Creationist Retards Say Dinosaurs Were On Noah's Ark - Page 2

Sam Brownback explains how we must rely on both faith and reason when understanding evolution and creationism:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/31/op...dae&ei=5087%0A

I'm confused by the weight that the phrase 'Man of Faith' carries. When a candidate uses it to describe him or herself, it conjures up images of wisemen in robes walking amongst sheep in the forest with a choir playing on the background, but in reality, being a 'Man of Faith' just means that you've bought into a particular brand of mysticism without needing physical evidence to validate it. Since when is being a sucker a political boon?

Since it was in their interest to appeal to the Republican base.

I can't belive you actually corrected eenin, Bob. That's like trying to hold a discussion with a sandwich.

What kind of sandwich?

A stupid sandwich.

Hilarious and sad at the same time:

Disney style animatronics in the first creationist museum.
Where plastic humans and rubber dinosaurs live together...

http://onegoodmovemedia.org/movies/0...tionmuseum.mov

What irks me is the stupid "both viewpoints/opinions get equal screentime news reporting in this CNN piece. Sometimes the other side is just BS and doesn't deserve equal representation imho.

You want proof? What more do you need?

And the hits keep on coming...

http://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2007/...oveor-does-it/

The adult US population is about 215 million people. That means that 39 million adults think the sun revolves around the earth. And 17.2 million aren't sure.

I am honestly and sincerely baffled. And depressed. And I want to dress up as Galileo and kick these people in the teeth.

Did You Know?

T-Rex ate coconuts!

Are they sure this is a museum? Wouldn't "Amusement Park" be the more appropriate terminology? I just find this far more amusing than any museum.

This is gold:

Wow.

I hope the next Jurassic Park has a T-Rex coconut eating scene... you know... to clean his/her teeth.

I had to go to a Christian boarding school in the early-mid seventies for sixth grade. I already knew more science than the guy teaching science in the school. I had to correct his pronunciation of 'infrared'...he was saying 'in-ferred light', and I didn't understand what he was trying to say.

Needless to say, I was very happy to move on from that experience.....

Things like this combined with the picketers outside the spelling bee trying to "simplify" spelling make me wonder if it's not so much a matter of ignorance and stupidity but rather a matter of laziness. These people sit around thinking, "Man, all this stuff about micro-organisms and bacteria making me sick is just too much to wrap my head around. But four humors that have to be in balance so I don't get sick? Heck, that's easy!" Everyone wants easy explanations that don't make them think.

What a moron. It's 'implied light.' You infer, I imply.

In-FRA-red light, not IN-ferred light

in·fra·red (nfr-rd)
adj. Abbr. IR
1. Of or relating to the range of invisible radiation wavelengths from about 750 nanometers, just longer than red in the visible spectrum, to 1 millimeter, on the border of the microwave region.

I was kidding, Dr. Vivisector.

No problema, Senor Minsky. I stil get flashbacks to being a twelve year old kid trying to teach a college graduate how to pronounce words he's tasked to teach me.

Let me guess- they went to Regent University. Home of the fightin' baby jesuses.

I would agree, but how can they be too lazy to spell but not too lazy to go out and protest the effort required by spelling?

Walking in circles while holding a sign? That sounds about their speed.

This is neither here nor there, but I had to correct one of my grade school teachers who was convinced there were two Leonardo da Vinci's, one a painter, one an inventer.

Oh, they're smart enough to do it. I just doubt that if they were lazy, they could get their asses out of their homes to do it.

I cannot fathom how you people still believe in evolution. I mean, somehow and without any help whatsoever all of this, all of us, came about from some protoplasmic goo... GOO! ROFLMAO! Doesn't that sound silly to you guys?

I mean really...

... GOO!!!

It's intellectual laziness. They don't want to use their brains, but they'll sure use their mouths.

That explains the RAZOR-SHARP TEETH, then.

Seriously, though, what's with the "Man sinned, so all the animals have to suffer too" mentality? I remember C. S. Lewis said the fact that animals feel pain was one of the greatest theological problems he had encountered.

I was going to take a road trip down to this place to experience the craziness first hand, but I found some pictures online from someone who had already visited it. Looking at them, I'm glad I decided not to waste gas and give these people $25. It looks like 27 million buys a couple of animatronic dinosaurs and a shitload of boneheaded information plaques.

A few more...

Oh my god... I... I believe. I BELIEVE!

As if these two concepts are somehow incompatible. It's like saying

They're implying that at some point a horse fucked a python and out sprung a giraffe.

This has GOT to be a joke,,,please, someone, anyone...it's a JOKE, right?

Then C.S. Lewis didn't have as much imagination as you'd expect. The purpose pain serves should be pretty obvious: "something's wrong!".

ga ga goo goo

Holy. Shit.

I have always wondered what bible these people use. It sure is not any version I know of. In all of mine Cain get sent away and dwells in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. Nod mean "Land of Wanderers" which implies other people he builds a city which again implies a lot of other people. It also does not say the woman was his sister. She is his wife, which is a totally different word from sister.

The whole land of Nod, on the east of Eden is another one of the many clues that the story was never intended to be taken as history. Another fun thing for these people to think about is if a yome is a day, and the world was created is 7 yomes, then why are we still only in the 6 yome?

Gen 4:14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the ground; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer in the earth; and it will come to pass, that whosoever findeth me will slay me.
Gen 4:15 And Jehovah said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And Jehovah appointed a sign for Cain, lest any finding him should smite him.
Gen 4:16 And Cain went out from the presence of Jehovah, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
Gen 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

Well, obviously I know that, but the argument is that why should pain be "painful"? Why not get a painless "warning alarm"? In a world where there's a loving God, it doesn't make sense. You can explain it away in humans as a result of the fall (well, that still doesn't actually make sense, but whatever), but why do the animals have to suffer? That's Lewis's point. I'm completely not down with this logic in the first place, but at least this is a much higher level of argument than "Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church."

I guess he should've given that 'loving God' assumption another look, then.

Which are you more likely to respond to as an infant and throughout adolescence, searing pain or a painless "warning alarm"? Pain is there to teach as much as alert. It would be the difference between your mother or father grabbing a belt when you've done something wrong and knowing that no matter what you do your parents are just going to give you a slight scolding and send you on your way. It's the same with humans and animals. It's easier to ignore a painless warning system and in the process do considerable damage to yourself. Not the best way to instill a survival instinct.

You're missing the point. The point is not about the efficacy of pain. The point is that humans and animals co-existed in Eden, where the ability to feel pain would not have served a purpose.

So, Lewis' issue was with the fact that even animals were forced to suffer for man's sins and his inability to ascertain a reason for that.

I figured the point was that Lewis would have had no problem figuring out why animals feel pain if he wasn't trying to reconcile his personal beliefs with the obvious. Which is also the point being missed by the creationist museum.

Because if it didn't hurt you wouldn't go through the effort of making it stop.

OK then, why does it hurt so much? Why do cancer or serious burns or impacted teeth cause agony? There's nothing you can do about that once it's happened (if you take technology out of the equation, I mean). It only makes sense if our bodies (and all other organisms) are imperfect systems that evolved bit by bit and are still in flux.

Works for me.

Pain is a part of life. Life is the ultimate gift. Therfore God is not a dick.

Therefore, God would approve of me kicking you in the balls.

There are those that say tautologies are the ultimate gift.

The real question is, what is God? A popular opinion is that God is Love. And what do we know about Love? That it is blind.

And this, friends, is why when I pray, it is directed to Stevie Wonder.

Uh, what's with all the uproar, they were obviously baby dinosaurs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pH7spuzI9L4

Does this museum explain who locked the t-rex in the Ark's cargo hold?