Ken Ham Files Religious Discrimination Suit After Kentucky Denies Ministry Sales Tax Rebate

HamPETERSBURG, Ky. — Ken Ham, the founder and president of the biblical creation and apologetic ministry Answers in Genesis (AIG), will file a federal lawsuit this week against officials in the state of Kentucky for denying its upcoming Ark Encounter participation in the state’s sales tax rebate incentive program.

In a video released on Tuesday, Ham spoke with Freedom Guard attorney Mike Johnson about the suit, which surrounds its soon-coming amusement park based on the Book of Genesis.

As previously reported, the state of Kentucky has an incentive called the Tourism Development Act, where new attractions in the state can receive a partial refund of the sales tax paid in an effort to reward organizations that help increase tourism.

AIG was initially approved for the rebate, but following outcry from atheists and church-state separation groups, the decision was overturned. State officials say that the hangup they have over allowing the rebate under the tourism incentive is that the Ark Encounter is religious in nature.

“In writing and in in their public comments, they have said that the reason they have trouble with this project and this economic incentive application is because of its religious overtones and its religious message and viewpoint,” Johnson explained. “And that’s what makes the state’s action unconstitutional.”

He outlined that the federal courts have ruled that once a benefit is made available by the state to all within its borders, it cannot legally refuse an applicant simply because of their religious character or beliefs.

“It’s very well established and federal and state law that religious organizations get to be treated just like any other in a program like this,” Johnson advised. “When you have a facially neutral tax incentive program that the government effectively opens to all applicants, just because an applicant happens to be religious does not mean that they can … be excluded from the program just because of their viewpoint.”

  • Connect with Christian News

Gov. Steve Beshear also told reporters last year that the state had rescinded its initial approval for the sales tax rebate because the Ark Encounter planned to hire only Christians, which he viewed as being discriminatory.

“We expect any entity that accepts state incentives not to discriminate on any basis in hiring,” he said in a statement. “[I]t has become apparent that [leaders of the Ark Encounter] do intend to use religious beliefs as a litmus test for hiring decisions. For that reason, we cannot proceed with the tourism incentive application for the Ark Encounter.”

But Johnson noted that the 1964 Civil Rights Act allows religious groups to specifically hire those who share their faith, stating that “it is not an unlawful practice for … a religious corporation, association or society to hire an individual on the basis of his religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association or society of its religious activity.” He advised that the state of Kentucky has a similar statute.

Ham says that the lawsuit was a last resort, as AIG had sought to work out the matter with the state for some time.

“Our organization spent many months attempting to reason with state officials so that this lawsuit would not be necessary,” he said in a separate news release. “However, the state was so insistent on treating our religious entity as a second-class citizen that we were simply left with no alternative but to proceed to court. This is the latest example of increasing government hostility towards religion in America, and it’s certainly among the most blatant.”

Ham also clarified that despite claims, AIG is receiving no state money—and thus no taxpayer funds—to build the biblical theme park.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Gary

    I hope Mr. Ham wins, but the federal courts have proven that they don’t much care what the laws say, or what the US Constitution says, so filing this lawsuit is risky.

  • Douglas

    I have been following the Ark Encounter project and am happy for the progress that is being made. I too am looking forward to a victory for Ken and the Ark Encounter project. I encourage everyone to pray for this project and our freedoms.

    • dark477

      why is he going to win? His project has discriminatory hiring polices that’s why it was denied the why it was denied the cash.

      • Fundisi

        As a Christian ministry, he has every right to discriminate in hiring employees.

        • dark477

          Not when he’s running a for profit business which this ark protect is.

          • Fundisi

            Actually, for once in your Christ hating life, you are right. If it is a not for profit ministry, the state may not force him to hire non-Christians, if it is for profit, he has entangled himself with this wicked world system and he must submit to their rules.

          • Douglas

            Ken Ham has agreed to follow all applicable state and federal laws. His legal council seems confident that there is no wrong doing here. I trust that they know what they are doing in regards to hiring practices on this project.

          • plainsman844
          • Douglas

            Yes, link to an article written for atheists because that has loads of credibility for readers on a Christian website. Instead of debating who is going to win, why not just wait and see what happens?

          • plainsman844

            Ark Encounter is registered as a for-profit business, and as such cannot use their mandatory “statement of faith” requirement for employment. It’s not that difficult.

          • dark477

            I don’t hate christ I simply don’t acknowledge him as the son of god or as my savior.

          • Douglas

            What is holding you back from accepting Christ?

          • plainsman844

            Believing in reason and evidence rather than myths and magical thinking?

          • Douglas

            I’m sorry but my comment was directed toward dark477. Since you engaged me though I’ll ask again; What is your goal here?

          • plainsman844

            The success of reason and evidence.

          • hapy_thoughts

            Thank You! Reason will prevail

          • dark477

            Evidence

          • Douglas

            The evidence is there.

          • Terry Roll

            There isn’t even evidence that he actually ever existed. He doesn’t show up in any of the writings from that time. Kinda odd that a dude doing miracles all over the place and that made that much of a problem for the Romans never got any press time by the historians.

          • Douglas

            You have been taught a great deal of misinformation. He is all over the place in early secular texts. http://www.nelsonprice.com/early-secular-writings-regarding-christ/

          • Terry Roll

            There is a large body of research on the subject. There is mention of Christians in the century after Christ would have lived, but no mention of him by the Roman writers at the time of his life or shortly after. Some documents were found to have been given a little addition to add Christ later on, which were eventually found to doctored when earlier versions of the same document were discovered without a mention of Christ.

          • Douglas

            I don’t mean this in an offensive way but it’s your loss, not mine. I don’t know what you want from me. I know the game and I’m not really interested in it.

          • Bob McAfee

            It’s not that simple. Jesus Christ claimed to be the Son of God. If he was just a man, a good moral teacher, he would have to be crazy to let the Romans kill him. Is a lunatic a good moral teacher? It doesn’t add up. He could have been a liar, but what would he have to gain from the lie? Why would he die for something he knew wasn’t true? You either have to take him as he is or reject the obvious truth that he was who he said he was.

          • dark477

            it’s not like he could run and then there’s that fact that everything about him was written by others , for all you know he could of tried to escape.

          • Bob McAfee

            He could easily have saved his own hide by admitting that he was wrong.

          • jmichael39

            Nothing about that makes any sense. The disciples were terrified at the time Christ was crucified. Then suddenly they decide to make up some story about Jesus that’s just going to get them all killed? Paul was killing many of those early Christians and then had an encounter with what he described as the risen Christ and it turns his life around completely. Jesus’ own brother, James, was a skeptic till he supposedly saw the risen Jesus. His life was turned around. Peter begins preaching fifty days after Christ’s resurrection in the very city where He was crucified. He talks about Jesus rising from the dead as the Son of God. Where are the people who would have supposedly known where Jesus was buried standing up and telling everyone Jesus is still dead, “he’s buried right there”? Hundreds of people claim to have seen the resurrected Christ. Everyone of them putting their own life at risk. Why? If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead.
            There are common facts surrounding the resurrection account. Accepted by both people who serve Christ and those who choose not to. What’s YOUR explanation for all that.

          • plainsman844

            They may be common, but not necessarily facts. There are no documents mentioning or speaking of Jesus that actually come from his lifetime. As such, we can’t independently verify anything he is reported to have said or done. Our actual NT manuscripts come from the second, third and fourth centuries, so we can’t verify they are accurate about the main claims about Jesus, who lived about 100-300 years before those actual manuscripts. there’s no way to know how much was added or removed by the time those manuscripts reached their extant forms. We know from other Gospels dated to nearly the same time as the NT manuscripts that major themes could be added, removed or not mentioned. For example, the Gospel of Thomas has no resurrection story, a big theme in the NT Gospels. The Treatise of the Great Seth denies that the Jesus of the NT died at all.

          • jmichael39

            This is going to be fun. You honestly think you’re capable of debating the topic? Let’s do it.

            “They may be common, but not necessarily facts” – sorry to tell you but they ARE facts. Read what I wrote. I didn’t claim any resurrection. I claimed things like that the disciples were terrified after his death and then all that changed after they claim to encountered the resurrected Jesus. There is no disputing the facts I presented. You can try to provide an alternative explanation for them. But there is no denying them as facts. The reality that Christianity is what it is today is a profound refutation of any claim that they aren’t facts.

            “There are no documents mentioning or speaking of Jesus that actually come from his lifetime. As such, we can’t independently verify anything he is reported to have said or done.” – And as such, you also have ‘independent’ documentation to refute the statements made by the writers of the NT. Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways.

            “Our actual NT manuscripts come from the second, third and fourth centuries, so we can’t verify they are accurate about the main claims about Jesus, who lived about 100-300 years before those actual manuscripts.” – This is actually where you lose yourself. There actually ARE some pieces of manuscripts from the first century. But that’s not as important as the contextual critique we have for the THOUSANDS of manuscripts we do have. If you knew anything about textual criticism, you would understand that we have multiple times more manuscripts from which to piece together the original documents of the NT than we have for the second most documented literature of that era. In other words, there is far more scientific evidence to substantiate the accuracy of the NT than any other document in that era of history…by far.

            In addition, to substantiate the authorship and time period for their writing textual critics have completely validated that every book in the NT was written within the first century, as recent as 10-14 years after Christ’s ascension. To further substantiate this, many of the verses of the NT, including those words attributed to Christ have been found in the writings of late first century church fathers who were without doubt personally knowledgeable of the first and second generation disciples. This is, by far, one of the more substantive pieces of evidence.

            In addition, you still have blatantly and foolishly ignored the simple question of what in the world the disciples had to gain by making up any of this. Think about for a second, why would Peter be so stupid as to preach about a risen Jesus within weeks of His death, in the city where He died, when virtually ANYONE could have walked over to the tomb where He was buried and prove Peter wrong.

            “there’s no way to know how much was added or removed by the time those manuscripts reached their extant forms” – actually there is…when you have several thousand transcripts, its quite easy. Its called textual criticism. We’ve done it with virtually every ancient writing…including Plato and Homer and others. And frankly, the number of manuscripts we have for them pales in comparison to the NT.

            “We know from other Gospels dated to nearly the same time as the NT manuscripts that major themes could be added, removed or not mentioned. For example, the Gospel of Thomas has no resurrection story” – You clearly THINK you know what the Gospel of Thomas is. But you’re foolish mistaken on so many levels. First off, all we have of the Gospel of Thomas (manuscript wise) are a few small fragments of Oxyrynchus that date to 200 A.D. and roughly a half dozen allusions from third century church fathers. So, we have no clue as to whether we have a complete version of the Gospel of Thomas and thus have no clue whether to original text included the resurrection account. That being said, it is more than a little important that there ARE so few manuscripts available. Where are they? Why did the early, early church fathers not wish to have them transcribed as they did the other books?

            The Gospel of Thomas, also, is NOT dated at about the same time as the four Gospels of the NT. The Gospel of Thomas is most commonly dated at the middle of the second century. The earliest of the mentions of it by church fathers date no earlier than the late 1st century. Early 2nd Century Church Fathers like Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, or Justin Martyr, never once mention The Gospel of Thomas.

            “The Treatise of the Great Seth denies that the Jesus of the NT died at all.” – well, not really. What they deny is that “Christ-Spirit” died. The Gnostics believe that Jesus was merely a man imbued by the spirit of the Christ. When Jesus was killed, the Spirit of the Christ left him…thus didn’t die. While that’s a nice story, it tends to fall apart at the empty tomb. And you STILL haven’t given me any rational explanation FOR that empty tomb or any of the other facts surrounding the resurrection account that I presented earlier.

          • jmichael39

            Then, of course, there is the rational and reasonable evidence of the Bible’s divine inspiration and of Jesus’ Messiahship.

            The reason why prophecy is an indication of the divine authorship of the Scriptures, and hence a testimony to the trustworthiness of the Message of the Scriptures, is because of the minute probability of fulfillment.

            Anyone can make predictions. Having those prophecies fulfilled is vastly different. In fact, the more statements made about the future, and the more the detail, then the less likely the precise fulfillment will be.

            For example, what’s the likelihood of a person predicting today the exact city in which the birth of a future leader would take place, well into the 21st century? This is indeed what the prophet Micah did 700 years before the Messiah. Further, what is the likelihood of predicting the precise manner of death that a new, unknown religious leader would experience, a thousand years from now – a manner of death presently unknown, and to remain unknown for hundreds of years? Yet, this is what David did in 1000 B.C.

            Again, what is the likelihood of predicting the specific date of the appearance of some great future leader, hundreds of years in advance? This is what Daniel did, 530 years before Christ.

            If one were to conceive 50 specific prophecies about a person in the future, whom one would never meet, just what’s the likelihood that this person will fulfill all 50 of the predictions? How much less would this likelihood be if 25 of these predictions were about what other people would do to him, and were completely beyond his control?

            For example, how does someone “arrange” to be born in a specific family?

            How does one “arrange” to be born in a specified city, in which their parents don’t actually live? How does one “arrange” their own death – and specifically by crucifixion, with two others, and then “arrange” to have their executioners gamble for His clothing (John 16:19; Psalms 22:18)? How does one “arrange” to be betrayed in advance? How does one “arrange” to have the executioners carry out the regular practice of breaking the legs of the two victims on either side, but not their own? Finally, how does one “arrange” to be God? How does one escape from a grave and appear to people after having been killed?

            Indeed, it may be possible for someone to fake one or two of the Messianic prophecies, but it would be impossible for any one person to arrange and fulfill all of these prophecies.

            The science of probability attempts to determine the chance that a given event will occur. The value and accuracy of the science of probability has been well established beyond doubt – for example, insurance rates are fixed according to statistical probabilities.

            Professor Emeritus of Science at Westmont College, Peter Stoner, has calculated the probability of one man fulfilling the major prophecies made concerning the Messiah. The estimates were worked out by twelve different classes representing some 600 university students.

            The students carefully weighed all the factors, discussed each prophecy at length, and examined the various circumstances which might indicate that men had conspired together to fulfill a particular prophecy. They made their estimates conservative enough so that there was finally unanimous agreement even among the most skeptical students.

            However Professor Stoner then took their estimates, and made them even more conservative. He also encouraged other skeptics or scientists to make their own estimates to see if his conclusions were more than fair. Finally, he submitted his figures for review to a committee of the American Scientific Affiliation. Upon examination, they verified that his calculations were dependable and accurate in regard to the scientific material presented (Peter Stoner, Science Speaks, Chicago: Moody Press, 1969, 4).

            For example, concerning Micah 5:2, where it states the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem Ephrathah, Stoner and his students determined the average population of BETHLEHEM from the time of Micah to the present; then they divided it by the average population of the earth during the same period.

            They concluded that the chance of one man being born in Bethlehem was one in 300,000, (or one in 2.8 x 10^5 – rounded),

            After examining only eight different prophecies (Idem, 106), they conservatively estimated that the chance of one man fulfilling all eight prophecies was one in 10^17.

            To illustrate how large the number 10^17 IS (a figure with 17 zeros), Stoner gave this illustration :

            If you mark one of ten tickets, and place all the tickets in a hat, and thoroughly stir them, and then ask a blindfolded man to draw one, his chance of getting the right ticket is one in ten. Suppose that we take 10^17 silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas. They’ll cover all of the state two feet deep. Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a man and tell him that he can travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick up one silver dollar and say that this is the right one. What chance would he have of getting the right one? Just the same chance that the prophets would’ve had of writing these eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one man, from their day to the present time, providing they wrote them in their own wisdom (Idem, 106-107).

            In financial terms, is there anyone who would not invest in a financial venture if the chance of failure were only one in 10^17? This is the kind of sure investment we’re offered by god for faith in His Messiah.

            From these figures, Professor Stoner, concludes the fulfillment of these eight prophecies alone proves that God inspired the writing of the prophecies (Idem, 107) – the likelihood of mere chance is only one in 10^17!

            Another way of saying this is that any person who minimizes or ignores the significance of the biblical identifying signs concerning the Messiah would be foolish.

            But, of course, there are many more than eight prophecies. In another calculation, Stoner used 48 prophecies (Idem, 109) (even though he could have used Edersheim’s 456), and arrived at the extremely conservative estimate that the probability of 48 prophecies being fulfilled in one person is the incredible number 10^157. In fact, if anybody can find someone, living or dead, other than Jesus, who can fulfill only half of the predictions concerning the Messiah given in the book “Messiah in Both Testaments” by Fred J. Meldau, the Christian Victory Publishing Company is ready to give a ONE thousand dollar reward! As apologist Josh McDowell says, “There are a lot of men in the universities that could use some extra cash!” (Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, California: Campus Crusade for Christ, 175).

            How large is the number one in 10^157? 10^157 contains 157 zeros! Stoner gives an illustration of this number using electrons. Electrons are very small objects. They’re smaller than atoms. It would take 2.5 TIMES 10^15 of them, laid side by side, to make one inch. Even if we counted 250 of these electrons each minute, and counted day and night, it would still take 19 million years just to count a line of electrons one-inch long (Stoner, op. cit, 109).

            With this introduction, let’s go back to our chance of one in 10^157. Let’s suppose that we’re taking this number of electrons, marking one, and thoroughly stirring it into the whole mass, then blindfolding a man and letting him try to find the right one. What chance has he of finding the right one? What kind of a pile will this number of electrons make? They make an inconceivably large volume.

            This is the result from considering a mere 48 prophecies. Obviously, the probability that 456 prophecies would be fulfilled in one man by chance is vastly smaller. According to Emile Borel, once one goes past one chance in 10^50, the probabilities are so small that it is impossible to think that they will ever occur (Ankerberg et. al., op. cit., 21).

            As Stoner concludes, ‘Any man who rejects Christ as the Son of God is rejecting a fact, proved perhaps more absolutely than any other fact in the world (Stoner, op. cit., 112).’

            I ADMIT, I can’t take credit for writing this. I’m not about to re-invent the wheel. This is all so clearly laid out in Stoner’s book and at the following website – http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/radio034.htm
            I’m honestly not sure why you think that its evidence you need for the divine authority of the Bible and of Messiahship of Jesus. There is more evidence for that than for anything else in history. Clearly, you’re not truly concerned with scientific evidence. And, frankly, after looking at the evidence for the Resurrection, if you can rationally consider any option besides the Resurrection as an explanation for the well accepted facts, then its clearly not reason or rational that you need. So what is it?

          • dark477

            Oh please the bible’s “prophecies” are so vague that they can and have been used to justify anything

          • jmichael39

            There’s nothing vague about where the Messiah would be born.

            How he would die.

            That his clothing would be gambled for

            You can claim all you want that they are vague…but they are not. More than 400 of them.

            As I said, clearly evidence is NOT what you require to believe. Like Prager said, God could write in the clouds above every nation in the world, in every language of the world, “Hey, its me…I’m here…I’m real” and people like you not only still wouldn’t believe, you’d blame the Jews.

            There IS no evidence people like you would EVER accept as enough. Not because there is no evidence, but because you seriously just don’t want the responsibility of actually having to be accountable to a God.

          • Bob McAfee

            I posted something earlier but it doesn’t seem to have posted. If you
            claim the Bible is lying about Jesus, you’re arguing against history
            itself. Even without the Bible as a historical source (which is about
            the most reliable you can get), you’ve got to contend with many other
            historical sources such as Flavius Josephus (A.D. 93), the Babylonian
            Talmud (A.D. 70-200), Pliny the Younger’s letter to the Emperor Trajan
            (approx. A.D. 100), the Annals of Tacitus (A.D. 115-117), Mara Bar
            Serapion (after A.D. 73) and Suetonius’ Life of Claudius and Life of
            Nero (A.D. 120). To quote Josephus (a renowned Roman-Jewish historian):
            “Now, there was about this time Jesus [if it be lawful to call him a
            man], for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as
            receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the
            Jews, and many of the Gentiles. [He was the Messiah] And when Pilate,
            at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to
            the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him [for he
            appeared to them alive again at the third day; as the divine prophets
            had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning
            him.] And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this date.”

            Now,
            on the disciples. Notice that they “did not forsake him”. If you were
            starting a religion, cult etc., what would you have done after your
            leader was brutally crucified? Hide, of course! Even before Jesus was
            crucified, Peter (the chief of the disciples) denied that he followed
            Jesus 3 times (Matthew 26: 69-75). But then, there was a change (after
            Jesus was resurrected) 11 out of 12 of Jesus’ disciples were brutally
            martyred. The test on whether or not they were martyred usually went
            like: “Deny Christ or die!” Why would these disciples lie about
            something THEY knew wasn’t true in the face of death? They had the
            opportunity to see first-hand all of Jesus’ miracles and the things he
            said and did. They would have known whether or not he did those things
            in reality. Imagine you were an alien civilization looking down on the
            earth after Jesus died. Who do you honestly think would survive 2000
            years, the vast Roman Empire or a few rag-tag Jewish fisherman? The
            Romans SHOULD have survived, but they were eventually completely torn
            apart by the message of peace that Christianity brought to the world.

            This is what makes Christianity different from all other religions. You don’t have to do good things to get into heaven. You do not have to constantly appease the gods and try to make yourself higher to get to them because God came down to us. Jesus declared himself to be the only way to heaven (John 14:6, Acts 4:12, 1 Timothy 2:5) Something that only Christians have a basis to stand against is the belief that all roads lead to Heaven (Luke 13:23-24, Matthew 7: 13-14) (look up Universalism). I am not in this to win an argument, I am speaking to show you the truth about Christianity, the truth about Jesus Christ.

            It says in John 3:16 -“For
            God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever
            believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”

            This means that if you acknowledge that you are a sinner and guilty of breaking God’s commandments (as we all have, including Christians), truly trust in Jesus as your personal Redeemer and Saviour, and repent of your sins God will grant you eternal life, even though we all deserve eternal death.

            Thanks, I wish to hear back from you

          • dark477

            why would I want eternal life?

          • Bob McAfee

            If the concept of eternal life scares you ( as it did me before I was a Christian) think about the alternative. Assuming from your other posts that you are an atheist who believes in evolutionary theory, you have no idea what happens to you when you die. To quote an interview with Richard Dawkins:

            “During the interview about his new book,
            Stewart asked him what happens to us after we die. Dawkins paused for a moment and Stewart said “so, you don’t know?” Dawkins said we would either be cremated, donated to science or buried. Stewart then said “you actually don’t know what happens to us,” and Dawkins replied, “I don’t know
            what happens to us but I know that our consciousness is wrapped up in our brains and I know that our brains rot. There doesn’t seem to be any reason, other than wishful thinking to-“ he was cut off by Stewart at
            that point, who asked Dawkins if he agreed that there is “a possibility” that consciousness could go on after death, and Dawkins said “Well, there is a possibilty for all sorts of things…””
            Read more at http://guardianlv.com/2013/09/richard-dawkins-wonders-what-happens-after-we-die/#A5CKYwD29C8w7TXu.99

            If you are truly an atheist, (one who denies the existence of God and an afterlife) can you really say that this life is worth living at all? IF it is true that there is no afterlife, you could die in an instant and then all your posessions and wealth would mean nothing. Your approximately 0-120 years on earth will not matter. You will not exist, and nobody who knew that you existed will exist to know you exist, and in the end nobody will exist at all to know that anything ever existed in the first place.

            To quote the very wise King Solomon:

            “Meaningless! Meaningless!”
            says the Teacher.
            “Utterly meaningless!
            Everything is meaningless.”
            What do people gain from all their labors
            at which they toil under the sun?

            Generations come and generations go,
            but the earth remains forever.
            The sun rises and the sun sets,
            and hurries back to where it rises.
            The wind blows to the south
            and turns to the north;
            round and round it goes,
            ever returning on its course.

            All streams flow into the sea,
            yet the sea is never full.
            To the place the streams come from,
            there they return again. All things are wearisome,
            more than one can say.
            The eye never has enough of seeing,
            nor the ear its fill of hearing. What has been will be again,
            what has been done will be done again;
            there is nothing new under the sun.

            Is there anything of which one can say,
            “Look! This is something new”?
            It was here already, long ago;
            it was here before our time.
            No one remembers the former generations,
            and even those yet to come
            will not be remembered
            by those who follow them.

            Ecclesiastes 1:2-11

            But salvation is less about eternality than it is about the temporary battle between good and evil. What happens in this life will affect the next. You know that there is such a thing as good and evil. Do you know why you know that? I mean, if you are just a random, meaningless dice roll in the cruel world of evolution, there is no reason you should have a moral compass. What is there to stop you from raping and killing your entire neighbourhood in the name of evolution? If there is no reason that you wouldn’t (such as the Ten Commandments) then what does anything matter at all?

            On that note, why does it matter what a person believes if evolution and atheism are the overriding truth? Obviously you feel very strongly that Christianity is false, but if it’s just random chemicals telling you that, why should you trust your own mind? Why should you believe anything about anything? Christians have the answer. God made us to think. God made us real and valuable on the day that we were conceived, and he loved us before we even came into existence. This is a reason why Christians believe in sancity of life (as opposed to abortion), and Creation (as opposed to uncaring evolution).

            I really appreciate it that you would continue to keep up this discussion even though you could just post insulting comments and leave.

          • dark477

            it isn’t scary it just isn’t appealing and yes when I die I will eventually be forgotten and I’m fine with that but it doesn’t mean I shouldn’t enjoy my life until then.

          • Bob McAfee

            So what does it mean to you to enjoy your life?

          • dark477

            To do well at my job, to watch the films and TV shows I like, to eat the food I like, to play the games I like and read the books I like.

          • Bob McAfee

            Ah, the apathetic approach. You don’t want to have to change your lifestyle just so that you can sit on a cloud playing a harp forever.

            Heaven isn’t like that. Waiting (forever) sounds boring to us because we are restricted by time.

            Enjoying your life- what does that mean to you?

          • dark477

            not apathetic. and I don’t want eternal life I want to live my life and die when it’s my time.

          • Bob McAfee

            Are you willing to take the chance that you could end up in eternal torment? I wouldn’t want that to happen to you.

          • dark477

            if you have to resort to pascal’s wager you’re out of arguments.

          • Bob McAfee

            OK sure I’m out of arguments. That doesn’t mean I can’t still resort to different arguments, but I’m trying to get to the real issue here. YOUR salvation. It’s never really been about the evidence, (although there are some great evidences for Creation and Sanctity of Life if you would like me to expound upon them). It’s about faith. Let me show you. Do you believe in evolution?

          • dark477

            I don’t believe in evolution any more than I believe in gravity I know they’re true because the evidence supports them.

          • Bob McAfee

            Definition of Science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the
            systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and
            natural world through observation and experiment.

            This would mean that the theory of evolution, which has never been observed or repeated in an experiment, is not science, just as God’s Six Day Creation story is not science. It is your view of History.

            They say seeing is believing, and many have used this argument to try and disprove the existence of God. Of course, if that were true, air, wind, and logic do not exist.

            You have to have faith to believe in something you can’t see, whether it be God or an effort to replace him.

          • alnga

            HATE in biblical terms describes you to a tee. Hate is the separation of one person from another.

          • dark477

            Hate is intense dislike. I don’t feel anything toward jesus or any other religious figure.

          • alnga

            wrong again, the Ark supports AIG.

          • dark477

            Are they charging admission? Then it’s a for profit operation

          • jmichael39

            how do you successfully tie your shoes in the morning being so stupid?
            Non-profit organizations charge fees all the times…Zoos, museums, etc.

          • dark477

            insult all you want this isn’t a none profit business and it isn’t entitled to one cent of government money

          • jmichael39

            LMAO…what a vain and useless attempt at saving your pathetic argument. They ARE a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization or you’d be hearing about them being prosecuted by the IRS for tax fraud too. You’re sorry little hatred for anything you disagree with is sickeningly petty and childish. You don’t like the organization, so you spew your hatred. And then when your BS is called, you don’t even have the intelligence to shut your pie-hole and walk away.

          • plainsman844

            Ark Encounter is registered with the state of Kentucky as a for-profit enterprise.

          • jmichael39

            actually, you’re going to have to prove that, because there’s apparently statements on The Ark’s Project website that contradicts your claim.

            In other words, put up or shut up.

          • jmichael39

            again, not according to their website

            “Ark Encounter is a privately owned Limited Liability Company (LLC). Crosswater Canyon, a non-profit subsidiary of Answers in Genesis, will be the sole member and owner of the LLC and will also be the managing member responsible for day-to-day operations.”

          • jmichael39

            But then again, he’s not running a for profit business.

            “ARK Project Now, Inc is a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization. Donations and contributions are tax-deductible as allowed by law”

          • dark477

            they’re charging admission that makes it for profit n that they’re trying to make a profit.

          • jmichael39

            We’ve been down this path, moron. All sorts of non-profit organizations charge admission fees, including museums and zoos, to name just two types. You wanna try again? Or would you prefer to spare yourself a little humiliation?

        • alnga

          It is not a discrimination as labeled by law but by possessing what it takes to work there, and it looks like a lot of folks here would have trouble making the grade.

          • plainsman844

            You need to read what Kentucky discrimination law says pertaining to for-profit businesses. You think it takes the beliefs stipulated in the AiG statement of faith to take tickets and scrape gum off of pedestrian benches?

      • Douglas

        Please watch the video above, it should answer some of your questions.

        • dark477

          I did and he has no leg to stand on.

      • alnga

        Of course it has because of it’s content the folks who work there will need to know and believe the content. Under Kentucky law that is their right to pick and choose..

        • dark477

          No it isn’t. Kentucky law prohibits religious discrimination.

          • jmichael39

            Civil Rights Law of 1964 allows for religious discrimination based upon religious faith tests for religious organizations

          • dark477

            Which this isn’t

          • jmichael39

            Um, yes, it is…if not, little man, like I said in the last post I sent your way, you’d be hearing about them being prosecuted for tax fraud too.
            Now scoot, back to that rock you crawled out from under. Go troll someone else.

          • dark477

            You first pig

        • plainsman844

          NOT if you’re running a for-profit business. According to Kentucky law, only religious non-profits can pick and choose based on religion.

          • jmichael39

            keep trying guys, they ARE a non-profit organization

            “ARK Project Now, Inc is a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization. Donations and contributions are tax-deductible as allowed by law”

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Apparently you are unaware that “ARK Project Now, Inc” is not the park. Rather, it is an organization attempting to raise money for the park. The hiring practices of ARK Project Now, Inc., are not in question.

          • jmichael39

            Good grief – https://arkencounter.com/donate/
            they say on their own site that donations are tax deductible. Get over your freakin’ hatred and bigotry, gees.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Yes, I am aware that they say your donations are tax-deductible. The donations are not to the park. They are to the entity building the park. The Park itself is an LLC. It is a business of public accommodation which means that the hiring practices are subject to KY law. Good grief – how difficult is that to understand?

            What have I said that would indicate “freakin’ hatred and bigotry”?

          • jmichael39

            OMG, you’re such a hate-filled moron. LLC’s can be just as not-for-profit as any other entity. It is a religious organization. There is not even an iota of question about that and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 allows for religious tests in hiring for religious organizations. You don’t like it. WE GET THAT. Too freakin’ bad.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            No, it cannot. In order for an LLC to be a tax exempt charity it must meet the following 12 criteria:

            “1. The organizational documents must include a specific statement limiting the LLC’s activities to one or more exempt purposes.

            2. The organizational language must specify that the LLC is operated exclusively to further the charitable purposes of its members.

            3. The organizational language must require that the LLC’s members be section 501(c)(3) organizations or governmental units or wholly owned instrumentalities of a state or political subdivision thereof (“governmental units or instrumentalities”).

            4. The organizational language must prohibit any direct or indirect transfer of any membership interest in the LLC to a transferee other than a section 501(c)(3) organization or governmental unit or instrumentality.

            5. The organizational language must state that the LLC, interests in the LLC (other than a membership interest), or its assets may only be availed of or transferred to (whether directly or indirectly) any nonmember other than a section 501(c)(3) organization or governmental unit or instrumentality in exchange for fair market value.

            6. The organizational language must guarantee that upon dissolution of the LLC, the assets devoted to the LLC’s charitable purposes will continue to be devoted to charitable purposes.

            7. The organizational language must require that any amendments to the LLC’s articles of organization and operating agreement be consistent with section 501(c)(3).

            8. The organizational language must prohibit the LLC from merging with, or converting into, a for -profit entity.

            9. The organizational language must require that the LLC not distribute any assets to members who cease to be organizations described in section 501(c)(3) or governmental units or instrumentalities.

            10. The organizational language must contain an acceptable contingency plan in the event one or more members ceases at any time to be an organization described in section 501(c)(3) or a governmental unit or instrumentality.

            11. The organizational language must state that the LLC’s exempt members will expeditiously and vigorously enforce all of their rights in the LLC and will pursue all legal and equitable remedies to protect their interests in the LLC.

            12. The LLC must represent that all its organizing document provisions are consistent with state LLC laws, and are enforceable at law and in equity.”

            Since the Ark Encounter is a for-profit enterprise, it does not meet the requirements for also being a 501(c)(3) non-profit. Further, the Ark Encounter is not a “religious organization”. Finally, the Ark Encounter is a business of public accommodation, therefore it is required to follow the employment laws of KY.

            I’ll ask again: What have I said that would indicate “freakin’ hatred and bigotry”?

          • jmichael39

            Yawn….

            While I’ll give you a modicum of credit for doing some research….
            I hate to burst your hate-filled bubble….(actually, I love bursting your hate-filled bubble)

            You might want to read this article: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/11/ark_encounter_finances_obamacare_sank_ken_ham_s_creationist_theme_park.html

            Apparently, while the Ark Encounter had originally planned on simply being a for-profit LLC owned by the non-profit “members”… (WHICH, BTW, would meet the criteria under #2 of your list), due to some circumstances completely irrelevant to the fund raising project itself, they decided to restructure themselves as a 501(c)(3)

            “The solution? “A private bond offering through a 501(c)(3) that will allow us to claim the exemption to supply abortifaciants.” Under its previous financing scheme, Ark Encounter was just another LLC. Now it’s transformed itself into an official religious nonprofit, one eligible to seize the perks that come with the title.”
            Read the whole article to understand the context.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Thanks for the link. While “(WHICH, BTW, would meet the criteria under #2 of your list)”

            It must meet all 12 – not just one.

            Unfortunately, Mr. Stern is incorrect regarding the structure of the Ark Encounter itself has not been changed to “an official religious nonprofit”.

          • jmichael39

            prove which one they are not complying with. Your so hell bent on proving they’re not a true non-profit…prove it. Remember, the burden of proof is on the accuser.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “1. The organizational documents must include a specific statement limiting the LLC’s activities to one or more exempt purposes.

            2. The organizational language must specify that the LLC is operated exclusively to further the charitable purposes of its members.”

            It is for-profit. The proceeds from admission go toward building an expanded park, which is also for-profit. Expanding a park that is for-profit is not an “exempt purpose”.

            “Remember, the burden of proof is on the accuser.”

            Regardless, the park is a business of public accommodation. As such, it is required to abide by the law regarding hiring practices in KY. Which is why Ham will be required to prove that the state is unlawfully denying tax benefits. We shall see.

          • jmichael39

            Well, that’s really cute…you simply requite two of the points you THINK they fail to comply with. However, unless someone has redefined the notion of “proof” that doesn’t PROVE anything. All you simply did was restate your accusations.
            “Regardless”? LMAO. There is no regardless. Churches are of public accommodation and they don’t have to abide by discriminatory hiring rules. Nor do any other religious organization. You don’t like that. I get it. It doesn’t change anything.
            But that being said, the call for proof is still out there. Unless and until you do, you’re accusations will remain simply the rants of a hateful bigot. Live with it.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Churches are of public accommodation and they don’t have to abide by discriminatory hiring rules.”

            They are specifically exempt.

            “You don’t like that.”

            I like that fine. I think churches should be exempt.

            “But that being said, the call for proof is still out there.”

            We’ll see how the court case goes.

            “simply the rants of a hateful bigot.”

            What have I said that would be an indication that I am a “bigot”?

          • jmichael39

            I see you’re still not proving anything.
            PROVE
            IT
            PROVE
            IT
            PROVE
            IT

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            I have presented you with the facts and the applicable law. If you do not wish to accept that as proof, then so be it.

          • jmichael39

            all you’ve presented in the law and your accusations that Ark doesn’t abide by those laws. PROVE IT. Because I don’t see evidence that they violate any one of those rules.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            As I said, I have presented you with the facts as I know them to be and the applicable law. If you do not wish to accept that as proof, then so be it.

            I’ll ask again:

            What have I said that would be an indication that I am a “bigot”?

            Or, to quote you:

            PROVE
            IT
            PROVE
            IT
            PROVE
            IT

          • jmichael39

            What an arrogant buffoon. By your standards, all I have to do is say “I’ve presented you with the facts as I know them to be” regarding your bigotry. And that would be enough.
            You have NOT provided proof that Ark has not met the requirements, you’ve simply made unsubstantiated accusations. SO, here’s how its gonna work. You’re gonna provide the proof I requested and when you do, THEN I will provide the proof of your bigotry. Unless and until you do, we’ll just have to agree that you’ve proved nothing about your claims again ARK and I’ve called you a bigot. So you see how this is done?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “all I have to do is say “I’ve presented you with the facts as I know them to be” regarding your bigotry.”

            Which, of course, you haven’t. So your point is moot.

            “You have NOT provided proof that Ark has not met the requirements, you’ve simply made unsubstantiated accusations.”

            I have provided you with information that I believe supports my position. I am not a corporate attorney. It may be that I am wrong, but I believe that the evidence is on my side.

            “You’re gonna provide the proof I requested and when you do, THEN I will provide the proof of your bigotry.”

            If you want to put conditions on providing your reasons for calling me a bigot, that is your choice. Until you provide your reasons, your statement has no validity and we’ll just have to agree that I have provided you with a lot of information which supports my viewpoint, and you have provided none that supports yours.

            “So you see how this is done?”

            I see how you do it. Like a coward.

  • Jack the Baptizer

    Hilarious. The competing (pathetically unprovable) theory of evolution is pushed at every museum, state operated nature preserve and I bet those get plenty of tourism dev dollars that nobody blinks at.

    • dark477

      You need to study morel. evolution is provable and observable.

      • Fundisi

        Within kinds yes, between kinds/species it is wholly unproven.

        • plainsman844

          Entering “evidence of speciation” into Google Scholar will return you 288,000 references. Time to read up.

          • Fundisi

            There is no archeological proofs of any fully formed, vertical transitional species – in other words, we should be up to our rumps in the fossil record of transitional species, but they do not exist. Evolution within kinds are found quite often.

          • plainsman844
          • Fundisi

            Virtually everyone has been debunked over time and all will be with more time.

          • plainsman844

            Provide some independent S C I E N T I F I C citations to back up that claim.

          • Fundisi

            I do not have the time nor energy, do the work yourself and go to any Creation or Intelligent Design website and they will direct you to reputable resources wherein these things have been thoroughly refuted.

          • dark477

            He said they have to be scientific citations.

          • plainsman844

            You’re either in a fantasy world or a liar. No peer-review and publication in an independent science journal or it didn’t happen.

          • jmichael39

            The argument for speciation is largely predicated on the watered down definition of species convincing people that given enough time, an animal can become a different kind of animal by some magical and mysterious unknown process that is related to genetic descent.

            The implication is that eventually through genetic isolation we become different kinds of creatures is patently absurd. There is a huge difference between isolating genes within a species to form unique varieties of that species and forming a new kind of animal entirely.

            The theory of speciation allegedly explains how life evolved into modern forms from the original life form, the last universal common ancestor (LUCA). Evidence of speciation is said to be unavailable because most examples happened long ago. No one can explain why it no longer occurs on the macro level today.

            If speciation as a theory is logically extrapolated, eventually (given enough time) it must supposedly account for creatures as disparate as the snail and the elephant from some distant LUCA. Eventually every organism on the planet would have to be traceable to a common LUCA, no matter how dramatically different that life form may be. Plant, animal, bird and fish are all related if the theory is true.

            Here are three uncomfortable truths about speciation:

            1. There is no other scientific theory besides speciation to explain the process how the original LUCA (formed by abiogenesis) transformed into the complex organisms as we know them today. Intermediate steps must have existed as animals (or plants) metamorphosed into their modern equivalent, but the process by which this could happen is completely unknown.

            2. There are no known modern examples of speciation except those contrived by the redefinition of the meaning of species and calling hybrid bears or fruit flies different examples of species. By changing the meaning from “animal type” which laymen may easily understand to the watered down definition of “breeding population” makes it easy to claim speciation has been observed in the wild and the lab when the process by which a new animal is formed remains unknown.

            3. The transitional fossils are interpreted to be examples of speciation, when in fact the evidence is subject to interpretation.

            To prove point #2, search Google for “speciation evidence”. One of the top search results are from the University of California-Berkeley, and the article titled Evolution 101: Evidence for Speciation. The article talks about iguanas riding trees to a remote Pacific island and colonizing it with an iguana population, and says that scientists hope to observe allopatric speciation (species allegedly formed by genetic isolation).

            A laboratory experiment alleged to prove speciation with fruit flies was also mentioned. Flies that like starch mated with other flies that liked starch, and those that liked maltose bred with other flies that liked maltose food. Getting a fly with certain culinary tastes to mate with a fly possessing different dietary interests is a far cry from a bird evolving from a reptile or vice versa.

            A study in Nature science journal titled “Genetic evidence for complex speciation of humans and chimpanzees” claimed their genetic study showed chimpanzees and humans diverged only 6.3 million years ago or less, conflicting with interpretations of ancient fossils.The study further reported “unexpected features [that] would be explained initially diverged, then later exchanged genes before separating permanently.”

            Those examples purportedly represent the best evidence for speciation: iguanas colonizing remote islands, fruit flies mating based on food choices, and DNA sequencing analysis of chimpanzee and human DNA.

            Speciation would be a little easier to believe if similar animal types like a house fly and horse fly could mate. But the fact is whenever two distinct types of creatures attempt to mate, if the offspring survives birth it is inevitably sterile and cannot perpetuate the species. In essence the animal is a mutant freak, destined to terminate the “new” species at the end of its natural life span.

            All that came from an article written by John Leonard. THAT is what I found on speciation.

            http://www.examiner.com/article/the-specious-arguments-about-species-and-speciation

      • Douglas

        The first part of your statement is true, we all need to study more. There is always something new to learn or deepen our understanding of. The second part of your statement proves that. I encourage you to study more on the biblical world view.

        • dark477

          I have no reason to study myth

          • Douglas

            Great, then leave evolution behind you and join us in truth. I seriously mean it. We don’t just walk around with blindfolds on. It IS okay to question things and to realize that maybe you were wrong about things. I’ll tell you, the Creation is amazing and when you see it all in truth it makes so much more sense than anything you were taught in school.

          • plainsman844

            Most Christians worldwide don’t have a problem with evolution (including the last three Popes). It’s a non-issue. They figure their God created evolution, a simple process with remarkable results.

          • hapy_thoughts

            Then why can’t you question creation? Truth is proof. And there is way more evidense for evolution than creation. Not to say there still cant be both

      • The Last Trump

        Hardly. To date nobody has ever observed NOTHING creating EVERYTHING. And with DESIGN and PURPOSE. But please, go ahead and prove us wrong professor.

        • dark477

          we’re talking about evolution not the origin of life and the unverse.

      • jmichael39

        which parts? Surely you don’t mean all parts. You’re hopefully not that stupid.

        • plainsman844

          What biologists wrangle about today relates to mechanism, not the fundamental truth that evolution is an accurate description of how the diversity of life developed.

          • jmichael39

            AGAIN, what parts? Surely you aren’t naïve enough to think that macro-evolutionary theories are proven. And certainly micro-evolution isn’t going to explain the origins of the universe. Come, dude, give us the low-down.

          • plainsman844

            First of all, you’re conflating the origins of the universe with evolution, which is only concerned with biological development after molecular life began.

            Those with limited scientific knowledge often bring up the micro/macro business, but never seem to be able to explain what mechanism would cause an organism to stop evolving at some arbitrary point in its development. In reality, the only obstacle in the way of an organism continuing to evolve is a lack of time, and there is plenty of that available in Earth’s history.

            For instance, assume we make a penny of interest off a dollar over a century – nobody would dispute that as micro-interest. Do this and reinvest for a million years (not a long time on a geologic time scale), and the result in dollars by weight would be 80 million times the mass of the sun.

            Small changes accumulate.

          • jmichael39

            One little problem with your little theory…the evidence of these macro transitions don’t exist. And since the vast majority of the evidence of any evolutionary changes occurring took place in what would essentially be the first ‘moments’ of the universe also substantially put serious doubt on your theory…and yes it IS a theory.
            As for your first statement trying to disassociate evolution from the origins of the universe, you’re purely splitting hairs. While evolutionary theories are viable explanations for progressions in biological history, that, too, must eventually deal with the question of origins. Whether you care to know about it or not is utterly and completely irrelevant. It is a question of relevance that is merely avoided by people like you out of a desperate need for intellectual self-preservation.
            The bottom line is that you feel threatened by science like intelligent design. In fact, I’d be pleasantly surprised if you’ve even read a white paper from an intelligent design scientist, let alone any books. You sound like the typical arrogant atheist whose definition of “open-mindedness” is “believe what I believe or else”.

      • Jack the Baptizer

        Well I’ll just pick one of the many unfounded assumptions that life didn’t start as life. Matter, energy, and most certainly life, have never been observed to come from non-matter, non-energy, or non-life.

        • dark477
          • Jack the Baptizer

            Oh that’s sad. We have how many years we think the earth has been around? How many discovered species? Leaving how long it should take one to magically morph into another and you show me this little list? And then what are these? Maybe I wasn’t clear. These are not showing one kind becoming another kind. This is showing tiny breaches of some arbitrary delineations based on physical attributes that could very easily be a preferred adaptation based on the radically different atmosphere of a changing global climate. How would we know, we’ve never observed the world during a period of globally excessive humidity. Any reason you offered nothing about spontaneous existence?

          • dark477

            you asked and i delivered don’t complain because you’re to stupid to understand.

          • Jack the Baptizer

            That’s okay, I was expecting no more. My experience in discussion with atheists or progressives (or especially both) is that they find it impossible to stay on topic or refrain from personal insult. Funny how I’m then told that I’m intolerant and not sciency 🙂

    • James Grimes

      Thank you. It is the Atheist theory – what they would like to believe.

      • plainsman844

        No, it’s a scientific theory – in science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of natural phenomena, capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise observed through empirical observation. That evolution is an accurate description of how the diversity of life developed is supported by over 160 years of scientific evidence across multiple scientific disciplines.

        • James Grimes

          Well, as you know, those Christians who believe that the Bible is the absolute, and inerrant and infallible Word of God will not buy into it. Feel free, though, to believe in it all you want.

          • dark477

            I don’t believe in evolution any more than I believe in gravity. I know they’re true

          • James Grimes

            Who cares?

          • dark477

            The law. Remember that? it’s that think you seem to think your religion gives you the right to ignore.

          • Gary

            You know something happened that could never happen? Isn’t that insanity?

          • dark477

            You’re thinking of your bible. Evolution and the big bang have been proven.

          • Gary

            No, they have not. You are ignorant of the facts.

          • dark477

            You again.

          • Gary

            I don’t mind if you believe in evolution and The Big Bang. But I do mind that you claim they have been proven because that is absolutely untrue.

          • dark477

            There are hundreds of paper on the subject that are freely available to anyone with an internet connection.

        • Gary

          Evolution is not testable or observable. At least not the kind of evolution that most people mean (molecules to man). It cannot be repeated in a lab, and no one has seen it happen because it supposedly happens too slowly.

          • plainsman844

            If you enter “evidence of biological evolution” into Google Scholar, it will return you 2,080,000 references. Your claims are demonstrably false. The “you weren’t there” argument is preposterous. Events in the past leave traces that last into the present, and science can and does look at this evidence today. Also, if this response were a valid challenge to evolution, it would equally invalidate creationism and Christianity, since they are based on events that nobody alive today has witnessed.

          • Gary

            Unless you presuppose that evolution took place, you would never conclude from the evidence that it happened.

          • plainsman844

            Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. This has been observed in both the natural world and in the laboratory: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Lenski_Affair One example would be an insect population developing resistance to pesticides over a few years. Even most creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don’t appreciate (or believe) is that this rate of evolution is all that’s required to reproduce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

            Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say evolution hasn’t been observed. Evidence isn’t limited to seeing something with your own eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, and geographic distribution of sequences, among other things, and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming – whether or not science-illiterates realize it or not.

          • hapy_thoughts

            Unless you presuppose that creation took place, you would never conclude from the evidence that it happened.

    • Fundisi

      Yes, we know that this nation is godless, anti-Christ and that they promote the lie of evolution and silence all debate, secular science allows no opposition to their lies. Yes, the state will provide every kind of advantage to silence the Christian faith and defend their godless beliefs. Yet, when Christians entangle themselves with the state through the tax system, they are inviting oversight and spiritual corruption. If it be the will of God, we should be able to trust Him to provide all the resources needed, if we need and demand the godless state to aid in its support, then we are not trusting God at all and why then should we expect Him to provide for every possible need?

      • plainsman844

        Evolution? If you can supply a citation to any published peer-reviewed scientific study that provides evidence supporting the supernatural causation of anything, ever, by all means do so. (And no, vanity publications from religious outfits don’t count)

        • Douglas

          What is your goal here?

        • Fundisi

          Your side, the godless, liberal side in the scientific community will not allow peer review or publication in their journals of any research that opposes liberal dogma. There are many articles independently published by reputable scientists, but as stated banned from all peer reviewed journals.

          Oh, you do not get to say what is or what is not allowed.

          • plainsman844

            What doesn’t make it past peer-review is shoddy scholarship that disregards reason and evidence. ID/creationism is NOT a science, since it relies on supernatural causation and philosophical or theological concepts, and as such can make no predictions that can be validated by testing, which is how science works.

            To suggest that a concerted worldwide conspiracy by research scientists, scientific journal editors, educators and the media has unjustly prevented a single valid ID/creationist manuscript from being published is preposterous.
            http://media.boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/download.jpeg

          • Fundisi

            Creation science and your godless evolution science uses the exact same data, to deny the scientific data of creationism is to deny the data of evolution. What differs is the interpretation of that data and the underlying life model. Evolution cannot be empirically proven, it demands faith, it is a religion, a religion of secular humanists. Tell me who was there to investigate how things began to give eyewitness testimony of evolution between kinds and life through cosmic accidents and random mutations over time? Creation science has such an eyewitness.

            It is an absolute fact that using the same data and offering any interpretations of that data based on observations is rejected in that world wide liberal, godless conspiracy.

          • plainsman844

            Genetics alone provides specific evidence of evolutionary change, and that’s just one discipline. And the “were you there?” gambit? Seriously? The answer is yes, because events in the past leave traces that last into the present, and we can and do look at that evidence today. Plus, if this were a valid challenge to evolution, it would equally invalidate creationism and Christianity, since they are based on events that nobody alive today has witnessed. All you’ve got are the scribblings of a bunch of nomadic scribes trying to justify their own existence.

          • Fundisi

            I am tired of arguing with you, you are a committed atheist and no scientific evidence will ever change your mind. The fact is creation science and Intelligent Design science and evolutionary design use the same data, it is the interpretation of that data and the underlying life model of the investigators that differ, that data best fits the Divine Creation model and your side cannot empirically prove life arising from cosmic accidents over time and random mutations. You cannot duplicate your theories in the laboratory, you cannot start with nothing at all and produce life.

            Further, the existence of incredibly complex design of all things demands the prior existence of a designer greater than the things designed, such design will never result by random accidents. Now I am done with you, it is too tiring and you will die and one day face that designer, know the truth and it will be too late for you to find God.

          • plainsman844

            AHHahaha! Sooner or later some version of that tired old war horse Pascal’s wager always turns up. This nonsense is based on the premise of the unreliability of reason and the deficiencies of evidence, reducing our choices to desperate gambles where we make decisions only on the basis of the desirability outcomes – a strategy, btw, that makes casinos rich and gamblers paupers. Accepting Pascal’s wager is admitting the defeat of reason.

          • jmichael39

            LMAO – ask Dr. Richard Sternberg about concerted efforts by the secular humanists in the science community to squelch peer review of any papers that don’t jive with their worldviews.
            Yeah, look it up for yourself. Do your OWN research for once.

          • jmichael39
  • James Grimes

    They were approved… Then they were denied when The Useless complained. Sounds like there’s grounds for the lawsuit.

    • dark477

      They complained because he was violating Kentucky anti-discrimination laws and the Civil Rights Act.

      • alnga

        nope…wrong again, try another one.

        • dark477

          How?

          • jmichael39

            How? first of all, as the article points out, the 1964 Civil Rights Act specifically allows religious based organizations to require a faith statement. There is no violation there at all…or with the anti-discrimination laws either for the same reasons.

          • dark477

            This isn’t a religious based business it’s a for profit business

          • jmichael39

            doesn’t matter one bit.

          • hapy_thoughts

            It doesnt. Churches should be taxed just the same as any other organization.

          • jmichael39

            well, that’s great, but its unconstitutional to do so. So unless you have 38 state legislatures in your back pocket that would change that fact, you’re SOL.

          • dark477

            Obviously it does or they would of given them the money.

          • jmichael39

            obviously there are QUESTIONS about it, isn’t there. Sheesh

          • plainsman844

            Not legally realistic ones.

          • jmichael39

            try again? With the evidence that they ARE a non-profit organization, your argument of FOS..just like you are.

          • hapy_thoughts

            I have found numerous stories on the internet about this, and they all say that this is a registered for-profit bussiness. This being just one.

            http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/02/04/ken-ham-has-sued-kentucky-officials-because-he-doesnt-understand-how-the-law-works/

            So where is that evidence that they ARE a non-profit organization?

          • jmichael39

            then someone needs to tell the Secretary of State for the state of Kentucky because The Ark Project is falsely suggesting that they are non-profit on their own website. More than an issue over tax rebates…a criminal offense.

          • jmichael39

            Well, unless they want to go to prison, they’d better remove what their website says:

            “ARK Project Now, Inc is a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization. Donations and contributions are tax-deductible as allowed by law”

          • Peter_Rowney

            “ARK project Now, Inc” is a crowdsourcing fund raiser.

            It is NOT “Ark Encounter LLC”

            Are you always this bad at reading comprehension?

          • jmichael39
          • Peter_Rowney

            jmichael39 plainsman844 • 17 hours ago

            “ARK Project Now, Inc is a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization. Donations and contributions are tax-deductible as allowed by law”
            ————————————————————————————

            Why did you post this from ARK Project Now?

            Are you still under the delusion that ARK Project Now is in any way related to Answers in Genesis Ark Encounter?

          • jmichael39

            https://arkencounter.com/donate/ I repeat…SEE THE SITE.
            Dude, don’t you get tired of always being so hateful?

          • dark477

            No just a con-artist throwing a tantrum because he didn’t get his money.

          • plainsman844

            DOES matter. Religious non-profits can discriminate in hiring using their “statement of faith” requirement. A for-profit business, as the Ark Encounter scheme is registered with the state, CANNOT discriminate in hiring on the basis of religion.

          • jmichael39

            and how do you explain the FACT that they owned by a non-profit organization? hmm?

          • plainsman844

            The states position is they would be in violation of federal lain offering the tax breaks, so I guess you will have to take it up with them.

          • jmichael39

            Great, that’s their “position”….it doesn’t make them right. now does it?

          • jmichael39

            BTW, why would they be in violation of federal law offering the tax breaks to a non-profit organization?

            “ARK Project Now, Inc is a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization. Donations and contributions are tax-deductible as allowed by law”

          • jmichael39

            oh and btw, dark…according to the ark project’s own website, they are: “Ark Encounter is a privately owned Limited Liability Company (LLC). Crosswater Canyon, a non-profit subsidiary of Answers in Genesis, will be the sole member and owner of the LLC and will also be the managing member responsible for day-to-day operations.”

            So, unless you have some evidence to the contrary, I’d say you’re FOS.

            And if you ARE correct, then the ark project has more problems than just some sales tax deal.

          • James Grimes

            Facts will not be meaningful to him. He just wants to be disagreeable.

          • Spoob

            Why don’t you kiss a fat cow right in the butt?

          • James Grimes

            Wow. The liar throws another insult. That is to be expected.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            An insult to the cow, perhaps.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “For profit” or “non-profit” is irrelevant. They are a business of public accommodation. That is all that is necessary to require them to follow the hiring laws of the state.

          • jmichael39

            They are a religious non-profit…makes all the difference in the world.
            Read the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
            If this were not the case, then the government could preclude Christian schools from having a faith statement prerequisite for their teachers. Or churches would be obligated to potentially hire unbelievers on their staffs. None of that is true. And the Ark Project is a religious based non-profit. They can require a faith statement of all their employees. Its the law. And that’s their argument. We’ll see how it pans out.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Not that it is particularly relevant, but the park itself is not a non-profit.

            “If this were not the case, then the government could preclude Christian schools from having a faith statement prerequisite for their teachers”

            That has nothing to do with the profit status of the school. It has to do with how the school is tied to the church as well the school being private.

            ” Or churches would be obligated to potentially hire unbelievers on their staffs.”

            Again, that is not based upon their being non-profit. It is based upon their status as a religious organization, when the Ark Encounter is not.

            “They can require a faith statement of all their employees.”

            The park can no more do that than a Catholic-affiliated hospital can require such a statement from employees. It is not allowed.

            “Its the law.”

            No, it’s not. They are a business of public accommodation. The park is not a religious organization. They are not exempted from employment law in KY. You are mistaken.

            We’ll see how it pans out.

            Agreed.

          • SecularHumanist199

            No, the government doesn’t get to tell christian schools who to hire or how to run their schools, unless those schools are getting funding from the government. In this case, Ham can do what he wants in hiring. He just doesn’t get to do so and also get millions of government tax dollars.

          • jmichael39

            Read the article moron….he’s not GETTING millions of government tax dollars. Sheesh. You guys will make anything up just to try to justify your bitterness about religion. What about YOUR religion. What can YOU get away with using tax dollars in the name of secular humanism?

            Oh and btw, private Christian universities are fully allowed to accept government loan money from students, and federal grants. And they DEFINITELY are allowed to have faith statements required by both their students AND their faculty. And there is not a single problem with that. So where does this fit in? hmmm?

          • SecularHumanist199

            I don’t have a religion. I don’t participate in any organized groups or worship in any way. I don’t believe in god because the whole concept of god seems silly. Not believing in something isn’t a religion any more than not playing golf is a sport. I can’t think of anything that I would get tax dollars for in the name of secular humanism.

            I have read many articles on this. Ham was looking for millions in subsidies for his park that were going to be paid through tax abatement. The specific program through which he was seeking this money was for business development. A requirement for that program was to follow the non-discrimination rules of the state.

            Individual students can get grants and loans for college, even for christian or other religious colleges, but that is going to an individual, not to the school directly. In addition, when government grants are given to schools directly, there are specific rules associated with them, including proscriptions from using that money for directly religious purposes.

          • jmichael39

            “I don’t have a religion.” – Sure you do. Secular Humanism has been identified as a ‘religion’ by the courts. Heck, the only reason the courts even had to make such a ruling was because secular humanist groups filed cases demanding to be treated as a religious organization.

            “Not believing in something isn’t a religion” – again, sure it is. Aside from the fact that secular humanist/atheists defend their non-belief with religious fervor, the courts also say it is a religion. Doesn’t necessarily make it rational, but its still a religion.
            You sure are good at splitting hairs. You should try a good shampoo for all those split ends.

          • SecularHumanist199

            There are organized secular humanist groups, but I don’t participate in them. I do believe in much of what they believe in though, such as that people should follow the “golden rule,” just because it is the human thing to do. A religion requires some belief in a deity and participation in some ritual, neither of which I do.

          • jmichael39

            So what, its still a religion whether you like it called a religion or not. Religion does NOT require a belief in a deity. The US Supreme Court in the United States v. Seeger stated that nontheistic beliefs held as strongly as theistic beliefs are consisted under US law as being religious beliefs thus strongly held ethical beliefs are consider religious views. According to the court the proper test is whether a given belief that is sincere and meaningful occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God and that is the rule that is used in the courts

      • James Grimes

        Another Atheist opinion… who cares?

        • dark477

          Why do you think a fact is somehow irrelevant just because an atheist said it?

          • Spoob

            I can answer that. Because Grimes is impervious to facts. He’s a sad, cold, lonely and angry little man.

          • James Grimes

            The liar throws more insults around. Spoob, do you have any character?

          • Spoob

            What’s the matter Grimes, going to deny what I said? Maybe if you acted like a loving Christian instead of a spoiled child having a tantrum all the time…

    • Spoob

      Do you not realize how desperate and pathetic you appear by tarring all atheists with the same stupid insult? Just say atheists. It won’t kill you to drop the hate.

      • James Grimes

        Oh my! I struck a nerve. And the hater is complaining that I call his kind The Useless. What a farce.

        • Spoob

          The irony here is “The Useless” is so much better suited to you, because you’re a useless Christian. Your message is doom, judging, hate, anger, fear, oppression, paranoia – if Christ was in your presence, he’d never stop throwing up.

          • James Grimes

            Don’t complain because you are not able to back up what you accuse me of. When you made some insulting comments to me earlier this week, I asked you to show me where I made the statements that you said I had made. You were not willing to back up your accusations. I know that you cannot substantiate what you are accusing me of now.

            Your credibility is in the trash. You LIE when it is convenient to you. YOU ARE A LIAR.

          • Spoob

            And YOU have your little game where you airily say, “Oh I’m done talking to you, you’re not worth my time,” and then continue to trash the same people indirectly by commenting on other posts, so the person (you hope) will never see what you said about them.

            But OK, I’ll play your little game, what are you waiting for proof of you saying? I’m sure it’s easy enough to retrieve.

          • James Grimes

            OK, Spoob, back up the following accusations you made about me:

            “I am the kind of Christian who doesn’t want to murder homosexuals or bomb abortion clinics like you do.”

            “you laugh at the “Christian entertainment” of killing gay people and praying for your enemies to burn eternally in hell.”

            “Right, because murdering people who believe differently than you do is hilarious.”

            ” Your message is doom, judging, hate, anger, fear, oppression, paranoia…”
            If you can’t do it, and you can’t, then don’t bother me with your nonsense.

          • Spoob

            Statement 1 is hyperbole. That is exactly the KIND of Christian you are. It doesn’t reference a direct quote made by you but typifies the kinds of things you say. Focus on the word KIND in my post.

            Statement 2 – Gary said both of those things and you thumbed up his statements.

            Statement 3 – as 2 above

            Statement 4 is simply the truth, evidenced by everything you post.

          • James Grimes

            Spoob, I figured you couldn’t back up what you accused me of. You are a liar; as good as they come on this forum.

          • Spoob

            No, I think not. Let’s just point out all your anger and hate towards homosexuals, atheists, Catholics and anyone else you deem “useless” and present you with a tally. I think you’ll be quite surprised.

          • Terry Roll

            Just call him The Thoughtless. He blindly follows some mutation of Christianity where all he focuses on is hating people (totally Jesus-like by the way) without any critical thought.

          • Spoob

            He is easily the angriest person on this forum. Gary’s the craziest but Grimes is the angriest. Neither lives a particularly good example of why anyone would ever WANT to be a Christian. No love, no hope, no forgiveness. All bile.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            I don’t know, jmichael39 might be giving Mr. Grimes a run for his money on that account.

          • Spoob

            He is pretty free with the insults, that’s for sure…

          • Douglas

            You seem to think that you are the judge of all but that is not true. You think James is angry because he doesn’t want to waste his time arguing with trolls who are only here for debate and disruption. That is not anger, it is honesty. He is to-the-point with no apologies. Anytime people like you are hit with truth you turn hostile and want to attack. You honestly come across as the angry one here. What do you gain by arguing with people here? Nothing…

          • Spoob

            Well, it so happens that I’m NOT a troll, just someone who gets very annoyed when I see people taking their personal biases and prejudices and hiding them behind their Bibles. If James, or you, or anyone for that matter wants to post a hateful lie, don’t be expecting the rest of us are just going to sit back and let it go by. If this is “truth” to people like you, then you’ve been lied to pretty horribly by your fundamentalist pastors, and maybe you would benefit from reading a bit of actual facts, especially when the come from the world of science and are therefore verifiable.

          • Douglas

            What are you talking about?

          • Spoob

            You first.

          • The Last Trump

            Troll alert.

          • Spoob

            They know you’re a troll, Trumpy, you’ve been getting away with it for ages, it’s not going to change anytime soon.

          • The Last Trump

            Ha! Nice one. Made me laugh again. Set myself up for that!
            You know, you might not have anything of any value to add to the discussions here, but at least you’re entertaining, Booobs!
            Keep up the good work! (The entertaining stuff I mean. Not all of that hate and intolerance you constantly spew.)
            Thanks funny guy! 🙂

          • Spoob

            Oh those pesky facts Trumpy, eh? Always getting in the way?
            Me: You are demonstrating hate and intolerance.
            Trumpy: No YOU are!
            Me: Well, you are posting that homosexuals and Catholics and atheists are going to burn in hell. That’s hateful, unbiblical, and a lie. And you did it multiple times.
            Trumpy: No YOU are!
            And on and on it goes. It’s like having a conversation with a doll that can say only one thing and can’t stop pulling its own string.
            Fun-NEE, though, eh, Trumpy? What a laff riot. He hee. Total knee slapper.

          • The Last Trump

            Now, Booobs, you’re lying again! Thought you were going to work on that, “Christian”.

            You: “Well, you are posting that homosexuals and Catholics and atheists are going to burn in hell. That’s hateful, unbiblical, and a lie. And you did it multiple times.”

            Me: “Huh?! When have I ever said that!? Why would you lie about something so nasty and resort to hateful accusations that you couldn’t possibly back up? Just because your argument isn’t going so well? How infantile and shameful!

            By all means, feel free to go back over any of my posts and QUOTE ME.”

            You: …cricket…cricket…cricket.

            None of that was funny, Sboobie. Are you stuck on hate and intolerance again? I told you you should stick with what you’re good at. Being funny, silly! Oh wait…on second thought you ARE pretty good at hate and intolerance.

            My bad. As you were, you LGBT lovin’, Bible loathing “Christian” you!

            (“Christian”! Hee, hee! Gets me every time! 🙂

          • Spoob

            “Christian”! Hee, hee” Gets me every time! :)”

            (Translation: pees his pants, pounds his keyboard, cries, and re-energizes himself on fundie Kool-aid. Composes himself, wipes his eyes, and returns to his keyboard to lie some more.)

            You’re so overloaded on that particular Kool-aid, though, Trumpy, that you didn’t even notice that you BOOOOOOBed yourself in this very post of yours. Specifically by mocking me for being “LGBT lovin'”. WHAT’S THAT, NOW? What SHOULD I be instead, Trumpy? A hater?

            I’ll play your game, Trumpy. When I have some time, I will go back and call you on the rest of it. You know as well as I do that you said it, it may take some time to find actual quotes, but no problem. Given all the flak you were giving me about men laying with men, your reputation as a gay basher is particularly easy to prove.

          • The Last Trump

            Let me help you along, “Christian”. I quoted scripture, remember?
            The Holy Bible? You’ve heard of it yes? Chapters and verse. And then YOU went berserk with hateful and slanderous accusations about bigotry!
            Let me know if you can’t find those particular scriptures in your “online” Bible (hee, hee!). Or just ask any of the Christians here who would be ready and willing to help you find them.
            YOUR BIBLE clearly describes homosexuality as an abomination. And I absolutely stand with the Bible. As should you, “Christian”.

          • Spoob

            Oh, is THAT what this is all about, Trumps, your complete and total inability to read the Bible properly? Here’s a hint – if you walk away from it wanting to scream at people that they’re going to hell, you’re probably NOT reading it correctly. See, that’s why we have all those verses like “judge not lest ye be judged,” the log in your eye, let he who is without sin cast the first stone, etc. But I know what you did, you went off and had three heapin’ helpings of the fundie Kool-aid, decided you WERE without sin, and then CAST that stone! Right?

            You ABSOLUTELY STAND with your irresponsible misunderstanding of the Bible. We know that. We see that.

            HEE HEE!! HEE HEE! TOO FUNNY TRUMPY! TOO FUNNY!

          • James Grimes

            Yes, he is good for entertainment. I laugh at all his comments, especially the nasty ones directed at me. I really don’t want him to go away.

          • The Last Trump

            Oh, speaking of lies and facts I thought you might be interested in the truth about your LGBT hero, Obama, who you have ridiculously claimed was a Christian!! This article just came out about Obama’s “Christian” faith. You know, how it’s in no shape or form anywhere near Christianity and goes on to very well document the evidence why.

            Although, come to think of it, his “Christianity” does seem to closely resemble yours….Hmm. I can see now why you might have mistakenly thought he was a Christian! Just one of the many things you’ve been so wrong about huh?

            Anyway, here you go mistaken one. Always glad to help. You’re welcome.

            http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/committed-christian-obamas-religious-history-unmasked/

          • Spoob

            https://wndwatch.wordpress.com/

            Your service. Do by all means keep posting inflammatory articles from right wing wacko organizations, though. They cast ever so much light on the “Christianity” you follow. Hate, hate, hate. Doesn’t it exhaust you after a while?

          • James Grimes

            He won’t read the article. He couldn’t care less about (true) facts. He is comfortable living in his world of lies.
            BTW, have a blessed Lord’s Day tomorrow. Blessings to you and your family.

          • The Last Trump

            Thanks James. Same to you and yours, brother!
            Glad to have you here supporting genuine Christianity in the face of constant attacks. God bless!

          • The Last Trump

            Ya. You nailed it. He’s a troll.
            Just go back over his Christian bashing, Bible hating posts. He’s got something intolerant and hateful to say about everyone here who isn’t gay. Go figure. Pretty telling.

          • James Grimes

            Douglas will find out in short order how pathetic he really is. He trolls just to be disagreeable.

          • James Grimes

            Thank you. Spoob is a compulsive liar, so I have written him off. If you’re on here long enough, he will start posting lies about you. He already does it for several of our Christian brothers who stand up to his nonsense.
            Have a blessed Lord’s Day tomorrow. TTYL

          • Spoob

            No, I think not. Let’s just point out all your anger and hate towards homosexuals, atheists, Catholics and anyone else you deem “useless” and present you with a tally. I think you’ll be quite surprised.

    • Terry Roll

      You keep using “The Useless” in every post. From now on, I will be condescending myself and refer to you fundi nut jobs as The Thoughtless.

    • SecularHumanist199

      When they were approved he didn’t say anything about only hiring young Earth creationists or biblical literalists.

  • Rudy Brinkman

    He should take `pride` in his suffering for the Lord and be treated like a second class person!

  • Fundisi

    If this is a Christian Ministry, then they have every right to hire only Christians as their employees.

    Again, as I said under another thread, Christian ministries should not be looking for special tax breaks or incentives. If it is of God, He will provide all the support they need, if it is not the will of God, it should fail. Such people need to come out from among this wicked world system and be separate, such entanglements with the State always comes with strings attached and corrupting influences on the ministry.

    • plainsman844

      No, they don’t have every right, because Ark Encounter is registered as for-profit, and therefore can’t discriminate in hiring utilizing their “statement of faith” requirement.

      • Fundisi

        I am sorry you cannot read, I said: “If this is a Christian Ministry,” implying not for profit.

        • plainsman844

          The issue for Kenny is the Ark Encounter project, which ISN’T not-for-profit according to their registration with the state of Kentucky.

          • jmichael39

            Well, if that’s true, plainsman…then they have more trouble than what you think. They say right on their website that they are:

            “Ark Encounter is a privately owned Limited Liability Company (LLC). Crosswater Canyon, a non-profit subsidiary of Answers in Genesis, will be the sole member and owner of the LLC and will also be the managing member responsible for day-to-day operations.”

            So, unless you can figure out a way to show us all the state registration of The Ark Project as a FOR PROFIT venture, you’re likely getting your info from false sources.

          • Peter_Rowney

            You’re a bit thick aren’t you jmichael39.

            A for profit company owned by a non profit religious ministry is still a FOR PROFIT company.

            The fact that you can’t comprehend this makes me wonder how you graduated from kindergarten.

          • jmichael39

            You’re pretty thick yourself, pete…no one has YET shown that the Ark Project is registered as a for profit organization. You want to go pull the secretary of state filing…its surely public record. Until then, spare me what you THINK I understand, moron.

          • Peter_Rowney

            Good grief jmichael you have truly shown your ignorance this time.

            ARK Project Now has NOTHING to do with AIG, or the Ark Encounter project. NOTHING.

          • jmichael39
          • Peter_Rowney

            What happened to your post about ARK Project Now?

            Did you delete it?

          • jmichael39

            No didn’t delete anything. Did you decide to stop being so freakin’ hateful? READ THE SITE: https://arkencounter.com/donate/

          • jmichael39

            Sponsorship is tax-deductible*

            *When choosing to receive a replica with a beam or plank sponsorship, $75 of the gift will be non-deductible for the value of the Ark replica model.
            care to look it up

          • jmichael39

            Oh and btw, Peter, The Ark Project isn’t just OWNED by a non-profit….it IS a non-profit. Or at least that’s their claim on their website. So, for their sake, they’d better be.

            “Since ARK Project now is a non profit organization, we rely heavily on donations”

          • Peter_Rowney

            “Ark Project Now” is a non-profit organisation.

            Bit of deceptive copy and pasting there jmichael.

            Are you suggesting that “Ark Project Now” is the Ark Encounter LLC?

            Why didn’t you capitalise the N in Now , which changes the statement completely?

            Maybe Ken Ham and his cup and ball trick has even fooled you.

          • jmichael39
          • Peter_Rowney

            Oh jmichael your poor deluded fool.

            It has just occurred to me that you think this ARK Project Now website is somehow related to AIG’s Ark Encounter.

            LOL

            Read what ARK Project Now actually is, and then I will accept your apology.

            http://www.arkprojectnow.com/our-story/
            Acts of Random Kindness

          • jmichael39

            no moron

            https://arkencounter.com/donate/

            try doing your research…Sheesh

          • jmichael39

            Sponsorship is tax-deductible*

            *When choosing to receive a replica with a beam or plank sponsorship, $75 of the gift will be non-deductible for the value of the Ark replica model.

          • jmichael39

            Oh btw, Peter….they also say on the bottom of their “Donate” page:

            “ARK Project Now, Inc is a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization. Donations and contributions are tax-deductible as allowed by law”

  • James Grimes

    Christian: nothing x nothing = nothing
    Atheists: nothing x nothing = everything

    • plainsman844

      (A) You don’t know much about the Big Bang theory or seem able to differentiate it from the completely different question of how the diversity of life developed after the formation of the first self-replicating molecules.

      (B) You somehow think that “Poof-Goddidit!” is somehow more logical than what science understands about the origins of the Universe.

      • Gary

        Who made the first self-replicating molecules?

        • plainsman844

          All science cares about is what empirical evidence points to. The Big Bang doesn’t say anything about what caused it because it doesn’t need to. Scientific theories don’t explain everything, just what evidence is available and pertinent. Asking the Big Bang (or evolution) to do more than this is a double standard. The theory of gravity doesn’t explain where mass came from. The Germ theory of disease transmission doesn’t describe where germs came from. Atomic theory doesn’t explain where atoms come from. It’s also worth noting that here has never been any empirical evidence supporting the supernatural causation of anything. Ever.

          As an aside, the general chemical steps that would be necessary for such molecules to form isn’t that huge a mystery (the process of forming amino acids is already well known) – you would do well to watch this video designed around the work of Nobel Laurette Dr. Jack Szostak:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

          • Gary

            The first molecules had to be made by an intelligent being. That is the only possible explanation for their existence. They did not make themselves, and they did not come to exist without being caused (chance). They had to be designed and made by some one who had both the ability to make them, and the desire to make them. Otherwise, they would never exist. The same thing is true about the universe. If there was no supernatural creator, then the universe would not exist.

          • plainsman844

            WHY? These molecules would have been constructed from a few primitive chemicals utilizing reactions chemists are familiar with today. Your hypothesis is like claiming nobody could possibly win a lottery without supernatural intervention because the odds against winning was too large – well, obviously someone always DOES win lotteries, no matter how large the odds. Regarding the possibility of abiogenesis happening spontaneously, what you completely fail to personally fathom is the profound distinction between a consoling delusion and the truth. AND, no matter what the original cause, this doesn’t effect what science knows about the process of biological evolution once life began.

          • Gary

            You are saying that the molecules could have formed by chance. Well no, they could not have. Things don’t come to exist by chance. It is true for living things and it is true for the universe. All of it had to be created by God or it would not exist.

      • James Grimes

        LOL. You are entertaining. There’s some use for you then.

  • Harry Oh!

    Kent Hovind is facing life in prison over a similar issue. Better for this guy to hang an abortion sign over his ark and the government will pay for the whole thing, including the taxes.

    • dark477

      You have no idea how these laws work do you?

    • Spoob

      Kent Hovind deserves to stay in jail.

  • Ryan C Evans

    Wow! I read through this and was really amazed at the Lord tugging at the hearts of atheists. Every encounter is a chance to win someone to Christ. Sometimes you don’t have to seek them, they come to you! It sounds like many people just need to be heard (including me.)

  • Ryan C Evans

    I don’t know much about the case, but I do know that Ken Ham has done something really special. He has created a museum that we can go to and learn about the Bible.
    I have been there twice and was excited that I can go to a place that encourages the teachings of the Bible. I know that God is pleased with the example Ken Ham has set for fellow Christians. Whether this establishment is brought down or not it has been a blessing to everyone.

    Luke 23:34King James Version (KJV)

    34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.

  • Badkey

    If Muslims received tax dollars to build a museum to Mo, there would be apoplectic fits among folks who support this. No tax money to fundy charades! Period!

  • thoughtsfromflorida

    Wow. What a display of hypocrisy.

    He claims the action of the state is wrong because it amounts to discrimination based upon his religious beliefs, yet he claims that his business, a business of public accommodation – should be free to discriminate in hiring based upon religious belief. So, basically, his position is: You can’t discriminate against me based upon religious belief, but I should be free to discriminate against others based upon religious belief.

    ““However, the state was so insistent on treating our religious entity as a second-class citizen that we were simply left with no alternative but to proceed to court.”

    Hilarious! Perfectly fine for them to seek remedy through the judiciary, despite the “will of the people” deciding that businesses should not be allowed to discriminate based upon religious belief, but two citizens who are denied access to the state provided license of marriage should NOT utilize the courts to seek remedy for being treated as “second-class” citizens because the people have voted against same-gender marriage.

  • dumpster

    The U.S. government (ha haaa) has been a corporation since the 1st time it went bankrupt. It has been working fictitiously with legal fiction due to Americans’ acquiescence and ignorant consent. And who is at large to blame for this? Attorneys! Who fabricates all the fictitious laws? Attorneys! Who writes these fictitious laws using terms, not words, so it can be deflected to mean anything they want while making it so confusing hardly anyone can understand it? Attorneys 🙁

  • Badkey

    So, Ken Ham wants the state to take money away from people he would KICK OUT of his fantasy land adventures and give it to him. No. The smackdown against this lunatic is a necessary thing to do.

    • Gary

      Unless the Kentucky law says the state cannot give the same tax incentive to religious organizations that it gives to secular ones, then the law is on Ham’s side. But, that is no guarantee the courts will find in his favor.

      • Badkey

        I sincerely hope they give him the middle finger and escort him to the door of the courthouse. Nobody as discriminatory as he should be given 10 cents in tax dollars.

        • Gary

          The issue is whether Kentucky can deny the tax breaks according to Kentucky law. You can hope whatever you want. I hope you don’t live until the end of the week, but that has nothing to do with this lawsuit.

          • Badkey

            If it’s a religious non-profit, of course they can.

            Ah, there’s that Christian Love™ we hear so much about… wishing death upon your neighbor.

            I like you Gary. You help insure your religion will die.

          • Gary

            Christianity is not going to die. But you will.

          • Badkey

            Uh-huh… that’s why church attendances in the US is shrinking… those who claim affiliation with the christian faith is shrinking… atheism and agnosticism are growing…

            All thanks to people like you Gary. You’re my hero.

          • Gary

            The number of people attending church has nothing to do with me. Only a small minority of people have ever been right with God at any time in history. And only a small percentage of people who have or will live on this planet will be allowed into Heaven. The vast majority will be damned, just like the Bible says.

          • pax2u

            Gary do you still want the Government to execute homosexuals and some Catholics? or do you now want an armed revolution against that same Government?

          • Badkey

            And somehow, hateful little Gary is one of the special ones.

            Backing the notion that your deity isn’t a god, it’s a monster.

          • pax2u

            crazy Gary supports fascism but what is really scary are those who support Gary’s hate, and call themselves Christians

          • Spoob

            Catholicism will live longer than Fundyism.

          • Gary

            Bible believers will be around and prospering for eternity. But there awaits a far different future for you and other unbelievers.

          • Spoob

            But I’m not an unbeliever, Gary. You made that up. You pulled it out of your bum.

          • pax2u

            Gary has already decided that Homosexuals, and some Catholics should be executed by the Government, but at the same time Gary has spoken of an armed revolution against the Government that he wants to execute those who he hates,

            Gary is a violent and angry person

          • pax2u

            one of Gary’s posts

            pax2u Gary • 17 minutes ago

            so Gary would you add Catholics with homosexuals to your list of who to execute?

            Gary pax2u • a few seconds ago

            Not all of them.

          • James Grimes

            Paxy, why did you send me this? Man, there’s something wrong with you. Stop stalking me.

            pax2u James Grimes • 2 hours ago
            I see I made Crazy Gary’s hit list

            pax2u Gary • 11 hours ago
            Gary, you have said that you want the Government to execute homosexuals and some Catholics, have you added any others to your liquidation list?

            Gary pax2u • 7 hours ago
            You are one of the catholics.

            pax2u Gary • 6 minutes ago
            well Gary, so now you want me to be executed,

            so Jimmy Grimmy
            are you going to be an SS guard at the Fascist Liquidation Camp with Crazy Gary?

          • pax2u

            do you support Gary, or do no condemn his wish to execute me?

          • James Grimes

            “do you support Gary, or do no condemn his wish to execute me?” Please translate this for me into proper English. Don’t bother editing it; just translate it.

          • pax2u

            do you agree with Gary that I should be executed?

          • James Grimes

            Absolutely not! I would agree that you need to be confined to a mental institution. Now that you asked…

          • pax2u

            I thank you for not agreeing with crazy Gary who wants to execute me, thank you , thank you, thank you mien herr

          • pax2u

            how many others do you and Gary want to execute in your fascist extermination camps, Jimmy?

          • pax2u

            do you support the execution of me and other Catholics?

          • pax2u

            Gary I need to add this to my list of crazy Gary hate posts

          • Badkey

            I actually shared that one on ChristanPost today because someone claimed no christians were wishing death on anyone! And they all remember Gary… the wingnuts fondly, the good guys with humor.

          • pax2u

            Gary says that he has guns and is not interested in hunting, Gary has a list of who he wants executed, and has said that he wants the government overthrown by a revolution, very sad and frightening

          • Badkey

            Yes, I’ve been bantering with Gary for a LONG time… long before he was banned from the Christian Post for his nasty attitude and call for harm to others.

          • pax2u

            we should all pray for his eternal soul

          • Terry Roll

            Maybe we should report him to the FBI. I think they generally like to keep an eye on crazy folk like that.

          • pax2u

            Gary is already crazy watching for those black helicopters, and the fluoride in his water, and the chem trails in the sky over his house

          • Terry Roll

            You are such the model Christian wishing death on Badkey.

  • Tiger

    Answers in Genesis has a strict hiring policy. Christians that agree with Ken Ham’s interpretation of the Bible are only allowed to be hired. If AIG does not approve of the Church you attend you will not be allowed employment. Non-Christians need not apply. AiG and the Creation Museum can legally do this because of their non-profit status. That changes once you become for profit. Since the Ark Encounter is a for-profit business, trying to impose a strict employment policy based on religion is know as discrimination and probably against the EOA. That was the reason why the application was denied. I honestly don’t know why he is filing suit, but I cannot wait to hear the argument his side produces. Should be a laff.

    • Gary

      Non discrimination laws are easy to get around. People do it all the time. The shame is that they have to. The law should respect the right of everyone to freedom of association.

      • Terry Roll

        Ok. So it should respect gay peoples’ right of association via marriage too then right?

      • SecularHumanist199

        They are free to associate with and hire whoever they want. They just can’t take millions of dollars of tax money and then discriminate.

  • Spoob

    Answers In Genesis will lose, it is pretty simple. KY has a clause in in Constitution that prohibits giving taxpayer cash to a religious organization. When AIG, a very religious group, tried to say it was just a tourist attraction KY went along, UNTIL AIG said that they would discriminate in it’s hiring practices, at that point KY was correct to revoke the tax abatement. Courts have ruled in the states that have this type of clause in favor of the state! In a very quick search I have only found one case, where the state did not have that clause, in which the state lost!

    • Badkey

      RAmen!

      • Spoob

        Ham is more than a little clueless about these things.

    • Oboehner

      Ark Encounter is not a non-profit organization there genius.

      • Badkey

        You are correct, it’s a for profit LLC… then it’s hiring practices are illegal, and they should be denied the money based on that which is what is happening.

        • Oboehner

          I can ask for donations, doesn’t mean I’m a non-profit.

          • Badkey

            I corrected my post.

            You are correct, it’s a for profit LLC… then it’s hiring practices are illegal, and they should be denied the money based on that which is what is happening.

            The LLC is ONLY involved with it’s creation, then AIG will take over. It’s crossing several lines here and claims it’s donations are tax deductible.

            No tax money. He will lose.

          • Oboehner

            And Disneyland hires people from the sex-offender website.
            “The LLC is ONLY involved with it’s creation, then AIG will take over.” Unsubstantiated BS.

          • Badkey

            What does that have to do in comparison to Ham?

            Wow… you seem desperate.

            With his hiring practices, he will never get the tax money.

          • Oboehner

            If you could muster up some critical thinking, you’d figure it out.

          • Spoob

            No one can figure it out. Connect the dots and explain what it has to do with Ham.

          • Oboehner

            Don’t be lumping the rest of the civilized world with yourself, now grit your teeth and try real hard – you can do it if you try.

          • Spoob

            Sorry. I don’t speak fundie zealot.

          • Oboehner

            or anything rational for that matter, marian.

          • Spoob

            Just the Queen’s English, Florence.

      • Spoob

        It stinks of fundie.

        • Oboehner

          That would make it better than stinking of marian.

          • Spoob

            Let’s leave your wife out of this.

          • Oboehner

            You worship my wife?

          • Spoob

            It’s so cute watching you lose.

          • Oboehner

            If that’s all you have, I’m not the one losing.

          • Spoob

            I’m talking about Team Ken Ham, boob.

          • Oboehner

            I really don’t think you know WHAT you are talking about.

          • Spoob

            Considering you think Catholics worship small chunks of rock, I don’t think you do, either.

          • Oboehner

            There you go calling mary a chunk of rock.

          • Spoob

            Your delusion, not mine.

          • Oboehner

            I’m not the one with the shrines and graven images in a bathtub in the yard.

          • Spoob

            I’m not either, bozo.

          • Oboehner

            Riiiiight.

          • Spoob

            Like you’d know anyway.

          • Oboehner

            You marians are so predictable.

          • Spoob

            So are you Berthas.

      • Spoob

        Answers in Genesis (AiG) is a Christian fundamentalist group that advocates a literal interpretation of the bible, and owns the Creation Museum. Through a subsidiary nonprofit, it also owns Ark Encounter, a for-profit LLC, and has fundraised extensively for the park.
        Donations to AiG, a nonprofit, are tax deductible, while donations directly to Ark Encounter, a for-profit company, would not be. But AiG fundraising materials include a space for donations to Ark Encounter, and note that donations are “tax deductible to the fullest extent allowed by law.” On the AiG website, donors have the option to designate contributions to Ark Encounter.

        A separate Ark Encounter website also states that sponsorship is tax deductible.

        Thus it appears that AiG is taking tax-deductible donations and directly giving them to Ark Encounter, LLC, noted Freedom From Religion Staff Attorney Patrick Elliott.

        Nonprofits can run for-profit companies that are related to a charitable purpose, including a religious purpose. But, in order to obtain tax breaks, AiG has taken great pains to assure the state of Kentucky and other government entities that Ark Encounter will be operated as a private, for-profit business. The Ark Encounter website admits, “The for-profit LLC structure also allows the Ark Encounter to be eligible for various economic development incentives that would not have been available with a non-profit structure.”

        • Badkey

          Ham will lose… and fundies will wail and gnash teeth.

          • Spoob

            Yeah, I love it when they do that.

        • Oboehner

          The Ark Encounter website admits, “The for-profit LLC structure also allows the Ark Encounter to be eligible for various economic development incentives that would not have been available with a non-profit structure.”
          The only relevant point you posted.

          • Spoob

            We’ll see.

          • Badkey

            Admits?

            You mean “hopes”!

            Ham will be denied.

          • Oboehner

            Denied on the basis it has a Christian theme, discrimination.

          • Badkey

            Based on discriminatory hiring practices.

          • Oboehner

            That would also include the vast majority of employers.

          • Spoob

            No because their hiring practices are discriminatory. Read the news ever?

          • Oboehner

            Everyone picks and chooses who they hire based on some criteria or another, My workplace let a guy go because he was too obese.

  • Brandon Osborn

    Ken Ham getting money to run a religious theme park was slap in the face of the Wall of Separation in the first place. AIG promised to obey State laws to get the abatement / refund, and he failed to do so. Ham is not an American citizen, but he’s been bilking the State of Kentucky for his money-losing schemes for years, and, hopefully, this will spell the end of Ham, and maybe give the States the heads-up to refuse to spend tax-payer money on religious frauds.

    • Gary

      In your filthy dreams. Not getting the tax rebate will not “spell the end of Ham” as you so hatefully put it.

      • BarkingDawg

        No, the fact that his theme park is a total financial failure will.

  • Oshtur

    Guess my first question is do other non-profit organizations qualify for the tax rebate program at the current time?

  • John Mark IB

    well again, so sad really bitter for sweet, wrong for right, good for bad, etc., it’s no surprise here the squeaky wheel (the hater’s of GOD’S Truth The Gospel of Christ) get’s the oil, in this case, the cry baby whiners, and hater’s of GOD fearing Christians like Ken Ham, the atheists and so called freedom from religion etc., ( really folks how ignorant are they? every belief system is in fact a religion, or religious in nature, including the so called atheists, and freedom from religion, are actually practicing the religion of self worship it’s still a religion no matter what they say but they can push the satanic pricipalities and powers that be serving him, to go against us) they’re just doing their daddy’s deeds, and the State is really going the opposite direction from the original intent of the Founder’s and the origins of this once great nation, from the land of the free and the home of the brave to the land of the bondage in bondage to sin, anything goes here, and the hom of the secularists and communists who will reap their rewards in due season!!! Praise GOD the atheists will get theirs and boy what a shocker that will be!! yes indeed to all my Biblically minded GOD fearing Christian born again brethren this is just one more piece of the writing on the wall, fear not neither be afraid!! it’s a shame they fight against the GOD who in their minds they know exists, but choose to reject so they are without excuse!! period!! we should all be as in their face and pushing back twice as hard as they and the pro death abortionists and pro homosexual lesbian sodomites crowds who cry tolerance but now if they could would indeed have us like the catholics (no offense it’s factual history and we all know it just making my reference pointhere is all so dear catholic read and do your history my beef is not with you but the powers that be behind it all satan etc., here’s hope for my catholic friends too with all love always

    http://faithsaves.net/bible-truths-for-catholic-friends/ ) did to the Christians back in the day and burning at the stake for Preaching the True Word of GOD!! and for only wanting to do that which our LORD said to do spread His Preserved Words ! to the whole world!! and so the atheists and powers that be will go after Ham, because he represents their enemy, satans enemy really, we know it, they don’t, we see it they can’t, shame really that the KY govt. would do this, because Ham has a great attraction not only for their State(s) OH too, but to those of us in the faith, and at that, we should all be supportive of him and take your families to visit in solidarity!! let us pray for one another and against the evil of our day as the time draweth nigh! even so dear atheists and others who attack and mock here is your ultimate question and your ultimate determining factor in all of this, and it is, What will you do ….with….

    what will you do with The Man Christ Jesus?? answer that and we know all!!

    here’s hope for the true seeker, yes, I was ranting and raving because of the evil we perceive against innocent caring loving Godly Christians, Ken Ham, who aren’t hurting anyone, unlike those other murderous religions are??? so if you’re a sincere seeker of the truth, absolute truth does exist and it exists because of the absolute Truth giver Himself, so now then, what will you do with the man Christ Jesus?? I will leave you with this, to the sincere seeker, GOD has indeed revealed Himself thru direct revelation to us in many ways, Israel and the Jews for one, Jesus was a Jew!! so then, what will you do with the man Christ Jesus?
    here’s hope dear seeker please be open minded to know there is a Creator GOD who cares for you and gives meaning to this life for you has a purpose and wants to have an intimate personal relationship with you and has shown Himself thru His Son who dies and shed His precious blood for me and you personally was beaten punched humiliated spit upon and whipped near death speared nailed to a cross and this is history actually it’s His Story and there’s a little city at the center of it all maybe you know it by the name of Jerusalem His Holy City center of the Earth!! and it’s proven you know it in your heart, so if you hear Him calling you now, please see the hope and answer Him, may GOD bless you as you do, with love joy and peace in Jesus name amen!!

    http://faithsaves.net

    http://www.pillarandground.org/home/?page_id=36

    http://discoverthebible.org

    http://www.icr.org/evidence
    https://answersingenesis.org/answers/
    http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com

  • Illthallion Ainur

    James Grimes is a troll, stop feeding him!

  • William Tyndale

    I disagree with Ham’s view that Christian faith mandates a view that the earth was created in 7 days comprising 24 hours for each day, but his ministry is definitely Christian and thus the law providing for a tax rebate should also apply to him.

  • James Grimes
  • SecularHumanist199

    Sorry, but if you want to get money from the government for a project that is supposed to provide benefits to everybody in the state, you don’t get to discriminate against hiring based on religion. If you want the money you have to follow state hiring rules. If this is a religious organization, they certainly are free to discriminate in hiring, but then they shouldn’t be eligible for funding from the state government. Sue if you want Ham, but you will lose, and you should.

  • GeniusPhx

    I don’t think it will survive. It isn’t the kind of place you return to over and over. People will be coerced to go there by parents, schools, churches. Religious belief is shrinking in america quickly. One day the big boat will be offered for sale on craigs list.

    Someone should open an evolution exhibit next to it, which would obey the laws and get tax benefits as well as hire anyone.