behind in science education, it is because places like this are allowed to exist. I’m glad to see that their attendance is declining despite generous handouts from the state of Kentucky at the expense of their university funding.

The Creation Museum’s Ken Ham, always overjoyed when people involved with real science mention his name, sees this as Christian intolerance:

Really, it would seem from his comments that Percy is showing his intolerance of the message of the Creation Museum. Instead of promoting freedom of speech and religion, Percy does not want a place like the Creation Museum to exist because he disagrees with the message. Sadly, this is typical of the intolerance against biblical Christianity seen in our increasingly secularized culture today.

Of course, Ham is wrong here. It’s not intolerance against Christianity. It’s intolerance against misinformation parading around as “science.”

Ham’s considering some drastic measures over this:

… I will meet with our senior staff to consider no longer recommending this attraction to Creation Museum visitors and deleting it from our website list of attractions.

I’m sure the Cincinnati Museum Center employees are shaking in their boots. Oh no! Creationists might stop coming to our museum!

I doubt Ham will do that anyway, since he sells Creationists a guide for visiting secular (i.e. “real”) museums.

Ham also goes after Percy’s comments about America “falling behind in science education”:

I had to laugh when I read this ridiculous, unfounded outburst. Think about it — the majority of kids in the culture (including 90 percent of kids from church homes) attend the public education system. This system threw out the Bible, prayer, and the teaching of creation years ago. Evolution and millions of years is taught as fact in the public schools. Public school textbooks arbitrarily define science to not allow the supernatural from having anything to do with the universe but insist the universe came about only by natural processes: naturalism is atheism.

If only that were true. Too many science teachers are afraid to teach evolution because the students (and their parents) have been brainwashed against reality by people like Ham and they want to avoid getting into a fight over religion. (That’s assuming they even know how evolution actually works in the first place.)

When school boards are still debating whether or not to put Creationism in their curriculums, you know there’s a problem. In any case, Ham doesn’t deserve all the credit; Christian pastors across the country are responsible for teaching people to doubt scientific realities.

The article that started all this is just a testament to how the Creation Museum really is a theme park and not a place of learning. It’s about how the “museum” is installing zip lines to attract more visitors:

Not the Creation Museum’s sign… but pretty close!

“It should be three-to-four hours of non-stop fun for visitors,” [senior vice president of Answers in Genesis Mike] Zovath said. “We’re also going to have some information about the different trees and plant species, so there will be a little bit of educational value as well, but it’s mostly an adrenaline rush.”

“Little bit of educational value.” That’s a perfect tagline for the entire place, isn’t it?

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • Beth

    There is a school in southern Ohio (an hour away from the creation museum) that is talking about teaching creation.

    http://www.chron.com/news/article/Ohio-school-district-may-still-teach-creationism-4578437.php

  • Puzzled

    I oppose teaching creation in public schools. However, to me, the real threat to science education – in any school – is this notion that we need to teach students anything – meaning that we need to give them answers. Schooling needs to focus on asking good questions, on sparks to ignite kids minds. We will not combat anti-science mentalities by bashing evolution into kids heads. Science is not about lecturing kids about things – even when the things are true. It’s about a way of thinking about the world.

    • trj

      You can’t be serious. Science education should not focus on teaching facts? I’m all for teaching critical thinking, but you have to have actual content besides that.

      • Puzzled

        How do you teach the two simultaneously? Specifically, how do you teach critical thinking if you’re also teaching facts, which carry the implicit message: you must accept what I tell you as true.

        Every night, when I used to teach primarily facts, I had nightmares. I pictured myself teaching about the 4 elements, about phlogiston – about the many different things that the experts and scientists of the day accepted as true, and for which evidence was sufficient – until it wasn’t. If you are teaching students to take what you say as true, you are teaching them to turn off their bs detectors. You’re leaving them basically susceptible to religious claims, since all it will take to convert them is the conviction that the religious authority should be believed over you.

        That aside, though, my point isn’t to leave facts out of education – it’s that when you’re teaching facts, you’re not teaching science. You’re teaching some body of knowledge that you want them to remember for a variety of reasons, but you are not teaching them to think like a scientist, nor are you preparing them to be scientists.

        • Eli

          They still need to know where we are/where science is in terms of what we think we know. A baseline to start with, add to, change, etc. Or do you think everyone should have to discover everything entirely on their own…literally reinvent the wheel?

          • Puzzled

            They should do a lot of reinventing, for sure, but it makes sense to limit the discussion to what you’re studying. In a biology class, my students make determinations as to what counts as a species, figure out what eye position means, and so on – but no, we don’t discover quantum mechanics, and to the extent that they ask something about physics/chemistry/etc. I’ll usually just answer it. I’m teaching them to think about biology. In a chemistry class, things are different.

            But no, students shouldn’t reinvent wheels – they should, so to speak, make better wheels. I’m not talking about learning-by-discovery with a predetermined answer, which is what reinventing the wheel came from. If I were teaching about wheels, I’d look at the development of the wheel, and where there’s controversy, I’d either give out or have them find readings to highlight the controversy. Their tests, though, would demand that they design a tool for a specific purpose, being inspired by the story of the wheel.

            I’d be less concerned, by the way, if we didn’t consciously and knowingly teach false things in just this way – say, the makeup of the atom. Yes, yes, the truth is too confusing – but what do you think will happen when we teach truth and falsehood identically?

            • Puzzled

              Also, like I said – I’m not against including information and facts, I’m against that becoming the basis of education. I do teach my students facts – to start out a lesson, to finish it, even during the lesson if time becomes a concern – but every time I do so, I try to cover the origin of that fact, why people had a hard time discovering it, and the possibilities for that knowledge to evolve in the future.

              Do my students learn more from knowing 9.8m/s^2, or the development of the idea of gravity?

              • trj

                Do my students learn more from knowing 9.8m/s^2, or the development of the idea of gravity?

                They will sure as hell have a problem if you don’t teach them the value of g.

                I expect an engineer to be able to solve the math and physics; not to tell me about the history of gravitational science.

                I expect scientific graduates to actually know scientific facts. Your concern about accidentally teaching something untrue is misplaced and not helpful to science education.

                • Puzzled

                  I don’t expect my students to become engineers without further schooling – high schools don’t produce engineers.

                  I don’t object to people knowing those facts they need for their jobs, but the vast majority of students in a science class do not become engineers, and will never use that 9.8. This, in fact, is my main issue – everyone needs to know scientific thinking and mathematical thinking, but you don’t get a real feel for what those disciplines are for until college or, usually, grad school. If I could, I’d invert the curriculum – teach the specifics to those who are using them, teach what we today let grad students glimpse to all.

            • Eli

              I see your point, but I think we’re defining “fact” differently. For the wheel example, if you’re discussing it’s development, you must be giving them some idea of what a wheel is, and asking your students to build on or use those ideas and discoveries surrounding it’s development. I call that facts. I also think you misunderstood the expression “reinventing the wheel” since I don’t see it as meaning there is a predetermined answer.

              • Puzzled

                If my students and I set out to reinvent the wheel, then there is a predetermined answer – a wheel. In reinventing the wheel, you rule out the possibility that they’ll come up with a better answer to the starting question.

                And yes, you’re right – everything is on a spectrum. I’m not saying to never use or refer to a fact – you can’t chew without something to chew on, after all. I’m just saying that the facts shouldn’t be the main things. For instance, whatever we do in class, our students mostly know today that their assessment (grade) depends on calculations and various facts.

        • Sven2547

          Good science education is twofold:
          * Teach people the scientific method
          * Teach people what we’ve found using the scientific method

          If you want to characterize the second point as “bashing evolution into kids’ heads”, that’s your choice. I, for one, think teaching kids facts is a good thing.

          Also, comparing evolution to phlogiston is staggeringly ignorant. It’s something I would expect from Answers in Genesis, not a learned person of science.

          • Puzzled

            The comparison is not that both are equally true, or that I both hold equal weight, or anything similar. It’s that both were taught in schools, in the same manner, that both were, in their respective times, the state of the art of knowledge. It’s not as if phlogiston didn’t have support – it was based on deductions from the science of the day.

            Scientists are stunningly non-arrogant about their knowledge of the world. Schoolteachers have a tendency towards arrogance, though, in large part arising from not being part of the scholarly community, but only second-hand dealers.

            Heck, forget phlogiston. Just picture being within the group of scientists arguing for evolution – and making sure that all the teachers did a good job teaching Lamarckian inherited characteristics and soft heredity. Try to take a kid from that school and teach them about Darwin.

      • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

        Good science education allows students to recreate the original experiments (okay that doesn’t work past a certain point where you’d need a particle accelerator, but you get my point). You don’t need them to take your word for what will happen when you do X because you can show them and when they do it the same thing will happen. We were taught the scientific method early on. Yes, there are facts but you don’t have to accept them just because they are in a book. You can see for yourself. That’s how I was taught science anyway. I hope they still do that because not only did it teach me how to think for myself but the learning from doing was more effective than just memorizing some crap from a book.

    • kaydenpat

      Yes, teaching the kids anything is the real threat to science education. **ROLLS EYES**

      By your logic, why teach kids anything in math class or any other class?

      • Puzzled

        In fact, in other subjects, this is known immediately. Take English – wile teachers get lazy from time to time, no one thinks that the point of teaching 1984 in English class is so that the students will know who Winston Smith is in the future, or in case they get a job requiring them to know 1984 – we know right away that we teach it in order to have discussions about the themes, about freedom, technology, language…and also to continue to try out literary skills on a new text (but the latter doesn’t do much to guide the choices, since any text will work.)

        All I’m really saying is to treat science and math education in the manner we already treat English and history. (And for English and history teachers to keep this in mind all the time.)

        Since you asked about math – we require math in pre-college education for two reasons. The more important is the skill of mathematical thinking, the second is to avoid students being closed out of certain professions. I can’t do anything about the second – I would propose systemic changes to deal with that topic. On the former, though – many students do not, in fact, get that from math education. Should we teach trig? Of course, and we should teach gravity too. It’s the manner of doing so that I’m talking about. My trig lessons vary by student, but if I haven’t found any special interests or abilities yet, my typical trig lesson begins with the definitions, then moves quickly to the question of what happens when we add two trig functions with different amplitudes and periods. Students generally take a week to figure out the first – trying out theories for homework (very easy to self-correct with a calculator) then explaining why things work or don’t work. Then they usually take 3-4 weeks on periods – which leads into discussions about lcm, gcd, and leads naturally into number theory, where we’ll learn crytopgrahy – hopefully timing this to coincide with WWII.

        But I don’t then test them on what they’ve found, or on doing calculations. I test them on some similar situations – how would you explore this? What experiments might work here? or on explaining what happened through our experiments. For a weaker student, I stop a step short of the full theory, and make an explanation of the full theory their test.

        So, in closing – you’re right, it’s not really that we include too many facts that I’m against – it’s that we don’t include enough of the things I think are really important. We focus too much on coverage, and not enough on making sure that it’s actually understood – and understanding takes so long because there has to be interest, then exploration and discovery. We include none of that.

  • sk3ptik0n

    Why would they use zip lines at all? Why not just give those wanting a real thrill a handle and pushing them off the platform. I am sure Jesus will fly them right to their destination. Or not, in which case their faith was not strong enough.

    • Artor

      I’m sure they’ll leave the safety inspections up to Jeebus at least.

    • Sarah-Sophia

      Because gravity is a natural process, and therefore a secular lie being pushed by atheist scientists.

    • baal

      Jehoshaphat 20:23

      And the lord spoke to those gathered there at that place, “Find thee twine of exceptional quality such as that used by the pharisees for letter followed by H on their bun jumping day celebrations.” The masses replied, “oh lord, and what shall we do with this excellent twine that we will acquire in your name?” Thus verily the lord also spoke to them in whispers for this truth must not be said aloud, “You will hang the twine woven together of five strands from a very tall tree and the other end you will tie to a shorter tree on the far side of a modestly deep pond.” To which the assembled replied, “Modesty is everything!” and yea they set to the task.

      this segment of the bible, however, doesn’t make sense unless you also read from the apocrypha. (note some scholars don’t think it’s a good idea to mix and match but the next section doesn’t make sense on it’s own).

      After announcing their modesty, they did throw a towel over the rope, grab tighly and go, “WHEEEEEEEEEEEE!”

  • Michael David Barber Moghul

    Americans get dumber every year that passes. It’s no wonder we are 29th out of 35 Western Nations in Education.

    • Michael W Busch

      No, Americans do not get dumber every year. The educational system is lacking in many ways, and far too many people are incredibly poorly informed. That is not the same thing.

  • Raising_Rlyeh

    What I love about the Ark Encounter is that they apparently are making a ride out of the supposed suffering and death of thousands, i.e., the 10 plagues of egypt.

    They also plan on making a “disneyesque” version of a pagan temple which I have a feeling will involve human sacrifice because modern pagans clearly practice human sacrifice. Of course that leaves out the human sacrifice demanded continually in the bible.

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ Kevin_Of_Bangor

    Oops!

  • Michael David Barber Moghul

    When they put an animatronic Jesus in there quoting Luke 19:27, I will go to see that. “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”

  • Sideshow Billybob

    I’m not intolerant against Christians, I’m intolerant against bullshit being passed off as fact.

    • Adam

      I agree and I’m a Christian.

  • Gary Hill

    For goodness sake Ken, no-one is discriminating against the notion that people and dinosaurs co-existed – atheists have no problem with that – we all enjoy the Flintstones. It’s you’re trying to tell kids (and gullible adults) that the ideas put forth in a Hanna Barbera cartoon are accurate history that we take exception to….

    • Artor

      Y-you mean Land of the Lost wasn’t a documentary? My childhood is ruined! Thanks a bunch!

      • C.L. Honeycutt

        Sleestaks: Serious nightmare fuel for kids. I approve!

        • Artor

          Not nearly as bad as demons lurking in the dark or behind every “evil” thought, waiting to drag you off to eternal damnation.

      • Drew M.

        Pierre and Marie Curie. Lewis and Clark. Sid and Marty Krofft. All pioneers of science.

      • imatheisttoo

        No no, Land of the Lost DID happen; things coexist there because it’s another dimension. In our present dimension, dinosaurs, humans, sleestak and Chakka never coexisted. Take a trip sideways in time though, and it’s a different story.

  • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

    Not all Christians are Creationists. How arrogant. He certainly doesn’t speak for all Christians.

    • WallofSleep

      This is true, yet to people like Ham, if you don’t believe in a literal bible, a six day creation and a 6K year old earth, you aren’t a real christian.

    • Phred_P

      Like any rationalist, I need evidence. I need to see more of those supposed non-Creationist Christians speaking up publicly and denouncing fools like Ham. Otherwise, I don’t believe they exist.

      • WallofSleep

        They exist. Ken Miller (catholic) gave an excellent speech thoroughly destroying “intelligent design” and “irreducible complexity”. It was actually meant to be a debate, but the creationist never showed up.

        Anyway, if you have the time (it’s nearly two hours long) you can watch it here. I recommend it, it’s a pretty good speech.

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

        • Phred_P

          I’ll check it out when I’m somewhere that has better bandwidth. Thanks for the link!

          • WallofSleep

            My pleasure. I’m sure you’ll enjoy it. I don’t have half the mind for science that I wish I did, and I still watched (and enjoyed) the whole damn thing.

  • Miss_Beara

    The most disturbing thing about the Creation Fakeseum is that it received a lot of money from the state of Kentucky.

    • NoSpontaneousGeneration

      Not a drop in the bucket compared to the tax dollars spent on funding the the non-factual concept of evolution. Life has never been observed to come from non-life. Scientific fact is by definition observable, repeatable, and measurable. Evolution fails the test of scientific fact.

  • Baby_Raptor

    “You’re not kissing my ass and singing my praises! WAAAAAAH!”

    Yeah, yeah. Persecution and intolerance simply because you got called on some BS.

  • C.L. Honeycutt

    If you criticize real museums, Hammy, you’re just intolerant of facts.

  • SeekerLancer

    Science doesn’t call itself a church, Ken. So stop calling your religious beliefs science.

    • Phred_P

      Science doesn’t have to call itself a church – the churches are busy doing it for us. They already insist that evolution is a religion.

  • vanceco

    Christians CANNOT believe in evolution, because without adam and especially eve- there is no “original sin”, and therefore no need for christ to come to redeem mankind.

    • trj

      There is such a thing as allegory. The story of Adam and Eve and the concept of Original Sin can be considered to be symbolic of human fallibility.

      • vanceco

        then why isn’t it taught as such….?
        I went to 12 years of parochial school, and NEVER ONCE did any teacher or minister say anything at all about ANY parts of the bibble being “allegory” (not even noah)It was taught as the infallible word of god.
        so which is it?

        • trj

          Well, obviously interpretations vary between denominations and between individuals. And it’s one thing what parochial schools teach, another what ordinary Christians think.

          • vanceco

            the VAST majority of the christians i’ve encountered believe the Adam & Eve story as written(and I’m not even in a red sector of the country). A lot of them go on to believe the story of noah to be true as well.

            • trj

              American Christians tend to be literal-minded. But there’s a world outside the US.

              I don’t know the statistics; it might be that most Christians don’t think of Original Sin allegorically, but my point is simply that there are still many who do. These people seldom have a problem with evolution.

              • Derrik Pates

                Seldom, as long as they get to define evolution as being “directed” by their god of choice.

      • PoodleSheep

        The goalpost has been moved so much it has circled the earth 5 times.

      • vanceco

        then couldn’t the story of mary, cuckold joe, and their star-baby all be allegory as well…? in a ‘symbolic of human gullibility’ kind of way.

      • The Other Weirdo

        Really? Please explain in detail how to tell allegory from fact in the Bible? When the sun was stopped for Joshua to complete a slaughter, is that allegory or did that actually? When Jesus raised the dead, is that allegory or a recounting of fact? When Jesus commanded that people who rejected his message be killed(Luke 19:27), is that to be taken as a commandment or is that allegorical? What about when he spoke of severing ties with friends and family before following him(like every other cult leader has ever done), was he speaking in allegory or was it truth?

        How can we infallibly know?

  • Alconnolly

    Obviously ken ham is a scammer promoting nonsense for personal gain. I agree with the thrust of the other museum guys comments. But he did take it a bit far when he blamed science education failing because places like that are “allowed to exist” the direct implication of his comment is that the only way to get science education ob track would be to impose unconstitutional controls on freedom of expression, and that implication does carry some intolerance with it. Please if you want to downvotethis list where my point is incorrect.

    • WallofSleep

      Perhaps a poor choice of words on his part, but he ain’t wrong.

      • WallofSleep

        Personally, I would have pointed at Ham’s abomination and simply said “See this irrational bullshit?!? This is why we can’t have nice things”.

  • Edmond

    Ham says “Instead of promoting freedom of speech and religion, Percy does not want a place like the Creation Museum to exist because he disagrees with the message.” What in Asgard does science have to do with freedom of speech? Pure research doesn’t care about your speech. You can spout all you want about dragons and saddled dinosaurs, but the research will continue to show different conclusions.

    Percy is SO right. Go “behind the scenes” of ANY real museum, and you’ll find them conducting research and experiments in their field. The Natural History Museum in DC actually has biological, anthropological and botanical artifacts and specimens that they study for future exhibits (and future knowledge). Even the Seattle Aquarium in my home town conducts research on marine life and conservation.
    What does the Creation “Museum” have happening in their non-public areas? They’re building robots. Not conducting research on robotics, not advancing the field of robotics… They’re simply Disney-fying their display floor. Hell, for all I know, the robots are built elsewhere, and shipped in. The back may be reserved for making wigs and signage.
    They have NO empirical research going on. They will be adding NO further knowledge to the fields of biology or anthropology. They will NEVER announce a startling discovery that revolutionizes current thinking. Their EVERY effort and ONLY goal is in making Bible stories sing and dance. Even Disney’s EPCOT Center does more.

    • The Other Weirdo

      They’re building robots and putting wings on them? That’s not good, ’cause then you get these guys.

    • Derrik Pates

      In the world of people like Ken Ham, “freedom of speech” means “I get to say whatever I want, and no one can respond who disagrees with me, and there should never be any consequence to me or mine for anything I say”. The problem is, that’s not how “freedom of speech” works.

  • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

    Oh dear lord that’s just…

  • Mason Miller

    Fuck. Secularization != bad!

  • Roger Peritone
  • http://www.danarel.com/ Dan Arel

    You know science, freethinking, humanism and atheism are winning the war on intelligence when such an amazing small majority can be such a thorn in idiots like this side.

    To claim intolerance the second someone disagrees with you, especially when you are doing nothing but attempt to pass off your bullshit theme park as a museum and rot children’s minds out with men riding dinosaurs and defending incest.

    Ken Ham is a walking joke. It’s disgusting the state government is helping fund this fraud.

  • Lord Incaros

    The funny thing is…the guy said “our” religion. He is accusing a Christian of being intolerant of Christians. XD I don’t think he gets it that a lot of Christians don’t like him, or his museum.

  • A3Kr0n

    Zip lines for Jesus, where you don’t have to hold on because God is carrying you!
    Three to four hours of nonstop fun. Could I survive that?

  • ORAXX

    A society that wants to progress should always be intolerant of stupidity. In this case, Mr. Ham is upset, and accusing his detractors of intolerance, because his stupidity is not being deferred to. America’s economic competitors, around the world, must jump for joy every time they read about things like the ‘creation museum’ and other monuments to idiocy.

    • JA

      I approve of this comment.

  • Adam

    What I want to know is which of the two biblical creation parables do they teach? The one with the 7 days of creation or the one with Adam & Eve? They are two distinctly different parables, teaching Jews what they believe about the character of God.
    PS I don’t want to ride that zip-line – that’s going to bring some big pain due to those spires…

  • vanceco

    if adam & eve, and noah are allegorical- doesn’t that mean the whole jesus story could be an allegory as well..?
    is there any kind of guide that tells which bible fairy tales are allegorical, and which are not?

  • Pajiffy

    Wow ! Ken Ham’s museum and others like it (How many are there?) are resposible for America’s falling behind in Science Education. I never new that ! Could it be a Chinese ploy!

  • Sandra Chung

    Hammy, hammy, Hammy….Where is your peer reviews of the information you have in your, dare I say, museum? And no, you can’t say “The Bible”. That cobbled together book of fables stolen from even older cultures is most certainly NOT a peer review or study.

    Your displays and museum should be treated exactly like museums filled with statues, friezes, and tapestries of ancient Greek and Roman gods. A nice trip through fables and fairy tales, not to be taken seriously.

  • Ralph johnson

    If ken is wrong what’s he lost? If atheists are wrong…. Why are you people obsessed with tearing down something that you will never see? Like the tv.. If you don’t like what is on, turn the channel children!!…honestly tell me you are not intolerant.

  • Ralph Johnson

    Funny how you remove tweets that don’t feed your small audience.

  • NoSpontaneousGeneration

    Billybob and Adam, Scientific fact, by definition is repeatable, observable, and measurable. These three ingredients are not present with evolution, because life has never been observed to come from non-life. And life will never be observed to come from non-life. Therefore, you should be against evolution by your’ own description of what is being passed off as fact.

  • NoSpontaneousGeneration

    Billybob, I noticed you didn’t mention your bias towards or against evolution. Where do you stand on evolution?

  • Amy Graham

    It’s easy to take jabs, scoff, and hide behind profanity to argue that God does not exist. This proves that you have nothing to substantiate your arguments. No mocking and no gesturing, what is YOUR proof? Just take a look at Psalms 14:1, “The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that does good.”

  • loveandjoy

    Wow! so much hate in these comments. What are you all afraid of? Now here is a challenge–why don’t you research about evolution and carry your proof and physically visit the Creation Museum and challenge some of these guys like Dr. Andrew Snelling or Ken Ham. They are polite gentlemen. They will not bite.

  • cigs645

    No surprise there Mr . friendly. People today are more interested in waiting in line for their new gold or silver I-phones than learning anything. However Ken’s teachings and long list of scientists who agree with those is what it is; you know the scientists nobody ever hears about in media or schools

    God doesn’t run a popularity contest. Its a choice like anything else.In fact every single prophet in the bible, 100% of them met their demise at the hands of the world and its ways . You cant serve 2 masters God and Egypt. By the way they called him Yahweh not God or Jesus, Its like someone addressing you in Chinese.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X