Hamming it up

Note the Caucasian Adam & Eve - racial stereotypes of racist fundamentalists. My 20 year journey into biblical creationism led me to check the Bible and Science and the Bible does not support Ham's version of creationism at all. But science may not have all the answers (it is not fundamentalist) but it is finding them all the time. Darwin was not the bogeyman cretaionists make him out to be a just, moral, humble seeker for truth who found the answer. It works and God made it that way.

Belief

I cannot see why the atheists have such a problem with creation I think to believe that we came from Monkeys is such an offence to ones intelligence we are going backwards and not forward we are professing to be wise when in fact we are becoming fools to believe such a lie

Anglo-Saxon idiots

Just another good example that shows Anglo-Saxons are nothing more than Nutcases. Is there a need to add anything more?

Johnson: re Ken Ham

Ken was not an unwelcome prophet in Oz, he was simply a nonentity here. Before this program I doubt that more than 0.1% of Aussies had ever even heard of him. Remember Johnson, rhetoric never replaces fact. Your statement that 'evolution has failed every test' is simply a nonsense. Go to your own Academy of Sciences, type in 'evolution' and see what you find. Compare these learned articles with someone who believes an ancient, many authored book of fables, is the ultimate scientific text book.

Observations

Note: 1. the museum was not build using US taxpayer money. It is a privately funded museum. 2. if there is no such thing as a God, then who cares what anyone else believes and who determines what is right or wrong? Julia, Barack, Hu, etc. 3. are some of you trading a belief in a god for belief in science? 4. PZ states that no one has ever shown him evidence that there is a God, then has someone actually shown him evidence of the contrary?

The Bible must be a joke!

Man walking with dinosaurs. That's only in 'Jurassic Park' movies. Hello!

finally, neutral journalism.

Impressive Journalism. Often times the journalist has a bias going in and it comes out in post production. This report allowed both sides explain why it is they believe the way the do. However, one thing that should ring true for both sides is origin science is not provable for any of them. In fact the more research I do the more and more creation account in genesis appears to fit best with the evidence. Especially when the dating methods rely on consistent carbon decay which is ludicrous.

Why not debate each other

Why not debate the creationists? Seems to me if they are confident in their views, they should be happy to debate the creationist over the scientific evidence. Dawkins and Myers spend so much time criticizing creationist beliefs, but are too scared to face them in public. Why does Dawkins make out that creationists do not believe in natural selection when it is an integral part of the creation model? Why misrepresent their view, or is that why they refuse to debate? A debate should be welcomed.