Still think this endeavor, which seems to lack a collection of "objects" and relies on the construction of models and experiential spaces is closer to the definition of an amusement park.

A commercially operated enterprise that offers rides, games, and other forms of entertainment.

or theme park:

An amusement park in which all the settings and attractions have a central theme, such as the world of the future.

Since I haven't actually read the story or seen the museum :haha: I'll defer to your definition.

I only accuse Christians of attempting to insert their religion into government. When they don't do that, I don't accuse them of anything. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy a little verbal sparring. If that comes off to you as self righteous and venomous, that's your cross to bear.

Yeah. Youre right. Fundamentalism is nothing to be concerned about, really.

:lol: Thanks for the update mr noodle, i didn't get the latest edition of the newsletter. imagine how silly i would have felt picketing ASU's science department all by my lonesome.

I don't mean to sound defensive, I'm playing along too. If I was THAT offended I wouldn't be eagerly waiting for the next post to come up...

Likewise.

I was mainly responding, rather than to your post in particular, to the general tactic of many Christians of complaining that they are repressed, or that they are the only people it's ok to denigrate, when the "repression" or "denigration" is primarily an attempt to keep religion and government from polluting each other. Christianity, being the largest religion in the US, bears most of the brunt of that effort.

And, as I said, it really isn't applicable to this museum which, AFAIK, is not government funded in any way.

I doubt they'll draw too many people that don't already subscribe to their teachings/demos/displays. :)

should be a theme park..

personally I envy those that have blind faith.. I wish I could do that.. yes, they are both theories.. but uh.. creationism.. uh no.. there is NO scientific evidence to support it, where sure evolution has holes... they can and will be filled

For someone who lacks the ability to have blind faith, you show great potential. :D

yeah, well.... uh... good point.

I have this stupid faith in humanity I suppose, I do believe that in time we'l be able to figure anything out. and this is where religion becomes important (in theory anyway) to act as a 'moral and societal' code of ethics, the downside to that of course is people twisting these views to serve thier own purposes (which I guess is what disgusts me about humanity as well).. ah the 'ol sword of damacles

There is exactly the same evidence to support creation as there is for evolution.

What the argument ultimately boils down to is starting assertions.

Is not.

True.

One is based on an invisible man in the sky or, more accurately, the assertions of people we would medicate today.

The other is based on a growing evidentiary chain back through history based on scientific study. And it doesn't assert what is the exactly the cause, but what choices we have as to what is most likely the cause.

Is too.

Not... :p