HOME | DD
teews666 — Teach the Controversy
Published: 2011-04-20 20:58:43 +0000 UTC; Views: 3709; Favourites: 42; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
I got 2 words for ya... Creation Museum! LMAO!
As ridiculous as that sounds, they actually built one in Kentucky. They claim the Earth is only 6000 years old, and that humans and dinosaurs existed and interacted together, as well as a shit-load of other nonsensical biblical bullshit.
It's like somebody watched The Flintstones and took it all as facts. These deluded cunts never cease to amuse me. lolz!
Sorry for the watermark, but recently I’ve had too many cases of fucking assholes stealing my work and using it to sell their shit online!
Related content
Comments: 60
I have the greatest disgust toward cretin-ationism, the forlorn and (hopefully) doomed effort to bend science to the service of the superstition-based wrong guesses of bronze-age sheepherders.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
How about the ARK exhibit...?
I like how they were originally going to turn it into a Zoo with hundereds of animals in tiny pens with less space than in a van right next to each other. Just throw in food, once in a while turn on a hose to wash out the excrement. Lions next to lambs... And PETA tried to block due to animal cruelty, local Jim Bob judge refused to side with them. Luckily the $ dried up faster than 40 days and nights of rain could so they didn't get around to it. I think the fallback plan was make it a petting zoo with nice animals, sheep, llamas, pot bellied pigs, etc. and then have animatronic animals with maybe a few tame zoo/circus rescue large animals like a lion that thinks its a dog, but again both the logistics of doing it without the whole thing becoming a stink boat and money, don't think they got around to it...
I almost wished the hurricane got that far north enough for an Evan Almighty without that magic "Gopherwood"...
BTW - RL ships made of wood 2/3 as big as the ark fall apart in the sea, it's happened. Square/Cube wood becomes like Styrofoam at levels we use steel and concrete for even if for a chair or a table it might be preferable to steel or concrete and cheaper to build a house with.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It would serve them - and us - right for a lightning bolt to ignite the thing and burn it to a cinder, though I hope everyone gets clear if it happens.
Dead right about the size issue; even at only a fraction of the Ark's size, the largest wooden ships had TERRIBLE problems with hogging (the center bowed up) and sagging (the ends bowed up). No way such a ship is even remotely possible without using welded steel.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Even this website thinks that Kent Hovind wrong. He is the creator of the Creation mockseum
biologos.org/search-results?q=…
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Some food for thought:
The bit about a global flood in the Bible sounds a bit like the global flood in The Epic of Gilgamesh... Right down to the fucking ark. And Gilgamesh was written in Mesopotamia, before Christianity was even a religion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I blocked namezong for being stupid and he's butthurt about it
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Creationists are living proof of reverse evolution.
👍: 2 ⏩: 0
Has anyone gone back to the Holy Babble and checked Archbishop Ussher's chronology? I've seen allegations that the chain of begats has gaping holes that Ussher simply handwaved away. And the literalists never did answer my question of why no outgoing spacecraft has yet crashed into the firmament. Yes, according to the Abrahamic creation myth, the sky is a solid dome with water on the outside. A clear, daylit sky is, after all, the same color as the sea horizon. Some of the trailing strands of the lunatic fringe assert that it was all written in ENGLISH, since that level of ignorance cannot imagine a time when their language did not yet exist.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You are a bigot VomitBear for not listening for the other side and trusting on some outside authorities (with conveniently matching ideology).
You are also a coward for blocking me from replying to you.
Now if I am mistaken, you can see some factual arguments as presented by Kent Hovind in his seminars here: www.youtube.com/channel/UCxiEt…
Alternatively, if I am right, just put hands to your ears and scream "LALALA I cant hear you". Like you always do.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Actually the founder of the museum, one Kent Hovind, wwas rather cool debater and usually owned his debate opponents Big time (professors, mostly).
I would recoment wathing some of his performances on Youtube, it's both intertaining AND enlightening.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Owned" is a really bad choice of words. He never proved anything nor supported any of his claimed with scientific material that was peer reviewed.
Instead, he did a good job talking and selling his "side".
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Deed you actually watched him or just read some Yahoo answers ?
He supported (some of) his arguments with facts, a thing much more tangible.
Also, it is weird to hear of "really bad choice of words" from someone with enough bad taste to put pedobear on avatar.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No creationist or ID (repackaged creationism) has ever used facts to do anything.
In high profile court cases in PA and Arkansas creationism/ID got trounced because of the lack of facts and evidence. The judges in both cases were christian.
Creationism is garbage
My icon has nothing to do with anything. Genetic fallacy, look it up.
Also, if you knew anything, the icon is a mockery of pedophiles, not an endorsement.
Pay attention
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"No creationist or ID (repackaged creationism) has ever used facts to do anything."
Bull shit.
So you didn't viewed any of his presentations or arguments, as I suspecded.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It has been proven in multiple high profile cases that ID has no facts or evidence to support it. Case closed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Oh boy... don't give them any ideas! They might just start to use this as "evidence" because of their lack of intelligence *cough*
-with love from an Agnostic
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Too bad for the creationists, The Flintstones probably takes place in a post-apocalyptic future!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Just saying, look at intelligent design; NOT the same thing as creationism. I'm not going to debate about it, but it is different and you might find that there are a LOT of scientist that are biased against Christianity or any other worldview beyond their own. And there are a LOT of scientist that are seeing if there is any merit to Intelligent Design following the evidence and NOT making it fit to their argument.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
>Intelligent design isn't creationism
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
ID is creationism repackaged.
ID was trounced in the historic PA court case with a Christian seated in the judge's chair.
IS has no value, no merit, no support beyond liars and zealots, and you cannot provide any evidence that "scientists are against" one specific religion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I posted this forever ago and I don't particularly care about arguing with you. In one situation someone dressed up creationism as intelligent design by switching out words in a book word for word. I don't believe in creationism but I believe the idea of Intelligent Design has merit. Enjoy your worldview, have a great day.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ok, it's fine if it has no merit to you. I feel differently. It's not a big deal.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It has no merit to anyone who values intelligence and knowledge.
ID is creationism repackaged, that's long been established, it's not news to anyone.
It is a deeply flawed religious hypothesis that is best forgotten.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Whoop! I am going to not listen to you since you're clearly not listening to how much I don't care about this right now. Like, really, I don't. I haven't kept up with what ID has been up to. The last I looked at it, I agreed. But I don't agree with creationism. So... I still don't care. Enjoy life. Seriously. I'm about to block you because you're annoying. I told you straight up this was an old post and I don't care.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
High profile cases in Ark and PA have proven that ID has no value, use, or merit. You can deny it all you want but the fact remains true: ID is trash
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Those ignorant creationists are always good for a chap laugh.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Its really not conducive to a functional society to insult peoples' faiths, weither you believe them or not. As for the Dinosaurs and humans thing, It is my understanding that the Morman church introduced this idea (I my self am a member of the Community of Christ which split from the Mormans when the founders felt the church had missed the point of the faith). Though it may or may not be total horse-hockey, the Book of Morman may not be too far off. The Pygmy Mammoth; a small sub-species of mammoth that lived on a remote island chain, is believed by archeologists to have went extinct around the time the Great Pyrimids of Egypt were being errected (at least thats what carbon-dating suggests).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You're a major part of the problem. You sit on the sidelines crying "foul" and do nothing more then allow the liars and deceivers to continue peddling their nonsense.
It is not conducive to a functional society to allow liars to replace science with mythology.
It is not conducive to a functional society to allow liars to be treated as equals or to allow real science be held against religiously corrupt pseudoscience.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The worlds first civilization (mesopotania/sumeria) existed before 4000 BC.
We have enough evidence to say the universe is 15 billion years old, and it may actually be quite older.
We have fossils that prove evolution.
We now have a theory on what caused the Big Bang (M-theory and String Theory). While creationists belive gawd just popped into existance.
This so called "great flood" of theirs is just a result of melting glaciers raising global water levels, lets say, oh 10,000 years ago.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yeah, and Mt St Helens as it was before 1980 never actually existed, it was only an optical illusion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
i'm not sure i buy the 6000 years old thing... but in logic terms, humans DID live amongst dinosaurs..... as small ratlike creatures that more likely got stepped on and eaten daily by compies and baby dinos.... oh well. who cares in the end?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I've heard of that musuem! I saw it in Bill Maher's documentary "Religulous."
These people that truly think creationism is true are delusioned, in my opinion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
What's wrong with exploring another theory? Isn't science supposed to be open to all possibilities? Instead of condemning people why don't you actually address and disprove their points if you can?
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
>Implying creationism is a theory
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
ID and creationism are not another scientific theory. ID and creationism are religiously based and have been proven wrong in court as nothing more then garbage.
ID and creationism are not theories, they do not have any value or merit. They're both hypothesis.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hi VomitBear (wow, what a name!),
Haven't you heard the updates? Evo. is old, old old news now. I don't even care about it as a serious point. Even a lot of the atheistic scientists are starting to give up on evo. because it's being outdated in light of all the new evidence. They can't deny all the complexity and order so now they rather believe we were seeded by aliens or some higher evolved beings. Their way of having God without God
As for creationism, etc. I really don't care. It's not an issue with me. I know there is a Creator and his fingerprints are everywhere. We just have to stop loving our evil ways and we will see the evidence clearly. God said we have no excuse because his qualities and nature are clearly seen in what he has made. The only reason we don't see it is because of willful ignorance because we fell for the oldest lie of wanting to be our own gods when we are just men.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hhahahaaha. Nice try.
No creator. No evidence. No fingerprints of anything.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That is your belief and that's fine, VomitBear. I've simply given my end of it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Belief not required, only the facts
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There is nothing wrong with exploring another theory, as long as that theory has a realistic scientific basis and meets the very basic parameters of even being considered as a viable alternate theory.
You can't start with a predetermined outcome and work your way back until you get some convoluted answer to reconfirm your own dogmatic belief. Science is indeed open to new possibilities, but only as long as they are objective and unbiased.
Extraordinary claims require equally extraordinary evidence. Hence, if they were able to prove their position without resorting to the "magical sky god" argument, I will gladly accept their so called theory.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Greetings!
And evolution doesn't start with a predetermined naturalism/atheism?
Every theory begins with a worldview behind it. Is is the lense through which we filter the evidence. As a human, it is impossible to be completely unbiased. If you hate anything God-related you are going to cling to anything that substantiates that non-belief.
I don't have to look to hard to find my evidence but when I do, my belief is fortified even more. That's just me, anyway.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Why do you generalize all evolutionists as Atheists or Anti-theists? Catholicism and many other progressive religions embrace the science of evolution, and many scientists who belong to those religions study the relevant areas of science. I was raised a Catholic, and it didn't deter my adherence to evolution, in fact, the final thing to drive me away from religion and towards agnosticism was actually the rude, bombastic attitude of holier-than-thou creationists and homophobes.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
"And evolution doesn't start with a predetermined naturalism/atheism?"
Uh, NO! There are plenty of theists who accept the theory of evolution, just as there are atheists who don't. Evolution and atheism are not mutually exclusive. When Charles Darwin began his research, he still believed in the existence of God. If memory serves, he only became an atheist after one of his children died.
"Every theory begins with a worldview behind it."
Wrong! In science, one starts by looking at the facts and then drawing conclusions from there. If new facts come up, then conclusions must be either adjusted to fit with these facts, or dropped in favour of new alternative conclusions. That's why Lamarckian inheritance was dropped in favour of evolution by natural selection. Creationism, however, works in reverse; it starts at the conclusion and tries to make the facts fit around it, while also misrepresenting or outright dismissing anything contradictory.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>