…and this is a 
LOLCreashun
Category: Creationism • Humor
Posted on: November 26, 2007 11:45 AM, by PZ Myers
How can you possibly make the Creation "Museum" look sillier?
This may not be a LOL image, but I thought it was hilarious.
If you're having trouble reading the blurry print, it says:
According to God's Word, thorns came after Adam's sin, about six thousand years ago, not millions of years ago. Since we have discovered thorns in the fossil record, along with dinosaurs and other plants and animals, they all must have lived at the same time as humans, after Adam's sin.
How can you argue with logic like that that?
Politics
Comments
Oh my non-existent god. Should I laugh or cry at such huge amounts of stupid? What the hell, I could use a good laugh. Therefore I concur, it's hilarious. Even without the logic comment; that just makes it better, and slightly more bearable.
Posted by: Ted D | November 26, 2007 12:19 PM
I would find it interesting if someone was studying the overlap of time periods. In other words. A race has a beginning coinciding with the flourishing of the previous race. It only slowly builds up steam and attains a majority number while the previous race declines to extinction. We have a point of beginning, a point of majority, and a point of exclusiveness and unfortunately not enough distinct terms to describe the process in ordinary language.
Words themselves are at fault for gross misunderstandings.
I doubt if very many people could feel comfortable describing a first race human with the word "human". I think that most people use the word human to refer to a fifth race human, but in actuality the fifth race human has already begun the "cross" with the girasas kingdom and so the true human has already gone extinct.
I wish I could convince evolutionists that the prospects of evolution to the scientific mind would entail danger and "defeat" in the sense that we cannot win battles with a higher kingdom. Their effort at ascending the human is part of a natural process. Would scientists embrace an evolution of the type I describe and further the cause of evolution by standing in the leadership roles?
Currently, our best prospect for gathering together is still the minister and the church.
Posted by: Brenda Tucker | November 26, 2007 12:25 PM
Everyone is good for something, even if it's only as a bad example.
Posted by: True Bob | November 26, 2007 12:28 PM
From AIG:
Link
They also note that evidence of cancer in Dinosaurs....but, doesn't their fairy tale explicitily say animals were created before man? Therefore, there shouldn't be any issue in the "dilemna" above.
They're not even logical with the cards they stack. Color me astonished.
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | November 26, 2007 12:28 PM
Thorns? There's an almighty prick involved in there, somewhere.
Posted by: Richard Harris | November 26, 2007 12:28 PM
With a bat to the face.
It's the only way.
Posted by: minimalist | November 26, 2007 12:31 PM
Brenda said,
Indeed. There wasn't anything in that comment that could be readily understood.
Try again?
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | November 26, 2007 12:31 PM
Sigh.
And how is the weather in Lemuria these days? Mmmm. And what do you think of the going price of Atlantean crystals? Hmm-mmmm. You know, my little Sally was thinking of getting her DNA enhanced to a triple helix. Kids these days want to grow up so fast, don't you think? I swear, I must have been at least twenty-five before I even thought of boosting my chromosomes to a higher quantum chakra harmonic.
Oh, I saw just the most ravishing crop circle the other day, in Mr. Whitby's corn field. . . .
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 26, 2007 12:32 PM
I need to use that line as a tag form now on.
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 26, 2007 12:32 PM
The logic is impeccable. Only two of the premises are wrong.
The study of biodiversity through time is not new. Is that what you mean? (What do you mean by "race"?)
Why do you state idle speculation as fact?
Definition of evolution: Changes in the allele frequencies in a population by means of mutation, selection, and drift.
Why do you keep babbling about a "higher kingdom"? Show us that it exists, and then come back. In this order.
No, evolutionary biologists do not make the slightest effort "at ascending the human". One reason is that no way is "up".
If you show that it really occurs.
See the definition above: there is no cause of evolution. You do not understand what you are talking about.
You have failed to explain why we should gather together.
Look, theosophy is just another religion.
Posted by: David Marjanović | November 26, 2007 12:34 PM
I followed the link - those are a scream!!! I love the "about to pop a wheelie" one. :)
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 26, 2007 12:42 PM
Yet another indication the education bridge in this country has fallen down.
Posted by: Rick Schauer | November 26, 2007 12:47 PM
Crikey. This kind of thing really threatens the modern relevance of satire. I mean, with real crazies pedaling this kind of weirdness, who needs spoof kooks like the Landover Baptists to provide the required material for our amusement?
Posted by: DSK Samways | November 26, 2007 12:52 PM
If these ideas could become familiar to people, the discussions would improve. I'm trying to tell you about a new theory of evolution. You are asking to see, touch, and sense in some way a girasas.
Try to grasp the picture I am presenting to you first. See my webpage for a fuller version and if you need a version more complete than that there is plenty of source material to study.
I am asking people to consider that what Blavatsky has written in THE SECRET DOCTRINE describes an evolutionary process where one kingdom of nature enters earth when another kingdom of nature exists on it and the highest existing form would be the one chosen to concentrate effort for habitation. A dinosaur form may have become prey for a non-material kingdom's descent into material existence.
If that thought can be pondered, then the reverse of the cycle can be seen as advancement through a higher kingdom's penetration into the human form (highest in existence on earth today). We ascend, associate with the girasas, make plans, dwell on their characteristics and capabilities (which we can see hear sense) and try to apply our knowledge and thinking to the future which means some day the girasas will no longer need the human form and we shall continue our cycle into a new "descent" through animals. What do we need to do to tolerate first one higher kingdom (from this point in time) and then one lower kingdom, living as they do on some things and embuing them with capability (or acquiring new capability) as our intellect directs us?
Catch up. This is old material that was not understood, but belittled and the world is in need of its correct reception. What will you do if the day dawns when this new theory becomes widely known, accepted, or practiced to the point that we seek those "examples" who have greater penetration and contact than we do and we seek to aid those who have discomfort from the "fit" and we attempt to isolate preferences in a selective manner?
Let's get started.
Posted by: Brenda Tucker | November 26, 2007 12:54 PM
Higher kingdom? Fifth race human? Someone had a nice big bowl of crazy for breakfast, followed by a side of crazy and tall glass of crazy to wash it all down.
Someone one this forum has an extra 21st chromosome, and it ain't me...
Posted by: GPNguyen | November 26, 2007 12:57 PM
You should check out my blog, practically all I do is debunk Answers in Genesis:
http://aigbusted.blogspot.com
I have recently started a series called "Evolution for Creationists" in which I try to explain evolution in a very simple way and show some of the major lines of evidence for it.
Posted by: Ryan | November 26, 2007 12:59 PM
Blavatskyite. Enough said.
Posted by: PZ Myers | November 26, 2007 12:59 PM
If people who side with scientists want to gain respect in that community, learn to apply the principles at work rather than to follow their example.
Science means inquiry, thoughtful exploration, and sharing of findings. I am sharing with people and have for over 12 years, with the other tasks being previously done. Yet I am not reaping any benefits. Why do I do it? I do it with the promise of benefits.
Posted by: Brenda Tucker | November 26, 2007 1:00 PM
No.
If you were to resume your psychotherapy, the discussion would improve.
You are asserting pot-head new-agey thoughts as if they were true.
Don't do that.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 26, 2007 1:01 PM
It looks like somebody needs to go to a Robert Bly weekend.
Ahhh, the humor of the 1990's.
Posted by: Dustin | November 26, 2007 1:02 PM
Personally, I loved the throw away line at the end : "Logic, you're doing it wrong."
This has to be a satire. Please make it a satire.
Posted by: Brook | November 26, 2007 1:03 PM
I am not asserting thoughts as if they are true. I am challenging you to acquire knowledge of material that has been rejected.
I am offering to you a NEW CONCEPT. History does not contain this concept prior to Blavatsky's work. Will she ever receive credit and stand along Plato perhaps? Where would be the harm?
Posted by: Brenda Tucker | November 26, 2007 1:05 PM
Brook, I think the 'Logic, you're doing it wrong' tag is to make it like one of the (de)motivational posters of http://www.despair.com/, which are indeed satires of motivational posters (though way truer.)
Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 26, 2007 1:06 PM
"Hey, it's a girasa-girass!"
"Nah, girasas got long necks. Like THIS! *yank*"
Posted by: Rey "Dogpile on the Girasa" Fox | November 26, 2007 1:09 PM
Damn right PZ. Are you man enough to accept the challenge? Can you show us all that you've earned your beard by wasting vast amounts of your time learning the finer points of an utterly rejected doctrine of sophistry and woo?
Step up to the plate, buddy, and bring your bong.
Posted by: Dustin | November 26, 2007 1:10 PM
It's been rejected for a reason, Brenda. It's quite ludicrous.
Posted by: Martin | November 26, 2007 1:12 PM
Oooooooh. Is that a dare? Am I going to be accused of being closed-minded next?
I've got a challenge for you. Instead of wasting your time 'thinking' your way through crackpottery, why don't you instead turn your focus on what the scientific community has already actually learned through hypothesis generation and testing through evidence? There's more than enough there to keep you occupied for years to come.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 26, 2007 1:12 PM
Brenda,
A few questions if I may, so that I too can be enlightened like you.
Do you really believe what you are saying, and if so why?
WTF are girasas?
Please define the following:
Race
Kingdom
Highest Existing Form
First through Fifth Race Humans
Thanks and may the force be with you.
Posted by: mattm | November 26, 2007 1:12 PM
Brenda,
You're not terribly consistent.
You shriek (all caps, not very friendly) that this is a NEW CONCEPT, but you also say:
So, which delusion are you operating under, that this is secret HISTORY or that its so new to not be historical?
Also, asking people to read several books AND your website isn't distillation of information. Kinda makes you look like you don't really know what you're talkin' about.
Baby steps.
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | November 26, 2007 1:14 PM
OT but related, Rio Rancho may drop the teaching of ID, which apparently has been going on there:
http://kob.com/article/stories/S267410.shtml?cat=504
Glen D
Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 26, 2007 1:15 PM
"Their effort at ascending the human. . . "
I was referring to the girasas who have some sort of interest in acquiring the earth for themselves. We get the boot and are forced to descend again through animals forms in an effort to reach the fourth race, I suppose.
Posted by: Brenda Tucker | November 26, 2007 1:15 PM
I admit, I've been on a fair number of forums and blogs, but this is the first time I've seen one get spammed by a Theosophist. Do you think we could invite her over to "After the bar closes"?
Posted by: guthrie | November 26, 2007 1:18 PM
Fuck the definitions. I don't care how the fuck Brenda redefines words to make them fit her psychoses.
The only real question is whether or not she has any (I repeat, "any", and when I say "any", I mean "any" as in the "smallest possible amount greater than none") evidence for her specious meanderings other than the writings of a romanticising mystic?
Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 26, 2007 1:20 PM
Do Theosophists also promote new and ascended forms of the English language? That last post is utterly incomprehensible from a grammar and sytax perspective.
Posted by: Brian | November 26, 2007 1:23 PM
I can try to inform you, but it is sometimes difficult for me because it is like attempting to teach the whole world.
Great giants of intellect, including Einstein, missed the correct rendering of the concept of evolution presented by Blavatsky OR were reluctant to unveil it. All those PhDs and professors have to hear from me "what might be" because journalists won't help me present the ideas.
When H.P.B. wrote the SD, I believe that she labored knowing that the idea would need to be kept secret: guarded for a time until other conditions could ripen. For instance, I didn't just read theosophy. I branched out to study a second organization with roots in the 30s. There is some complimentary data and some conflicting data when we study them both.
I think that the idea was intended to be kept secret until the last quarter of the century which has been earmarked as a "pregnant" time for light givers to periodically make an effort at greater revelation of truth and truthful doctrines.
I didn't know when I started the study of theosophy in 1975 that I would find information that I feel responsible for disseminating. I didn't know the existent organization(s) would opt out of that responsibility.
I want people to join The Theosophical Society, overtake its board of directors, and set it on a proper course. We just need members who can vote because there are only (at one time it was 5,000 members) a limited number of members.
I don't like my job. I wanted to wait and "embrace" whoever I could someday identify as this "periodic revealer," instead I had to step into the shoes and I know people resent my efforts because I don't have royal birth or extensive education. Before the idea, all I did was give birth to my son (while studying with both organizational groups here in Los Angeles).
I worry about my son and what he will grow up to be.
Posted by: Brenda Tucker | November 26, 2007 1:25 PM
That makes two of us. o_O
Posted by: Dustin | November 26, 2007 1:27 PM
Does anyone else remember that old Firesign Theater bit about the Lazy O/Magic Circle Dude Ranch and Collective Love Farm? Quoting from memory:
"There was a bunch of Theosophists in the back room raisin' the Devil. They had 'im about four feet off the ground, and I could tell by the look in his third eye that he was up to no good."
Every time I hear the name "Blavatsky," that's what comes to mind.
Posted by: HP | November 26, 2007 1:29 PM
I'm not raving. I'm calmly making it possible for experts to take up my plea.
If Jesus Christ were my son, I would want to take the sting out of his life. I would want him to be accepted as a genius or talented forerunner of a race and from him we could all benefit with guidance. But He spoke in parables and many didn't understand his teachings. I'm sorry he died on the cross, but I also think others have died "on the cross" between the girasas and human because we (humans) don't help them to acclimate the new conditions.
Posted by: Brenda Tucker | November 26, 2007 1:30 PM
The birth of a new race (6th) is expected in about 400,000 years. What we are learning today is a mindset that will help us to practice for the future occurrence of two kingdoms living in one body.
We just have occasional glimpses into the entire process. But scientists can piecemeal a picture together for the rest of us, if they would try.
Posted by: Brenda Tucker | November 26, 2007 1:33 PM
Lots of people died on the cross, because that's what the Romans were fond of doing.
Unfortunately, everyone seems to fawn over only one of them.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 26, 2007 1:34 PM
Brenda, scientists are already piecemealing a picture together, if only you would see it.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 26, 2007 1:36 PM
Brenda,
Perhaps I (and the world) could understand your seemingly disjointed ramblings better if you would answer the questions that I asked. Nobody here is impressed by arguments from authority, so we dont care if you are not royalty or educated, please just explain in this new "theory" of evolution to us.
Posted by: matm | November 26, 2007 1:37 PM
Ceiling Cat is watching you post
From up in his lofty location--
The comments make Ceiling Cat shudder and say
"O Hai. You can has medication."
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | November 26, 2007 1:38 PM
Cuttlefish shines with such awesomeness that I fear gazing upon it shall drive me insane.
Posted by: Dustin | November 26, 2007 1:39 PM
Brenda:
You would be hard pressed to do a better parody if you weren't being serious.
Posted by: Shaggy Maniac | November 26, 2007 1:43 PM
Cuttlefish wins Teh Internet — but I am still the Lord of the Computers Internet Blog. :-)
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 26, 2007 1:44 PM
I swear that after reading Brenda Tucker's first post I was going to congratulate her on a particularly good satire. Having read the rest of the thread my brains feel as if they've been tied in knots by the FSM and then tenderised with an unopened bottle of Chianti.
Posted by: Stephen | November 26, 2007 1:45 PM
Ryan,
The point is not that there weren't animals before man, it's that creationist bibliolatry requires them to believe that there was no imperfection before Adam's sin. Cancer is a Bad Thing, therefore it can't have been present in the original creation. Things went wrong only when Adam ate the apple (although where this places Satan's rebellion in the scheme of things I don't quite know). If a dinosaur had cancer, then it had to have been after Adam's sin. Therefore dinosaurs coexisted with humans.
QED.
(Quod Est Deridendum: which is to be laughed at.)
Posted by: noncarborundum | November 26, 2007 1:47 PM
Synapses misfire,
Concepts randomly ordered;
Brenda is posting
Posted by: NJ | November 26, 2007 1:49 PM
Brenda,
Here's what everyone heard you say:
Get on with it.
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | November 26, 2007 1:50 PM
Thank you Brenda for making me aware of Theosophy. I had heard of it before, but until now I was unaware of exactly how batshit crazy it is.
Posted by: Fnord Prefect | November 26, 2007 1:53 PM
Bananas Brenda needs her own ScienceBlog, but hosted over at the Colbert Report web site; her ability to offer insights that are simply inaccessible to lower-kingdom creatures like ourselves suggests, clearly, a higher-kingdom intelligence
Or are our one-kingdom bodies at fault?
Posted by: Roque Strew | November 26, 2007 1:54 PM
Brenda,
Logic.
You're doing it wrong.
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 26, 2007 1:56 PM
I do like the Theosophical Society's motto:
"There is no religion higher than truth."
However that begs the question of how high you would have to be to believe in their brand of religion.
Posted by: Fnord Prefect | November 26, 2007 1:59 PM
noncarborundum,
That makes (tortured) sense, but when they say that they're saying something outside of the Bible, that "man's sin" affected every other living creature....which should give any literalist fool a headache.
Plus, I'm sure they can squeeze some "good" out of Cancer. They already do for tsunamis.
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | November 26, 2007 2:00 PM
Brenda, you do know that Helena Blavatsky was a shameless con-artist and fake spiritualist? That Theosophy was the Scientology of the nineteenth century, ie a made-up religion with a charismatic leader?
And what the hell are girasas?
Posted by: Alice Shortcakel | November 26, 2007 2:02 PM
Somehow, it's just perfect that a theosophist would pick this fairly trivial thread built on creationist humor to make her grand introduction. It's so random.
Posted by: PZ Myers | November 26, 2007 2:04 PM
Alice Shortcakel (#56) asked,
Giraffes cross-bred with asafoetida.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 26, 2007 2:05 PM
Wow. I wonder if medication could help this poor woman. She really seems so clearly detached from reality that there is probably a chemical reason.
Brenda: If you really want to test your ideas, perhaps the best way to advance them even, is to go see a psychiatrist, tell him your ideas, take the medication he prescribes. Then revisit your ideas after a few weeks and see if you have any new insights.
Posted by: BG | November 26, 2007 2:06 PM
In an idle and ill-advised moment, I clicked on Brenda's website link. All I can say is: whoa. Imagine being so nutty that not even Theosophists will give you a hearing.
Posted by: Tom | November 26, 2007 2:07 PM
PZ (#57):
Oh, she's been around before. To quote Ecclesiastes 1:4–9,
Sez it all, I rather think.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 26, 2007 2:08 PM
I cannot help but notice that Brenda's writing style is not only rambling, but quite similar to the theosophy entry on wikipedia. Might just be a coincidence, or adhering to a 19th century brand of crazy simply makes you write that way.
Posted by: Hank | November 26, 2007 2:18 PM
For those who haven't encountered Blavatskyism (or, the thesophical society) before, this article might be of interest. http://www.randi.org/joom/component/option,com_wrapper/Itemid,80/
My conclusion: Blavatsky was nothing more than a con artist.
Posted by: DLC | November 26, 2007 2:21 PM
Urbandictionary.com defines 'Katherine Harris Crazy' as:
"someone whose head is so far up their own ass that they lose their sense of sight, except of course for the sight of their own sigmoid colon."
I would like to humbly submit 'Brenda Tucker Crazy' as:
"someone whose grasp of reality is so fleeting that they genuinely believe that their either unfounded or heavily refuted opinions merit them a position of enlightenment."
Example:
"Dude! Did you see 'Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial'? I never realized how Brenda Tucker Crazy Behe truly is!"
Posted by: Jesse | November 26, 2007 2:25 PM
Blake Stacy:
I think I use asafoetida in a recipe I have for Indian yogurt chicken.
If you're telling me that this is some sort of species dedicated to making tasty indian fare, well sign me up man! I welcome this new supreme race and look forward to their recipes!
Posted by: Jesse | November 26, 2007 2:31 PM
Cuttlefish - you've broken your usually perfect meter! The first line doesn't quite scan right - it should be more like "the great Ceiling Cat, he is watching you post" or something...
Posted by: Paul Crowley | November 26, 2007 2:34 PM
MATM:
You can define those things yourself. It's easy. See my webpage. I sympathize with you. It is a new word. It is a strange adventure.
I do not like to be called crazy. I have children. The first year after the idea occurred to me, my own brain often felt as if it were rewiring. I know you might be afraid. So am I. It's difficult for me to see religious people addressed with ridicule. I want to help them. I want to school to become a psychologist, but dropped out when I encountered the path in a book called THE YOGA SUTRAS OF PATANJALI and that book led me to theosophical writings, joining, and working at the headquarters. This to me was in place of the university education which I had surrendered.
When I started reading theosophy, the books often asked us not to take what was written on faith, but to test it for ourselves. That is what I thought I was doing.
I think it would be easier for people to become "instruments" of the girasas kingdom or hosts to them if they would learn to purify - vegetarian, non-alcohol consumption, and purifying meditations. Then, the girasas would feel more comfortable in the body they are offered. I don't know why.
I'm on this thread because I have time and I like being with a "little known word": pharyngula (little known among public) because I use a word that I coined and it isn't in any dictionary yet.
You could see my blog at http://community.myfoxla.com/blogs/Brendatucker if you'd like more.
Posted by: Brenda Tucker | November 26, 2007 2:37 PM
I think of this, myself.
Theosophy falls into the "not even wrong" category, and while it is admirable for some of the patient souls here to try and engage our new Theosophist friend in rational discourse, anyone with these kind of batshit crazy beliefs can't be reasoned with. When someone writes things like:
then the only thing is to nod politely and look for the nearest exit.
Posted by: Tulse | November 26, 2007 2:44 PM
I need to deal with girasas, too? cheese, like the thetans aren't enough...
Posted by: True Bob | November 26, 2007 2:45 PM
Ryan,
I don't think literalism forces you to believe only that which is explicitly stated in the Bible*; it just prohibits you from believing things that contradict that which is explicitly stated in the Bible. But IANAL (I Am Not A Literalist), so I may have this wrong.
---------------
*The Bible (NT, but it's all the same to these bozos) explcitly states that it's incomplete:
Posted by: noncarborundum | November 26, 2007 2:47 PM
omigod
well, no wonder creationists cant think
this seems hilarious at first but those creo churches really do encourage them to think like that
Posted by: brightmoon | November 26, 2007 2:54 PM
Cosmic 401(k)s, Kabbalistic Dental Plans, Third Kingdom HMOs, etc.
Posted by: obscurifer | November 26, 2007 3:00 PM
Brenda,
Thanks for the response,
I checked your site and I will define them myself---nonsense... I am afraid too, afraid that you are spewing your ridiculous nonsense on the wrong blog. For your own sake, if you really do not like being thought of as crazy, stop and examine the assertions that you are making about whatever the hell you are talking about before you post them on a blog associated with science and skepticism.
An open mind can be a good thing, but not so open that your brain falls out.
Posted by: mattm | November 26, 2007 3:01 PM
noncarborundum,
True, that. But my point wasn't about a 'gap' in this Biblical history, but that it conflicts with literal and even most metaphorical readings (i.e. there's not a way out that isn't far more metaphorical and allegorical in a section of the Bible that the YECers insist is literal).
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | November 26, 2007 3:03 PM
Much though I am tempted to jump on the bash-Brenda bandwagon (and making fun of Blavatsky is just too easy for an historian) I'll not pile on the poor woman so. She obviously needs a serious injection of something (logic, historical understanding, sedatives... it's pretty much a toss-up.)
Going through Scalzi's photo-essay though, I did note an interesting fact about Ken Ham's little "museum" that I hadn't seen before from this picture. The document that Martin Luther is nailing to the door of Wittenberg Cathedral is not the 95 Theses but a set of strung-together quotes (or pseudo-quotes) from Luther loosely identified as "correspondence". The title is the dubious quote from the Diet of Worms ("Here I stand, I can do no other. God help me, Amen.") and thus isn't even correspondence. It's like they just couldn't stop themselves from quote-mining, even when they didn't need to (it's not like the 95 Theses are some kind of problem for creationists.) It's Ham and his folks providing their own LOL content, without even needing to draw in other captions.
Posted by: Stwriley | November 26, 2007 3:05 PM
There are still Blavatsky followers?
Wow.
phat
Posted by: phat | November 26, 2007 3:10 PM
Ryan,
Not to beat a dead (or at least dying, and in any case quite peripheral) horse, but where does the "Adam's sin brought death and disease to the animal kingdom" assertion actually contradict anything in the rest of the Bible? As far as I can tell, at least it doesn't contradict anything Genesis says about the prelapsarian creation.
Has a horse ever been described as "peripheral" before?
Posted by: noncarborundum | November 26, 2007 3:13 PM
Brenda
I checked out your blog.
You sound more than a little schizo to me. I suggest you get evaluated by a psychiatrist ASAP.
Posted by: karen | November 26, 2007 3:14 PM
Dogmaticalness, thy name is Ken Ham (What's Wrong with Progressive Creation?):
If the days of creation are really "geologic ages" of millions of years, then the gospel message is undermined at its foundation because it puts death, disease, thorns, and suffering before the Fall. This idea also shows an erroneous approach to Scripture--that the Word of God can be interpreted on the basis of the fallible theories of sinful people.
[...]
Now if the Garden of Eden were sitting on a fossil record of
dead things millions of years old, then there was the shedding of blood before sin. This would destroy the foundation of the Atonement.
The Bible is clear: the sin of Adam brought death and suffering into the world. As Romans 8:19-22 tells us, the whole of creation "groans" because of the effects of the fall of Adam, and the creation will be liberated "from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God" (Rom. 8:21). Also, bear in mind that thorns came into existence after the Curse. Because there are thorns in the fossil record, it had to be formed after Adam and Eve sinned.
Anything that undermines the validity of his precious Bible must be denied. In his heart of hearts, does he really believe in his own bullshit? I doubt it.
He's an ordinary con artist. Anyone could do what he does. What stops 99.9% of the public from doing what he does is called "having a conscience".
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 26, 2007 3:16 PM
Why do Creationists make such a hellish stink over being "descended from apes and monkeys," and yet, at the same time, have no problem having a legendary ancestor who Creationists alledge single-handedly wrecked the entire Universe?
Posted by: Stanton | November 26, 2007 3:23 PM
noncarborundum (77),
Why are you asking for a contradiction?
I didn't find one, myself, but then again, it's not important that one be found (talk about flogging a dead horse!), since my point still stands.
If you're not a literalist, and you haven't explicitly disagreed that the interpretation I described leads to a larger allegorical reading (a no-no for a literalist), are there any specific nits that you're picking at?
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | November 26, 2007 3:34 PM
You know...people like those creationists are among the reasons I'm currently thinking about quiting my job next year and going back to university. Palaeontology as a major.
Posted by: The B | November 26, 2007 3:46 PM
Yes, we know. You have announced this in every Pharyngula thread of the last few days. Doesn't it occur to you that your blogwhoring might be counterproductive?
--------------
I see. Now it's time for you to learn that not only is no way "up", but also no way is "down". There is no "higher" or "lower".
Evolution does not have a direction. Life diversifies, it doesn't follow any straight lines, let alone any directions.
Please! Einstein was not a biologist! He has nothing to do with the theory of evolution!
And I notice that you say "correct". Let's play science. If you were wrong, how would you know?
OMFG. The True IRA. :-o
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 26, 2007 4:02 PM
has anyone deciphered what those girasas are, yet ?
I tried to find it on Brenda's lunatic blog, but failed.
Posted by: T_U_T | November 26, 2007 4:07 PM
I worry about my son and what he will grow up to be.
Lets just hope its not you!!!
Posted by: qedpro | November 26, 2007 4:19 PM
Too bad I missed out on the contest, but I came up with a good one:
My LOLCreashunist
Posted by: markbt73 | November 26, 2007 4:19 PM
No, you aren't. See above for the definition of evolution.
No. We are asking to be shown evidence that any such phenomenon exists.
Men are from Mars, women are from Venus, scientists are from Missouri. Show us. If the picture is wrong, we are not interested in grasping it, so show us it isn't wrong.
You keep using that word "evolutionary". It doesn't mean what you think it means.
I call bullshit. Are you even aware that this was a mass extinction event? Global? On land and in the sea? Forget the dinosaurs -- the ammonites died out, and so did most of the plankton! The mosasaurs, the bennettitalean plants... I could go on for an hour.
If that thought can be pondered, then the reverse of the cycle can be seen as advancement through a higher kingdom's penetr