• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Creation Museum - Video

Cuddles said:
You want to watch out for those berries. Take your arm off if you're not careful. Of course, most of the really bad ones were eaten into extinction by the dinosaurs. Who then died out because without vicious man-eating berries to hunt they got bored and just sort of wandered off.
Click to expand...

Damn those berries! It's a good thing Noah didn't bring them all on the ark. Who knows just how many species would have been eaten by those blood thirsty fruit!

Which makes me wonder... perhaps that is why society has degraded so much in recent years, with all the evil Liberals and Commies and free thinkers. We've stopped eating berries as much, so now they're plotting against us. Scheming to bring our downfall. I see it now, it's all so very clear! Wow, how have I been so blind to The Truth for all these years?
 
Zep said:
And how did the slow-moving arborial koalas who feed only on gum-leaves travel all the way 20,000kms to Australia from Mt Ararat (in Turkey??), across huge mountain ranges and thousands of kilometres of open ocean, without leaving any trace whatsoever of ancestors or fossils or anything on the way? Ditto wombats. And kangaroos.
Click to expand...

And why did only marsupials and monotremes travel to Australia, monotremes to no where else and marsupials only also to the Americas?

Standard geology and biology has an answer, but YECism has nothing but ad hocery.
 
Well, conservapedia clears this up for us very clearly.


According to the origins theory model used by creation scientists, modern kangaroos are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood. It has not yet been determined by baraminologists whether kangaroos form a holobaramin with the wallaby, tree-kangaroo, wallaroo, pademelon and quokka, or if all these species are in fact apobaraminic or polybaraminic. There is, however, no evidence of a genetic bottleneck in the kangaroo species which would be expected if all kangaroos were descended from two individuals.
After the Flood, these kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land[5] with lower sea levels during the post-flood ice age, or before the supercontinent of Pangea broke apart[6], or if they rafted on mats of vegetation torn up by the receding flood waters.[5] The idea that God simply generated kangaroos into existence there is considered by most creation researchers to be contra-Biblical
Click to expand...

Those darn creation scientists seem to have all the bases covered:rolleyes:
 
sinnikal said:
Well, conservapedia clears this up for us very clearly.




Those darn creation scientists seem to have all the bases covered:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Continental drift occurs in centuries and not millions of years? Damn. You learn something new every day!
 
Baron Samedi said:
As a side question, I was hoping that you folks could help me out. On CTV, they're asking for feedback on the museum. Here's the link of what some people had to say so far:

http://tinyurl.com/24s62o

 One comment that caught my attention was this one here:

Bold mine. My question is a simple, WTF? Okay, question 2, I did a search on here for any forums where you may have already discussed this, and why creationalists claim that carbon dating has been debunked. I don't want to get into the debate again, but I can't track down their key points. Well, real key points, and not a crocoduck arguement ("the world is 6,000 years old so carbon dating must be wrong!").
Click to expand...
If you use the methods of carbon dating on things which scientists say can't be carbon dated (e.g. marine organisms) you get the wrong answer.

It's like "debunking" dendrochronology by counting the rings on a woman and then pointing out that this doesn't give her age.
 
Dr Adequate said:
If you use the methods of carbon dating on things which scientists say can't be carbon dated (e.g. marine organisms) you get the wrong answer.

It's like "debunking" dendrochronology by counting the rings on a woman and then pointing out that this doesn't give her age.
Click to expand...

Yes, I noticed that gross fallacy. The creationalist's webpage states itself that carbon dating is only really accurate up to 50,000, and yet their counter-arguments are on dating items millions of years old? Now I know why I always have a big bottle of aspirin on me.
 
I suspect the T-Rex really hunted by means of a stealthy septic bite, after which it would track the dying vegetation until it wilted. Then the T-Rex would scavange the fallen corpse. Those really big teeth were used primarily in territorial disputes with butterflies.

I mean, what other explanation could there be?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom