I only recently ran across this Youtube video from 2 years ago. It
was produced by Erica aka Gutsick Gibbon. It's almost two hours long,
and is of Erika and her mother at Ken Ham's Creation Museum and Ark
Encounter:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bhzuitLM5w&t=0>

If it was only a travelogue I wouldn't bother to post it. But as she
has a PhD in Biological Anthropology, she also expresses informed
opinions about much of the stupid science presented there. A small
sample:
*******************************************
@24:15
Let me show you what i mean. The most obvious trait that separates the
australopithecines, which the creation museum considers fully ape and
the early members of genus homo, which the creation museum considers
fully human, is the brain case size. And the way they present it seems
to a viewer to be very straightforward. The range of humans includes
all of the species of genus homo from homo erectus to homo sapiens
and they have brains that range from 750 cc's to 1700 cc's and the
australopithecines have an earlier range of 300 to 500 cc's.

Now it is a massive problem already, that the humans present a range
that is over five times that of the apes. But we have much bigger
issues at hand and this problem is so egregious I have to admit to you
that i think this is a blatant lie of omission by the creation museum,
because they present the 250cc gap between australopithecus africanus
and homo erectus along with their facial morphology differences as the
gap that makes the difference between humans and apes obvious. The
problem is they have omitted several hominins, including
australopithecus sediba, homo habilis, homo rudolfensis, and homo
gautengensis, as well as lumping other hominins in with homo erectus
without citation or argument, including homo georgicus and homo
ergaster.

Homo habilis perhaps presents the perfect midway point for brain case
size at 680 cc's. These hominins though are left out of the
anthropology section. I personally feel that this is because these
hominins are too transitional and display too well the slow gradient
between ancient apes and humans. But to leave them out in my opinion
is dishonest to the core.
*************************************

The above describes an example of nothing less than lying for Jesus.
It's amazing what some people will say in order to get tax subsidies
and loans.

For those who are unaware of Ken Ham, here's what he says about adding
to God's Word:
*************************************
@1:07:16
Do we take god at his word or do we not? And once you unlock that door
and say you can add in man's ideas here, that door will get opened
wider and wider and wider. People i am burdened to call the church to
shut that door right there at the beginning. Because it's when we let
that door open, within two three generations, you've lost them. That's
exactly what's happened.
*************************************

Erika is quick to compare the above to the Ark Encounter's
rationalization for "adding to God's word":
**************************************
@1:07:48
And we're upfront about the fact that we are using artistic license
for that so that's what these signs are all about uh we want people
to understand that we understand the bible doesn't give all this
information we're filling in some of the details uh for example what
does the ark look like i've mentioned before one of the big ones that
people have been upset with us for is we name noah's wife and we name
the other women on the ark we're not trying to add to scripture we
know that's a detail that the bible doesn't give us but we're up front
about that fact that that we're giving them names to help people
understand that they are they were real people.
****************************************

As promised, here's a link to the Ark Encounter's Official List of
Biblical Kinds, courtesy of Gutsick Gibbon, who transcribed it to an
Excel spreadsheet from a photograph she took while there.

<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uUK8lKzxR_MAOBbVufv755u-548_ySvrkR3EcJ_1g0w/edit?pli=1#gid=0>

<http://tinyurl.com/bdd5jtn9>

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge