Quote:So then, did kangaroos once live in the Middle East? ("It is clear that they must have. There is no other sound, Biblical explanation!")

He's right. Says a lot for "biblical explanations!"

Quote:Satyrs, which many believe to have been strictly demonic in origin due to the goat like features attributed to them by Pagans, were actually a conflation of demons and kangaroos by the ignorant Pagan natives of Greece.

I thought all the "ignorant Pagan natives of Greece" were DEAD?


However, I hope you see how impossible it is to convince aFirst-Rate creationist dickhead of anything when their minds are made up to believe sheer nonsense.

but you guys fail to realize - with God, all things are possible!

(April 20, 2010 at 11:08 am)tavarish Wrote: i saw a special on the Creation museum. They propose that downed logs from forests created rafts that animals could ride to their destinations after the floodwaters subsided.

Really.

You forgot to put the word "museum" in quotes!

The people who put up this monument to ignorance should be ashamed of themselves. I read that it cost $20 million to build and that money was obtained through contributions! Anyone who gave their money to help build this place should have their check book confiscated so a responsible adult can take care of their finances. Imagine how much good could have been done with $20 million! Instead of going to fund cancer research, or to feed starving children, this money was essentially pissed down a hole. Absolutely disgusting. If I lived near that "museum" I would rent a billboard just down the road and put on it something like, "FOR STUPIDITY, TURN LEFT 500 FEET".

Putting the animals on the arc is just one part of the story. I'd like to ask these douches where they think rain comes from. Last i checked rain is water vapor condensed into and then released by clouds. The water that falls from the sky is the same water that evaporated from the earth's surface. So how could it have rained enough to put MORE water on the earth's surface than there already was? One could make an argument for local flooding, since that's a fairly common thing. But global flooding? What, did god borrow the extra water from one of Saturn's moons? Why isn't this argument made more frequently? Am I missing something?

(April 20, 2010 at 3:30 pm)EggSpurt Wrote: Putting the animals on the arc is just one part of the story. I'd like to ask these douches where they think rain comes from. Last i checked rain is water vapor condensed into and then released by clouds. The water that falls from the sky is the same water that evaporated from the earth's surface. So how could it have rained enough to put MORE water on the earth's surface than there already was? One could make an argument for local flooding, since that's a fairly common thing. But global flooding? What, did god borrow the extra water from one of Saturn's moons? Why isn't this argument made more frequently? Am I missing something?

I have a better one for you.... the twits who believe this nonsense insist that the water covered every piece of land. This means that Mount Everest was under water!

Now let's do the math...

Mount Everest is approximately 29,000 feet high. In order for the water to cover Mount Everest, at least 29,001 feet of rain had to fall from the sky. According to their idiotic book, the rain fell for 40 days and 40 nights. So, 40 days adds up to 960 hours of rainfall. Now, for 29,001 feet of rain to fall in 960 hours, you would have a little over 30 FEET of rain falling EVERY HOUR! This translates to an inch of rain every TEN SECONDS! All over the world! That isn't rain, that's Niagara Falls coming down from the sky! For 40 straight days! "Rain" of this magnitude would have quickly turned anything made of wood into kindling!

If anyone would honestly look at the Noah's Ark fable with an open mind they could only conclude that the story is, at a minimum, heavily embellished and, at most, a complete myth.

Great one Thor! I never did the math on that story problem.

In one of the old threads we had some discussions with Daystar who claimed a thick ice layer above the atmosphere was the water source for the flood.

I believe Kent Hovind made a similar claim.

(April 20, 2010 at 4:18 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: Great one Thor! I never did the math on that story problem.

Thanks! You have to examine some of these claims and you'll discover that they are utter nonsense. The Noah's Ark fable is a good one to pick apart because the math reveals the claim for what it is - bullshit! Of course, some creationists will try to tell you that the flood was "localized" and it didn't cover the entire planet (these twits can't even be consistent in their beliefs). If someone throws this at you, all you have to do is point out that the water obviously covered Mount Ararat. Well, Mount Ararat is 16,495 feet high. Therefore, there had to be at least 16,496 feet of rain. Doing the same math using 40 days of rain reveals that a little over 17 feet of rain would have had to fall every hour! This is roughly 3 and a half inches of rain a minute! Or, an inch every 17 seconds! Yeah, Mount Everest or Mount Ararat, it makes no difference. It's still ridiculously impossible. And water falling at this volume would destroy any boat made of wood.

---

(April 20, 2010 at 4:38 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: In one of the old threads we had some discussions with Daystar who claimed a thick ice layer above the atmosphere was the water source for the flood.

I believe Kent Hovind made a similar claim.

What a retarded claim! Where did this "ice layer" come from? And how could a layer of ice form in the atmosphere with nothing to support it? Not to mention the incredible amount of water that would be needed to flood the planet! This "ice layer" would need to be several MILES thick! This is a perfect example of ad hoc reasoning!

(April 20, 2010 at 4:44 pm)Thor Wrote:

(April 20, 2010 at 4:38 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: In one of the old threads we had some discussions with Daystar who claimed a thick ice layer above the atmosphere was the water source for the flood.

I believe Kent Hovind made a similar claim.

What a retarded claim!

You're telling me.

Guys, thanks so much, you're awesome. I truly can't understand how, when presented with the copious amounts of evidence we have today, that anyone could -
a) believe in the Genesis story of creation
b) believe in the Noah's ark flood story
c) believe dinosaurs and humans existed at the same time
d) dismiss the theory of evolution

Am I in crazy town? How much more evidence to these people need?