Obviously you don't know the meaning of the term "farce".

You really ought to invest in a dictionary and start using it on a daily basis. It would do wonders for your understanding as well as for vocabulary.

And, inasmuch as a man's ability to think is limited by his vocabulary, a good dictionary might help you in that realm, also.

-- until you read "NASA Mooned America" by Rene and look at the moon landing photographs in which shadows are pointing in several directions at once (impossible if the sun is the sole light source) and start looking at the mountain of evidence which demonstrates that the lunar landings were faked.

Add to it the blasphemy of a "communion service" on one of the faked voyages, and the warm and fuzzy feeling turns to outrage and disgust.

But men such as Morrison who promote fantastic notions such as a universal flood are neither honest scientists nor honest expositors of the Scripture. And Ham in his teaching concerning the races is far from honest.

The predatory animals -- the wolf, the leopard, the lion, the bear, the asp -- represent the predatory men and institutions which always are present within the kosmos. In the Scripture, the lion typically is representative of government; this is why, in the 49th chapter of Genesis, the tribe of Judah is portrayed as a lion, for it is out of Judah that the Christ was to arise, to take the reins of government. But the lion is an appropriate representation for the governments of man, for such governments invariably are predatory.

The notion that there was no death before the fall of Adam is based upon a misinterpretation of Romans 5:12, together with the failure to understand that passages such as the 11th chapter of Isaiah are figurative. When Paul in Romans 5:12 says that sin and death entered the world, he is speaking of the state of Adam -- not the state of Creation as a whole.

Supposedly the fall brought about an alteration of genetic structure so that the progeny of Adam are born with a "sin nature" which compels man to sin. And, supposedly, the lion and the falcon and the shark are not predatory by the design of God, but, rather, became predatory as the result of a hideous transmogrification which took place suddenly and apart from the hand of the Creator. And supposedly, when the second coming of Christ ushers in the perfect environment of the "Millennium", the alteration is reversed, so that carnivorous beasts again become herbivorous.

Other articles have reported that the so-called "museum" has no genuine artifacts whatsoever (other than perhaps, Ham himself; however, most would take Ham as evidence in favour of evolution...).

It appears that the "museum" is nothing more than "an artist's conception" of the viewpoint being promoted by Ken Ham -- a viewpoint which, in general, is absurd.

The whole of Ezekiel 13 is applicable, as is Ezekiel 22:26-28:

Recognizing that the Scripture does not condemn polygamy is one thing; promoting or endorsing polygamy is another matter entirely.

While monogamy is the ideal, polygamy of itself is not sinful. Indeed, according to the Scripture, the Lord God himself gave David multiple wives, and was willing to give him still additional wives:

Leviticus 25:39-46 - 39 And if thy brother by thee be lowered, and be
sold to thee, he shall not serve thee with the servitude of a slave.
40 He shall be with thee as a hireling or a sojourner, he shall work
for thee till the year of release: 41 and he shall go out in the
release, and his children with him; and he shall go to his family, he
shall hasten back to his patrimony. 42 Because these are my servants,
whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; such an one shall not be sold
as a common servant. 43 Thou shalt not oppress him with labour, and
shalt fear the Lord thy God.

Inasmuch as this is a well-known phenomenon (anti-depressant containers even carry suicide warning notes), the physician prescribing the drugs ought also go on trial for his life, as an accomplice.

Incidents such as this typically and conveniently occur whenever "freedom to carry" legislation is about to be passed. Columbine is a prime example.

If even a few of the students had a pistol in their book bag or in the dorm room, this slaughter likely would have been stopped in its tracks.

Wherever guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns.

Christ Jesus himself commands his followers to arm themselves:

Are you unable to recognize the obvious sarcasm in my remark, "After all, such passages encourage sin. It is better to keep everyone in a state of constant fear..."?

And you need to quit making and repeating false and slanderous assertions!

It is you and your crowd who argue -- absurdly -- that, if there is no life in the womb, then a foetus is non-human or less than human. I never have made such a preposterous assertion, and never shall.

Do you also find alarming the exposition of passages of the Scripture which show forth the mercy and grace and forgiveness of the Lord? After all, such passages encourage sin.

It is better to keep everyone in a state of constant fear -- fear of retribution in time and of everlasting torture upon death -- lest they yield to temptation. We don't dare trust the indwelling Spirit of God to keep them in line.

A great many men, including a great many who falsely claim to be Christian, are nothing less than shameful in their attitude and behaviour toward their wives and family. Some of these men are to be found in the pulpit, and many others hold the office of "deacon" or "elder".

While their faults are many, their great sin is that of self-righteousness. These men are arrogant and demanding, without mercy and unforgiving. They are brutish creatures who lack instinctive desire to protect, provide for, and nurture a woman and children.

Their basic impetus is self-gratification and, to a lesser extent, propagation of their own existence through the lives of their offspring. Such men are destitute of the instincts which characterize nobility; they have no capacity to love in the manner which the Lord, Christ Jesus, demands of those who would follow him.

Exodus 12:43-44 - And every slave or servant bought with money-- him thou shalt circumcise, and then shall he eat of it. [the passover]

Leviticus 25:39-46 - 39 And if thy brother by thee be lowered, and be
sold to thee, he shall not serve thee with the servitude of a slave.
40 He shall be with thee as a hireling or a sojourner, he shall work
for thee till the year of release: 41 and he shall go out in the
release, and his children with him; and he shall go to his family, he
shall hasten back to his patrimony. 42 Because these are my servants,
whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; such an one shall not be sold
as a common servant. 43 Thou shalt not oppress him with labour, and
shalt fear the Lord thy God.

Regarding Hugh Ross and "rebuttal": Perhaps my choice of words was not the best.

The point which I was trying to communicate is that Hugh Ross is a devout Christian who, as a competent scientist, was distraught at the fact that Christians for the most part lack sound understanding regarding the natural sciences, with the result that whenever a Christian and an evolutionist have a discussion, the Christian typically comes away looking foolish, despite the outlandish claims of the evolutionist.

Obviously you are unable, using the Scripture, rather than opinion or tradition, to refute my assertion.

To put matters into a proper perspective: If you were to read over several of the SA forum threads, I think that you would agree that my replies have been extremely mild in comparison with the charges made against me -- things like "murderer", "devil", and the like.

And even as I oppose abortion, so also I most strongly oppose slavery. The slaveholder ultimately and invariably pays a terrible price for the "free" labour which he, motivated by covetousness, seeks to gain by owning slaves.

But though I oppose slavery, I would be a liar, were I to say that the Scripture condemns slavery.

Regarding evolution: Even a blind man can perceive that the universe has a wise and loving creator. I recommend the book "The Genesis Question" by Hugh Ross. Ross is one of the few who appear to be able to give an academically-sound rebuttal to the evolution crowd.