http://www.msnbc.m...4/ns/us_news-life/

FRANKFORT, Ky. — A full-scale replica of Noah's Ark will be the biggest feature of a creationism-themed amusement park expected to open in 2014 in northern Kentucky, Gov. Steve Beshear announced Wednesday.

The $150 million park will be built by a for-profit group called Ark Encounter LLC, which is partnering with Answers in Genesis, most widely known for its high-tech Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., Beshear said at a Capitol news conference.

Site selection is not decided, he said, but the organizers have options on 800 acres in Grant County off Interstate 15, about 40 miles from the Creation Museum, which is outside Cincinnati, Ohio. The Ark Encounter website says the park will go in the Grant County site.

“Bringing new jobs to Kentucky is my top priority, and with the estimated 900 jobs this project will create, I am happy about the economic impact this project will have on the Northern Kentucky region,” Beshear said in a prepared statement.

The park is expected to draw 1.6 million visitors a year, Beshear said, citing a feasibility study by America’s Research Group.

In addition to the full-size ark, the complex will include a walled city, live animal shows, a children’s interactive play area, a replica of the Tower of Babel, a 500-seat special effects theater, an aviary, a journey through biblical history, and a first-century Middle Eastern village.

Builders plan to use environmentally friendly Leader in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) building techniques.

Ark Encounter says it will pay the bulk of construction costs by raising about $125 million. Answers in Genesis is raising $24.5 million to pay for the Ark replica. The Ark Encounter website shows a $100 donation sponsors a wooden peg; $1,000, a plank; or $5,000, a beam. The website indicated that nearly $113,000 was raised by Wednesday afternoon.

Ark Encounter did not announce ticket prices, but its website says, "The average one-day ticket price is expected to be comparable to other regional attractions."

A 2011 full-price, one-day ticket to Kings Island in Mason, Ohio, is $51.99, but discounts are available, according to the amusement park's website.

Ark Encounter developers seek to recover under state tourism development laws up to 25 percent of the project's cost by recouping sales tax revenue paid to the state on tickets, lodging and other goods.

While state support of a religious-themed project is probably not illegal, attorney Ed Kagin, called it questionable, said the Cincinnati Enquirer.

“They’re implicitly endorsing this project, and I think that is improper,” said the American Atheists board member.

Other officials welcomed the potential economic boost for the community.

State Rep. Royce Adams, D-Dry Ridge, quoted by the Cincinnati Enquirer, said Ark Encounter will provide a “once-in-a-lifetime economic boost” for Grant County.

“This project will do two things for our community: It will add 900 permanent jobs at a time when they are extremely hard to come by, and it will become a worldwide beacon for those who share our faith,” he said.

Grant County Judge-executive Darrell Link said, “With every ark there is a rainbow and at the end of this rainbow is a pot of gold.”

Answers in Genesis will be responsible for day-to-day operations of the park, which will be built by The Troyer Group, headquartered in Mishawaka, Ind., says the Ark Encounter website.

The Creation Museum, opened in May 2007, "brings the pages of the Bible to life, casting its characters and animals in dynamic form and placing them in familiar settings," says the Creation Museum website. "Adam and Eve live in the Garden of Eden. Children play and dinosaurs roam near Eden’s Rivers. The serpent coils cunningly in the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil."

Among other museum exhibits are a planetarium showing "the amazing 'Created Cosmos,'" four theaters including a special effects auditorium featuring "Men in White," a Dinosaur Den, Noah's Ark construction site, and a cave about "Natural Selection Is Not Evolution."

I'm sure the ACLU is sharpening their pencils as we speak. It would be nice, though, if, just once, a public official would acknowledge the separation of church and state, and say something like "We closely examined state support for this project to make sure that it did not violate the separation of church and state, and we also feel that even if it does perhaps cross the line, the economic benefit to the area is worth it." But that sounds too liberal, I guess.

What is the impact of making 1.6 million people dumber?

I wonder why the economy of the US is falling behind...

Posted by tekriter What is the impact of making 1.6 million people dumber? I wonder why the economy of the US is falling behind...

I really don't think it will change anyone's minds. The people who would go there already have all their answers from the Bible. Why do you think the creation museum tickets are so expensive?

And it's Kentucky: how much dumber can they get?

Future abandonment to explore.

Posted by splumer I really don't think it will change anyone's minds. The people who would go there already have all their answers from the Bible. Why do you think the creation museum tickets are so expensive? And it's Kentucky: how much dumber can they get?

This seems like a good place to point out how others view this and the USA:

The Parliamentary Council of Europe

Resolution 1580 (2007)1

The dangers of creationism in education


1. The aim of this resolution is not to question or to fight a belief – the right to freedom of belief does not permit that. The aim is to warn against certain tendencies to pass off a belief as science. It is necessary to separate belief from science. It is not a matter of antagonism. Science and belief must be able to coexist. It is not a matter of opposing belief and science, but it is necessary to prevent belief from opposing science.

2. For some people the Creation, as a matter of religious belief, gives a meaning to life. Nevertheless, the Parliamentary Assembly is worried about the possible ill-effects of the spread of creationist ideas within our education systems and about the consequences for our democracies. If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights, which are a key concern of the Council of Europe.

3. Creationism, born of the denial of the evolution of species through natural selection, was for a long time an almost exclusively American phenomenon. Today creationist ideas are tending to find their way into Europe and their spread is affecting quite a few Council of Europe member states.

4. The prime target of present-day creationists, most of whom are of the Christian or Muslim faith, is education. Creationists are bent on ensuring that their ideas are included in the school science syllabuses. Creationism cannot, however, lay claim to being a scientific discipline.

5. Creationists question the scientific character of certain areas of knowledge and argue that the theory of evolution is only one interpretation among others. They accuse scientists of not providing enough evidence to establish the theory of evolution as scientifically valid. On the contrary, creationists defend their own statements as scientific. None of this stands up to objective analysis.

6. We are witnessing a growth of modes of thought which challenge established knowledge about nature, evolution, our origins and our place in the universe.

7. There is a real risk of serious confusion being introduced into our children’s minds between what has to do with convictions, beliefs, ideals of all sorts and what has to do with science. An “all things are equal” attitude may seem appealing and tolerant, but is in fact dangerous.

8. Creationism has many contradictory aspects. The “intelligent design” idea, which is the latest, more refined version of creationism, does not deny a certain degree of evolution. However, intelligent design, presented in a more subtle way, seeks to portray its approach as scientific, and therein lies the danger.

9. The Assembly has constantly insisted that science is of fundamental importance. Science has made possible considerable improvements in living and working conditions and is a rather significant factor in economic, technological and social development. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with divine revelation but is built on facts.

10. Creationism claims to be based on scientific rigour. In reality the methods employed by creationists are of three types: purely dogmatic assertions; distorted use of scientific quotations, sometimes illustrated with magnificent photographs; and backing from more or less well-known scientists, most of whom are not specialists in these matters. By these means creationists seek to appeal to non-specialists and spread doubt and confusion in their minds.

11. Evolution is not simply a matter of the evolution of humans and of populations. Denying it could have serious consequences for the development of our societies. Advances in medical research, aiming at combating infectious diseases such as Aids, are impossible if every principle of evolution is denied. One cannot be fully aware of the risks involved in the significant decline in biodiversity and climate change if the mechanisms of evolution are not understood.

12. Our modern world is based on a long history, of which the development of science and technology forms an important part. However, the scientific approach is still not well understood and this is liable to encourage the development of all manner of fundamentalism and extremism. The total rejection of science is definitely one of the most serious threats to human and civic rights.

13. The war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism closely linked to extreme right-wing political movements. The creationist movements possess real political power. The fact of the matter, and this has been exposed on several occasions, is that some advocates of strict creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy.

14. All leading representatives of the main monotheistic religions have adopted a much more moderate attitude. Pope Benedict XVI, for example, as his predecessor Pope John-Paul II, today praises the role of science in the evolution of humanity and recognises that the theory of evolution is “more than a hypothesis”.

15. The teaching of all phenomena concerning evolution as a fundamental scientific theory is therefore crucial to the future of our societies and our democracies. For that reason it must occupy a central position in the curriculums, and especially in the science syllabuses, as long as, like any other theory, it is able to stand up to thorough scientific scrutiny. Evolution is present everywhere, from medical overprescription of antibiotics that encourages the emergence of resistant bacteria to agricultural overuse of pesticides that causes insect mutations on which pesticides no longer have any effect.

16. The Council of Europe has highlighted the importance of teaching about culture and religion. In the name of freedom of expression and individual belief, creationist ideas, as any other theological position, could possibly be presented as an addition to cultural and religious education, but they cannot claim scientific respectability.

17. Science provides irreplaceable training in intellectual rigour. It seeks not to explain “why things are” but to understand how they work.

18. Investigation of the creationists’ growing influence shows that the arguments between creationism and evolution go well beyond intellectual debate. If we are not careful, the values that are the very essence of the Council of Europe will be under direct threat from creationist fundamentalists. It is part of the role of the Council of Europe’s parliamentarians to react before it is too late.

19. The Parliamentary Assembly therefore urges the member states, and especially their education authorities to:

19.1. defend and promote scientific knowledge;

19.2. strengthen the teaching of the foundations of science, its history, its epistemology and its methods alongside the teaching of objective scientific knowledge;

19.3. make science more comprehensible, more attractive and closer to the realities of the contemporary world;

19.4. firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution and in general the presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion;

19.5. promote the teaching of evolution as a fundamental scientific theory in the school curriculums.

20. The Assembly welcomes the fact that 27 academies of science of Council of Europe member states signed, in June 2006, a declaration on the teaching of evolution and calls on academies of science that have not yet done so to sign the declaration.

2 many wurds.

Well, that's just them godless, socialist, foreign-car driving Europeans!

I love how their web site cites a CBS news poll:

In November, 2009, a CBS News survey revealed the finding that the remains of Noah’s Ark would be the greatest archaeological discovery of our day. CBS News stated: “CBS’ 60 Minutes news program, in conjunction with Vanity Fair magazine, recently conducted a web survey asking which archaeological discovery people would most want to see made next. The response: Noah’s Ark (43%), Atlantis (18%) Amelia Earhart’s plane (16%), Nixon’s lost tapes (13%), and Cleopatra’s barge (5%).” [1]

And then goes on to quote an article... which doesn't exist! Their quote:

The article continued: “Noah’s Ark continues to capture the imagination of the general public, and this interest spans all social, religious, and economic segments. The Ark and the Flood is one of the few historical events which are well known in the worldwide global circle.”

Appears no where in the CBS article, as far as I can tell. Plus, they misquoted the question, which is "Which one of these lost artifacts would you like to be the first one to find?" I guess "Thou shalt not shovel bullshit" isn't one of the 10 Commandments. Maybe they don't consider than bearing false witness.

Hey, I just thought of something: since God wiped out all life with the flood, except Noah, his old lady and his kids and the animals aboard, does that mean we're all descended from Noah?

I suppose they could create an evolution theme park with plenty of "missing links," I mean rides.


The theme of the park is harmless, and should be tolerated by those that always demand tolerance and coexistence for other belief systems.

Posted by sgbofav I suppose they could create an evolution theme park with plenty of "missing links," I mean rides. The theme of the park is harmless, and should be tolerated by those that always demand tolerance and coexistence for other belief systems.

This.

Posted by sgbofav I suppose they could create an evolution theme park with plenty of "missing links," I mean rides. The theme of the park is harmless, and should be tolerated by those that always demand tolerance and coexistence for other belief systems.

Teaching lies and junk science is not harmless.

If you want to argue evolution, I am ready and waiting.

Posted by splumer Teaching lies and junk science is not harmless. If you want to argue evolution, I am ready and waiting.

Prove it. 100%.....GO!

Posted by splumer Teaching lies and junk science is not harmless. If you want to argue evolution, I am ready and waiting.

Evolutionary theory states that everything evolved from a common ancestor that climbed out of the primordial soup. This ancient ancestor gradually evolved. Its evolutionary progress branched out into different paths and these different paths led to the creation of increasingly complex and divergent organic forms.

If this is true, how do you explain the Cambrian Explosion?


There is a complete and systematic lack of transitional life-forms (i.e., "missing links") between the various kinds of life in the fossil record. This would not be the case if the theory of evolution was a valid hypothesis. Sometimes evolutionists have tried to make a case that this or that newly-discovered fossil was a "missing link," but all such attempts have ended in failure. No missing links have ever been discovered among the voluminous number of fossils found so far.


There is no evidence of gradually-changing DNA codes in nature that would allow periodic mutations to occur which would gradually transform a given type of organism, over long periods of time, into a completely different type of organism. Instead, organisms can mutate only so much before insurmountable DNA limits are reached. That is what the evidence demonstrates. Therefore, as noted previously, you will never see a mouse mutate into an elephant no matter how much time you allow for the alleged evolutionary process to occur. So, even though limited mutations occur in organisms, it is impossible for drastic or unlimited mutations, i.e., evolution, to occur.


Evolutionists can not explain how life could spontaneously generate from non-life, nor can they duplicate such a feat despite their impressive scientific knowledge and sophisticated laboratory equipment.


Recent discoveries in astronomy also prove that the universe was created, not evolved. For example, the presence of microwave radiation throughout the universe proves, according to scientists, the validity of the "big-bang" theory of creation while disproving the possibility that the universe has always existed in a relatively-unchanged condition.

Likewise, the fact that the galaxies of stars are shooting out into space away from each other indicate a common point of origin at the beginning of their existence, once again proving the theory of creation.

Posted by sgbofav the validity of the "big-bang" theory of creation while disproving the possibility that the universe has always existed in a relatively-unchanged condition.

Are you familiar with the origin of the name "big-bang?"

Posted by MutantMandias Are you familiar with the origin of the name "big-bang?"

God said it, and "bang!" it happened.

You, sir, are evidence of the fact that ID and creationist teaching is dangerous. You want to believe, so you will buy anything that is handed to you without applying any critical faculties whatsoever.

Creationism is neither a theory nor a fact. It proves nothing and explains nothing. Please read some science books and then come back.

Posted by sgbofav Evolutionary theory states that everything evolved from a common ancestor that climbed out of the primordial soup. This ancient ancestor gradually evolved. Its evolutionary progress branched out into different paths and these different paths led to the creation of increasingly complex and divergent organic forms. If this is true, how do you explain the Cambrian Explosion?

What are you, new? Why is it the junior ID sunday school grads always pop this out of their pie hole?

1) The fossil record is incomplete. This is only proof that the fossil record is incomplete. It is not a surprising fact since the conditions that create fossils are very rare.

2) The most likely explanation is that the precambrian era consisted of a large number of soft, invertebrate organisms. Further, evolotion allowed a diversification since the climactic conditions were rapidly improving, oxygen levels were increasing.

3) There is evidence to support this. There is no evidence to support the existience of a sky god designer, not a celestial tea pot for that matter.

4) because you can't explain something does not give you licence to make up imaginary expanations.

Posted by sgbofav There is a complete and systematic lack of transitional life-forms (i.e., "missing links") between the various kinds of life in the fossil record. This would not be the case if the theory of evolution was a valid hypothesis. Sometimes evolutionists have tried to make a case that this or that newly-discovered fossil was a "missing link," but all such attempts have ended in failure. No missing links have ever been discovered among the voluminous number of fossils found so far.

1.There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.


2.Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.

The following are fossil transitions between species and genera:

a.Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.


b.The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).


c.A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).


d.The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).


e.Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.


f.Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).


g.Lake Turkana mollusc species (Lewin 1981).


h.Cenozoic marine ostracodes (Cronin 1985).


i.The Eocene primate genus Cantius (Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983).


j.Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).


k.Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 1968).

Posted by sgbofav There is no evidence of gradually-changing DNA codes in nature that would allow periodic mutations to occur which would gradually transform a given type of organism, over long periods of time, into a completely different type of organism. Instead, organisms can mutate only so much before insurmountable DNA limits are reached. That is what the evidence demonstrates. Therefore, as noted previously, you will never see a mouse mutate into an elephant no matter how much time you allow for the alleged evolutionary process to occur. So, even though limited mutations occur in organisms, it is impossible for drastic or unlimited mutations, i.e., evolution, to occur.

This is pure bullshit. There is reams of evidence to support exactly that.

1.In the case of evolution, we have huge amounts of data from diverse fields. Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms (Theobald 2004). Each new piece of evidence tests the rest.
•All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
•Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.
•Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.
•Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.
•The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
•Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.
•Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.
•Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.
•The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.
•Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.
•The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
•When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.
•The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.
•Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional.
•Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.
•Speciation has been observed.
•The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.

Posted by sgbofav Evolutionists can not explain how life could spontaneously generate from non-life, nor can they duplicate such a feat despite their impressive scientific knowledge and sophisticated laboratory equipment.

Good question. Unfortunatly for you the answer is very complex (theories of abiogenisis) and you would need to read something like Richard Dawkin's The Blind Watchmaker - which will take you longer than thumbing through the creationist pamphlet you got this other crap from. I expect that, like other persons of faith, you will take the lazy way out and just accept that a sky god did it and worry about things closer to your IQ level. (hint: tune in to nickleodeon)

The short answer is: even the lack of explanation for your question does not disprove the FACT of evolution. There are may plausible explanations, none of which involve a sky god.

oh, yeah AND JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN"T EXPLAIN IT DOES NOT GIVE YOU LICENCE TO MAKE UP EXPLANATIONS.

Posted by sgbofav Recent discoveries in astronomy also prove that the universe was created, not evolved. For example, the presence of microwave radiation throughout the universe proves, according to scientists, the validity of the "big-bang" theory of creation while disproving the possibility that the universe has always existed in a relatively-unchanged condition.

According to exactly what scentist? Reference? You just believe this because some nutter at the church handed you a pamphlet. Seriously, whois feeding you this shit?

The discovery of background radiation in 1964 LED TO THE BIG BANG THEORY and it is perfectly consistent. It is also measurable, unlike anything you propose.

Posted by sgbofav Likewise, the fact that the galaxies of stars are shooting out into space away from each other indicate a common point of origin at the beginning of their existence, once again proving the theory of creation.

Actually, this is consistent with the big bang theory. You learn about this in grade six if you go to a school without moronic stickers on science test books. Look it up on the internet.

You seriously need to give your head a shake.

Your posts are filled with false premises and straw man arguments. Just saying no, that's too hard to believe, or simply stating something stupid without any reference is not a valid argument. It's just stupid internet talk.

Good question. Unfortunatly for you the answer is very complex (theories of abiogenisis) and you would need to read something like Richard Dawkin's The Blind Watchmaker - which will take you longer than thumbing through the creationist pamphlet you got this other crap from. I expect that, like other persons of faith, you will take the lazy way out and just accept that a sky god did it and worry about things closer to your IQ level. (hint: tune in to nickleodeon) The short answer is: even the lack of explanation for your question does not disprove the FACT of evolution. There are may plausible explanations, none of which involve a sky god. oh, yeah AND JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN"T EXPLAIN IT DOES NOT GIVE YOU LICENCE TO MAKE UP EXPLANATIONS.

Translation,

We can't prove evolution but, we "just know" it is true because the only other explanation is intelligent design?



A good debater does not need to make personal attacks to prove their point. You like to make this personal, when I want to have a respectful debate.



10 plus billion years of accidental, random atomic collisions resulted in the formation of some simple form of life. Scientists call this development of living organisms from nonliving matter “abiogenesis.”

There is no empirical (reproducible and testable) proof for abiogenesis or macroevolution.


DNA changes are a microevolution topic—not scientific proof of abiogenesis, macroevolution, or the theory of evolution.



More info debunking Abiogenesis: http://www.studyto...s/abiogenesis.html

Posted by sgbofav We can't prove evolution but, we "just know" it is true because the only other explanation is intelligent design?

You are absolutely right that it isn't possible to prove it. Welcome to science. Science is hard.

Posted by sgbofav A good debater does not need to make personal attacks to prove their point. You like to make this personal, when I want to have a respectful debate.

He didn't make anything personal by saying that can't make stuff up, or by asking you where you are getting the things that you are saying, which don't seem to be based on any kind of logic or reason, but I can certainly understand why those things would make you uncomfortable.

Posted by sgbofav The theme of the park is harmless, and should be tolerated by those that always demand tolerance and coexistence for other belief systems.

why not a Holocaust theme park? it's harmless right.

you know what's wrong with a theme park based on this fairy tale? It's dangerous because it is supplanting known scientific truth and law with a fairy tale. In fact, science was so dangerous to the colossus of organized religion that early scientists had to research and publish in anonymity for fear of being killed for heresy.
And now, along comes some evangelical idiots who want to rewrite the past 400 years of scientific and historic knowledge with a theme park dedicate to what is, honestly, a lie.

god did not create the universe.
god did not create man.

religion does not answer questions. it's like stuffing your head in the sand and not taking a good hard look at the world around you. and this theme park is a ridiculous attempt at brand marketing bullshit.