masquerade Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 ...and came across what might be the dumbest YEC argument I've ever heard. In the post flood world, how did animals spread across continents? Simple. They rafted...via logs... Need I say any more? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarflungWanderer Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastKing Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinas Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 I wasn't even aware that there was a "creation museum". Is god the main exhibit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blood Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 ...and came across what might be the dumbest YEC argument I've ever heard. In the post flood world, how did animals spread across continents? Simple. They rafted...via logs... Need I say any more? Did that include the dinosaurs? And who built their rafts? Noah, Ham, and Shem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helvetios Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 What other horrors did you see there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masquerade Posted December 7, 2014 Author Share Posted December 7, 2014 ... My thoughts exactly. Objection! Funny video. Pretty much sums the whole thing up. I wasn't even aware that there was a "creation museum". Is god the main exhibit? Might as well have been. Did that include the dinosaurs? And who built their rafts? Noah, Ham, and Shem? That's the funny part. The way I understood it, no building was involved. They floated alone on dead trees. I'm not sure if they included dinosaurs on the log ride. What other horrors did you see there? Too much to name, really. Here are a few off the top of my head. There were dinosaurs and penguins in the Garden of Eden. There was a plaque defending biblical incest. They couldn't (or wouldn't) grasp the idea that evolution says nothing about the origin of life, only how it progressed once it was already here. Seriously, people. It's change over time. That's it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masquerade Posted December 7, 2014 Author Share Posted December 7, 2014 Oh, and this. I can't even convey my thoughts on this.... (Note: Not my video.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 ...and came across what might be the dumbest YEC argument I've ever heard. In the post flood world, how did animals spread across continents? Simple. They rafted...via logs... Need I say any more? So Koalas and Kangaroos only made it to Australia, while deer were quite successful and covered the earth. Likewise, snakes, found plenty of logs, but none that made it to Ireland. How fortunate for the Irish. Too bad the skeeters, ticks and leeches found so many rides. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glareth Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 Almost as bad as volcanoes launching small land animals across continents... No, seriously: http://www.conservapedia.com/Post-Diluvian_Diasporas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helvetios Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 Almost as bad as volcanoes launching small land animals across continents... No, seriously: http://www.conservapedia.com/Post-Diluvian_Diasporas My god... "It is possible that volcanoes in the Mount Ararat region were able to transport the smaller animals over much greater distances than the animals could get just by walking.[Biblical Citation Needed]" BIBLICAL CITATION NEEDED. Say no more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masquerade Posted December 7, 2014 Author Share Posted December 7, 2014 So Koalas and Kangaroos only made it to Australia, while deer were quite successful and covered the earth. Likewise, snakes, found plenty of logs, but none that made it to Ireland. How fortunate for the Irish. Too bad the skeeters, ticks and leeches found so many rides. Almost as bad as volcanoes launching small land animals across continents... No, seriously: http://www.conservapedia.com/Post-Diluvian_Diasporas Wow...just...wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 Angels who need sunglasses. How weird. I'm talking about the vid in Post 8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExCBooster Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 I think the single most pathetic thing about creation "science" is that it's not science, it's religion... but it's not even dogmatic enough, actually. I mean, it's just so sad: they have to masquerade as "science" to borrow that authority for discovering truth. Really, if you have to come up with BS pseudoscience explanations for your religion to feel secure about the Word of God... it's basically a concession that the Bible ISN'T a good enough standard of truth. The very existence of creationism or "intelligent design" sabotages its core premise. So, there's a choice: either the leaders recognize that this is the case, and cynically consider things like the creation museum as necessary lies to lead people back to God's Word... or... they don't, and they really do manage to miss something that blindingly obvious, themselves. Either way, I don't know how Christians aren't outraged that this even exists, since whichever one is the case, it's an insult to Christian intelligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarflungWanderer Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 So... Volcanoes? Wouldn't that, oh I dunno, kill the animals in question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masquerade Posted December 11, 2014 Author Share Posted December 11, 2014 I think the single most pathetic thing about creation "science" is that it's not science, it's religion... but it's not even dogmatic enough, actually. I mean, it's just so sad: they have to masquerade as "science" to borrow that authority for discovering truth. Really, if you have to come up with BS pseudoscience explanations for your religion to feel secure about the Word of God... it's basically a concession that the Bible ISN'T a good enough standard of truth. The very existence of creationism or "intelligent design" sabotages its core premise. So, there's a choice: either the leaders recognize that this is the case, and cynically consider things like the creation museum as necessary lies to lead people back to God's Word... or... they don't, and they really do manage to miss something that blindingly obvious, themselves. Either way, I don't know how Christians aren't outraged that this even exists, since whichever one is the case, it's an insult to Christian intelligence. I agree. The whole thing reeks of insecurity. If a person has to constantly remind themselves what they believe and why, then do they really even believe it? I think it's a question we all need to ask ourselves at some point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Furball Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 I wasn't even aware that there was a "creation museum". Is god the main exhibit? I wasn't either. What's next, a peter pan exhibit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jds22 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 There's a book that really delves into this. I secretly read it as a Xian, considered subversive by the evangellies: Idiot America by Charles pierce. It delves into the cranks during America's history, how most of them knew they were cranks, and didn't seek the same type of legitimacy that modern Creationists do. He describes the whole trip through the Creation museum, including the fact that Eve's hair covered her up, and Adam was standing in water so no sexual anatomy was showing, "for the children," was the xplanation he got from them. The book came out in 2009, I read it in 2011. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jds22 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 There's a book that really delves into this. I secretly read it as a Xian, considered subversive by the evangellies: Idiot America by Charles pierce. It delves into the cranks during America's history, how most of them knew they were cranks, and didn't seek the same type of legitimacy that modern Creationists do. He describes the whole trip through the Creation museum, including the fact that Eve's hair covered her up, and Adam was standing in water so no sexual anatomy was showing, "for the children," was the xplanation he got from them. The book came out in 2009, I read it in 2011. Thanks for the tip. I've never heard of this book but once I looked it up, I knew I had to have it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 I think the single most pathetic thing about creation "science" is that it's not science, it's religion... but it's not even dogmatic enough, actually. I mean, it's just so sad: they have to masquerade as "science" to borrow that authority for discovering truth. Really, if you have to come up with BS pseudoscience explanations for your religion to feel secure about the Word of God... it's basically a concession that the Bible ISN'T a good enough standard of truth. The very existence of creationism or "intelligent design" sabotages its core premise. So, there's a choice: either the leaders recognize that this is the case, and cynically consider things like the creation museum as necessary lies to lead people back to God's Word... or... they don't, and they really do manage to miss something that blindingly obvious, themselves. Either way, I don't know how Christians aren't outraged that this even exists, since whichever one is the case, it's an insult to Christian intelligence. I don't quite agree here. It's not that the fundies need the "science" label to convince themselves. They've already swallowed the Koolaid by believing the Bible is the Word of God. The "science" angle is meant as an apologetics attempt to convince outsiders (those rebelling against God) that Christianity is not incompatible with science, and as a means to get religion taught in public schools (those evil, ungodly institutions that were originally supposed to be bastions of faith in this Christian NationTM that has lost its way). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstar Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 OMG!!! I haven't laughed like that in a long time… my tummy hurts… volcanoes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts