And the one thing that Creationists would never do is to actually explore the historical evidence upon which their beliefs are based, at least not in an honest and open manner. The historical truths tend to vary far from the myths that have come to be believed as the truth.

I read this, seeing flaws in just about every sentence attributed to the workers at the 'museum'.

I go to the "Answers in Genesis" website to see their 'arguments' and it's all just babble couched in scientific-sounding terminology - and it really makes no sense. A series of non sequiturs. Their only purpose is to convince the poor people visiting that they really do have some sort of cunning argument that really SHOULD win against evolutionary principles, so that those same people don't actually LISTEN to the evidence for evolution.

I see all this, and yet it doesn't matter at all. Truth doesn't matter in the slightest when your opponent's trump card is "my religious beliefs are right because my religion tells me so".

Is there anything in that museum telling us how snakes lost the ability to speak? Did their vocal cords fall out when they left the garden?

The real irony in the Christian movement to proclaim that the Old Testament is literally true is that the original owners of this book, the Jews do not believe that it is the literal word of god. I was raised Jewish and was sent to an Orthodox Day school where I spent half of my day in religious study. I was taught that the Old Testament was written by men who were inspired by the voice of God. Since they were imperfect and unsophisticated, they had a lot of trouble explaining things accurately and were in many cases reduced to writing allegorical tales in their attempt to document Gods word. The most complex subject that they tackled was how the earth was created and the resulting tale is a gross implication of a very difficult and complex undertaking. I understand that there are tiny sects that do take the book literally, but most Jews prefer to analysis the Bible and try to see how it fits in with current scientific explanations. Their position is that Science helps correct our interpretation of the Bible, rather then threatens our religious beliefs. For example, since the Old Testament says that day and night were not created until the forth day, there is no way to know what amount of time is represented by the first four days, an interpretation made famous in The Scopes Monkey. I find it odd that late adopters of the Old Testament, Christians, have decided to take something as literally true when the original followers of the tale do not.

If you don't believe in evolution, then you shouldn't be allowed to use anti-biotics.

Bacteria, like all life, evolves. We get to see it in bacteria because a 1000 generations of bacteria can cycle within a matter of years.

Eventually, the bacteria grows resistant to anti-biotics and adapts itself to survive what would have killed previous generations. Hence the need for newer forms of penicillin.

There should be a test of faith for creationists, if they truly believe, then they shouldn't have a problem saying 'no' to antibiotics.

Stupid bastards.

Mr. Sexton, you wrote:

But evolution is not science. Neither is archeology and much of astronomy. Not only are these conjectural, but, they take on a life of their own which forms the foundation of future work.

This is the problem with the creationist "science" arguments. They are all based on a premise,(that the Bible is true and valid), that goes unchallenged. For example, the proof that Creation Museum people give for the 6,000 year old earth is primarily based on Bible based calculations. There is no questioning of the validity of the books in the Bible that these calculations come from. Why not back these young earth theories with a detailed exploration of the origins and factual basis for each book in the Bible. If the Bible is what Creationists believe it to be, then historical research should strengthen their case and arguments. True scientists are open to restructuring their fundamental theories and beliefs when evidence proves them wrong. Creationist cannot claim to be talking science when they are unwilling to challenge the validity of their sources of information.

Going back to what I clipped from your posting, unlike science, the Bible isn't even taken as a theory or a conjecture, it is the unquestioned foundation on top of which Creationists place all of their "science."

Hey Dan. How's it hangin? I hope you're not being too tempted by the forbidden fruits of knowledge here at Salon.

So you said, "But evolution is not science. Neither is archeology and much of astronomy." I seem to recall a couple of fellows named Galileo and Copernicus (early astronomers perhaps?) that got into trouble with the church for saying things like the earth is not the center of the universe. The reason the church had a problem with these radicals (probably liberals) is because their crazy scientific theories contradicted many parts of the bible like below:

Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Chronicles 16:30 state that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." Psalm 104:5 says, "[the LORD] set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "the sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises."

Now I don't want to be the one to pee in your garden of Eden, but it seems to me that the bible got this one wrong. And if the bible is wrong about the earth being the center of the universe, there's a good chance that the bible just might be wrong on the whole evolution thing as well. When it comes to science, the church always seems to be about 400 years behind.

I know I am preaching to the choir here, but there are very simple, easily understood refutations to the Grand Canyon being created by the rush of receding waters of the Flood.

1. The Colorado Plateau slopes north-to-south. A rush of water would go south into Arizona, since water runs down hill, not west to the Gulf of California.

2. A rush of water tends to cut straight canyons since momentum carries things in a straight line. The Grand Canyon, however, is sinuous like a normal river canyon.

3. The Grand Canyon has numerous side canyons that are just as deep as the main canyon. A rush of water cannot cut side canyons that are perpendicular to the direction of the water.

Just my 2 cents as a Grand Canyon backpacker.