Hey little girl, wanna see my long, tan cylinder? Don’t worry, it ain’t a sin…

OT and BTW: My bog is teh broken! Blogger is t3h sUxXx0rZ!!!!

A hyperbaric biosphere? Oh, man, I know what’s on Michael Jackson’s Christmas list.

is that a dinosaur in your pocket

A hyperbaric biosphere? Oh, man, I know what’s on Michael Jackson’s Christmas list.

I was tempted to say that, but I resisted the temptation. I’m glad someone had the poor taste to say it, though 😉

Well, I did resist pointing out that fruit flies tend to live longer when you keep rotten fruit around rather than throwing it out like a normal human would. I bet Dr. Baugh keeps them as pets, and has named them all Dru.

Out of curiosity (so inappropriate when it comes to science!) how the hell does anyone know what the atmosphere was like before the “Flood”? Oh, and if there were no volcanoes before the “Flood”, how the hell did lava flows show up during the atheistic-misnomer “Age of Dinosaurs”? Not to mention dinosuars killed by sandstorms, and…Ah, the whisky kicked in. Goodnight and good luck, y’all!

Out of curiosity (so inappropriate when it comes to science!) how the hell does anyone know what the atmosphere was like before the “Flood”? Oh, and if there were no volcanoes before the “Flood”, how the hell did lava flows show up during the atheistic-misnomer “Age of Dinosaurs”? Not to mention dinosuars killed by sandstorms, and…Ah, the whisky kicked in. Goodnight and good luck, y’all!

It’s best not to try to think about this stuff. It’ll seriously hurt.

From the museum’s site:

“Dr. Carl Baugh, the museum?s Founder and Director, originally came to Glen Rose, Texas to critically examine claims of human and dinosaur co-habitation.”

Co-habitation, in what sense? Is this just an attempt to get Sen. Santorum (R-Woof!) to take an interest in dinosaurs?

Don’t those two cartoon kids look like they’re scared out of their wits, but pretending not to be? It’s almost like they’re thinking “OK. Just go along with this shit. Pretend you believe. Don’t let them see your doubt or it’s 10 hours in the Dark Locked Closet of Redemption…Oh, God, I hope I can keep this up, I hope they don’t see me…ohpleaseohpleaseohplease…”

I’m still baffled by the talking snake thing. I mean, never mind how absurd it is that a snake could acquire the ability to speak, and in a manner articulate enough for a human to understand (I guess it was a good listener). The goofiest thing is that Eve doesn’t completely flip out when it happens-she acts as though it’s perfectly normal.
I mean come on! Wouldn’t it be more like this:
Snake: Eat the fruit.
Eve: Adam! Adam! Come quick!
Adam: What is it?
Eve: The snake! It was talking to me! It was talking!
Adam: Yeah right. What else was it doing, singing “The Michigan Rag”?
Eve: Well if you’re gonna make fun of me (pouts)
Snake: Eat the fruit, it’ll make you smarter!
Eve: You see?
Adam: Whoah….cool!
Snake: Eat the fruit, dat’s some good shit, yo.
Eve: So maybe we should eat the fruit!
Adam: What would we wanna do that for?
Eve: Well, you gotta admit it’s not every day a snake gives us dietary tips. Maybe it knows something we don’t.
Adam: What the fuck are you talking about? Damn thing’s got a brain the size of a peanut.
Eve: Yeah, you’re right. Besides, maybe we’re hallucinating-who knows what’s in the plants we’ve been eating?
Snake: Both of you? Eat it! Go on, go on!
Adam: Okay, that’s getting annoying. Maybe we should hit it with a shovel.
Eve: Oh, don’t! We could keep it as a pet.
Adam: Okay. Let’s go get some shit to build a cage with.
Eve: I think there’s some bark over there…(They walk away, eyeing something shiny and ooohing it.)
Snake: Hey, where you going? Aww, crap.

Bill S: I likes it. Your gift for dialogue is nothing to shake a spear at!

“Mandi followed the metal walkway to another little doorway and peered into the hot tunnel.”

You’re right. If Laura was involved, this is REALLY, REALLY dirty.

This is just messed up beyond words. It’s beyond belief. It’s not just putting religion into the context of science, it’s actively spreading enormous amounts of DISINFORMATION.

The earth was surrounded by a giant pink bubble of water? Tectonic plates completely ignored? Tropical plants in Canada that only survived because of the mystical Jesus sprinkler system?

Holy bullshit, Batman!

Now I know where to take my family on our next vacation! Pile into the car, kids, we’re driving cross-country to see the Hyperbaric Biosphere!

This is all good fun, but you don’t need a Ph.D to realise that it is a red herring. While the ‘secular left’ is running after brightly colored ideological bouncing balls like this, or like Roy Moore (Mr Courthouse Ten Commandments) standing for Alabama governor, the real action continues elsewhere.

I’m still baffled by the talking snake thing. I mean, never mind how absurd it is that a snake could acquire the ability to speak, and in a manner articulate enough for a human to understand (I guess it was a good listener).

Sorry, Bill, gotta disagree wit cha there. See, the thing is, snakes are deaf. They do not hear sounds in the way most animals do. The closest they come to “hearing” things is by sensing vibrations carried through the ground. They have no ear openings, though I’m unsure if their inner ears are completely missing or simply vestigial at this point. So even if a snake were to have proper vocal chords, the results of it trying to speak would be somewhat worse than a person who was born deaf.

In the cartoon logo for this thing, there are only Matt, Muncher the dinosaur, and one of the girls, let’s say Laura. So where’s Mandi? Sadly, it turns out that Muncher is a carnivorous dino and has eaten her. Dr. Baugh shouldn’t have locked them in the hyperbaric biosphere together….

“…the entire Earth had a wonderful, tropical climate. There were no storms, tornados, hurricanes, or volcanoes…”

Well, sure. You never have any of those things in a tropical climate.

Gee, I wonder what kind of air pressure would result from that pink bubble of water surrounding the Earth? That’s what Dr. Dino’s gotta be simulating in his hyperbaric biosphere. So what’s his criteria for setting oxygen and other gas levels? Air pressure would be *ahem* ungodly high… which would make the temperature of the planet about oh 900 degrees or so? Gee, I don’t think Mandi and Laura wanna go in there! Howcum his snakes and flies aren’t boiled alive? Had God not created the laws of physics yet, before the flood?

I was being sarcastic, Marq, but hopefully you knew that.

The funniest thing about this is that the obviously loony Baugh seems to have done more actual research than the entire Intelligent Design movement put together.

These well-meaning folks can no more prove these biblical accounts are fact than you folks can prove that they are not. It’s all about faith.

“So even if a snake were to have proper vocal chords, the results of it trying to speak would be somewhat worse than a person who was born deaf.”

So the snake might not have even been trying to tempt Eve at all! He might have been trying to say “Meet the cattle”, as a way of introducing Eve to the large number of livestock around the garden. And it just came out “Eat the Apple”. Tough break all around.

Watchman,

“These well-meaning folks can no more prove these biblical accounts are fact than you folks can prove that they are not. It’s all about faith.”

1) It is logically and scientifically impossible to prove that something is “not” fact. What you have to do is state the premise in its positive form and test it. If no evidence supports the positive form of the premise, all you can technically state is “There is no supporting evidence.” If available evidence directly contradicts the positive form, you can state “This premise is directly contradicted by known evidence.” To a scientist or a logician, that is the equivalent of “This is complete and utter laughable BS.” To the wingnut, however, it often reads “You didn’ PROVE it was IMPOSSIBLE! So it IS POSSIBLE.” (Hint: it is also “possible” that I am God and am living on earth suffering from some form of divine amnesia. No one can “prove” that this is impossible.)

2) Faith is fine. Faith is great. I, personally, believe in all sorts of things (magic, ghosts, spirits, etc.) not supported by physical evidence and actively discounted as “not very likely” by science. Where my faith (based on my personal experience) bumps up against science, all I can say is “I don’t know what made that bizarre thing happen, but for now I will refer to it as a poltergeist until I understand it better.” I do not, however, claim that they are “facts” or that they are “scientifically true” or “widely known”. That’s what these people are doing. If they didn’t pretend they doing scientific research, they wouldn’t be held up for ridicule.

All we can say is “All available geological, astronomical, biological, chemical, Physical, historical, anthropological, archaological, and Bibilical historical evidence directly contradicts the notion that either one of the 2 different creation stories recounted in Genesis (pick a Bible version) are factually and literally true.”

And all he can say is “Is TOO!”

“Now, we have seasons like summer when it is really hot, and winter when it is really cold, but before the Flood, the entire Earth had a wonderful, tropical climate.”

WTF??? I didn’t realize that Christianity had some ideological opposition to the idea of winter.

And I’m really curious — since the old testament books were based on writings by people living in the arid part of the world that would become Israel (remember all those encounters with God in the desert) — where did they get the idea of a wonderful tropical climate?

And unless they had the luxury of the God Cable TV Network, the original writers of the Bible had no way of knowing what the weather was like in, say, Saskatchewan, so who’s to say there was no winter?

Bubble of water? Glub glub

Wow…whatever it is that they’re smoking…I WANT SOME.

(pfft…ahhh, good shit!)

The reason the Creation Evidence Museum talks about dinosaurs is because its practically across the street from the entrance to Dinosaur Valley State Park in Glen Rose, TX. This is a state park where dinosaur tracks were discovered in the Paluxy River which runs through the park.

Did you notice the picture of Dr. Baugh? He looks like Bill Murray.

Weird…

The sun rays had to go through that canopy and the other layers of our sky before it could reach Earth. The canopy was colored magenta or pink and it blocked the bad rays of the sun but only let in the sun rays that would be helpful for our body.

And unicorns frolicked freely in the meadows.

“The sun rays had to go through that canopy and the other layers of our sky before it could reach Earth. The canopy was colored magenta or pink and it blocked the bad rays of the sun but only let in the sun rays that would be helpful for our body.”

That’s not the world before the Flood, that’s a My Little Pony ad.

Dorothy –

Kudos on the argument; and for pointing out that the Bible details two complete and separate versions of Creation. Most of the Bible thumpers out there aren’t even aware of that (they don’t actually READ the book, after all, other than the convenient parts.)

Point number three might be that you don’t force legislation to make other viewpoints than yours criminal. One can believe the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal is God, and I’ll wish you quite well. Just don’t FORCE me to brush His Teeth in worship.

WTF??? I didn’t realize that Christianity had some ideological opposition to the idea of winter.

Or poles.

Dorothy Hebrews 11:1, Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. If you had had a real and personal experience with a poltergeist, any “evidence” supporting or contrary will not change how you feel. Just be ready for lots of ridicule from those who haven’t had this experience.

I’ve driven by this museum. What’s really funny (at least I thought it was) is that it’s located very near Dinosaur Valley State Park, a park with fossilized dinosaur footprints in the riverbed. We took a family trip there because my (then-5 year old) son is a dinosaur fanatic.

“They were even perfect emotionally and spiritually meaning they never got depressed or scared and they had a great relationship with God.
However, when Eve was tempted and ate the fruit she wasn?t supposed to, things changed.

Whatever happened to that oxygen bar fad, anyway?

Carl Baugh (you can read his dissertation online) has got it all wrong. He's a creationist who makes wild claims about oxygen concentration fueling the greater strength and intelligence and size of the patriarchs of the Bible, and that dinosaurs w…

If they were “perfect emotionally and spiritually”, why were they capable of giving in to temptation? And more importantly-WHAT WAS THAT STUPID TREE DOING THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE? It didn’t seem to serve any USEFUL purpose, except to support a “do not touch” sign. God didn’t need it, and Adam and Eve certainly didn’t. Seems like the only reason God put it there was to tease two less intelligent creatures. He basically treated them like a pair of lab rats. What a loving God. Oh, let’s not forget that God is supposed to be infallible. That means he could predict, with 100% accuracy, the outcome of that little experiment. No “Um, this might happen, or that might happen” for an infallible being. So what happens? They eat the fruit (which he couldn’t NOT know they were going to do) and he storms in and goes, “Grr, I did NOT see that coming at all!” Then he curses the entire planet for a stupid mistake two people made-a mistake that could have easily been avoided if he’d just stuck the tree on another continent where they’d never find it-which, IF he REALLY didn’t want them to touch it, he coulda done.

Gee, I wonder what kind of air pressure would result from that pink bubble of water surrounding the Earth?

The pressure would have been high enough that every living creature on Earth would have been cooked alive, which is only a hindrance for the vast majority of living organisms.

Carl Baugh is the guy who believed the Paluxy river footprints were made by humans walking alongside dinosaurs. His Ph.D.s all come from unaccredited universities, so you can feel free to call him ‘Dr’ Baugh or Captain McBigtits or whatever you feel’s appropriate. I’d call him Hovind Lite if he wasn’t really, really crazy.

And he looks like a 60 year old Pierce Brosnan

-Schmitt.

Not fair to Pierce Brosnan, who’s 52 and holding up nicely. VERY nicely. Um, excuse me, I have to leave, something just came up…

Bill S overlooks (well, it’s hard to cover all the goofiness, there’s such an abundance) further evidence of perfidity on the part of Jahveh/Elohim.

It was supposedly wrong for A&E to defy J/E’s ban on eating that fruit, because the fruit would magically allow them to distinguish between right and wrong. Ergo, they were made with no innate sense of right or wrong – so they could not have known eating the fruit – or anything else – was wrong.

This is a sadistic double-bind, but quite in character for a deity who would later punish the entire Egyptian nation for the uncooperativeness of a Pharoah – whose heart was “hardened” by said deity before the first demand was made.

Watchman, you are impenetrable. (So why am I wasting my time trying to drill kindergarten facts into your impenetrable head? I dunno, just bored I guess.)

It is NOT “all about faith.” If you call something science when it isn’t science, you are WRONG. Period. There are clear and simple rules about what is valid science. If you don’t follow the rules, you’re not doing science. If you refuse to follow the rules but still SAY you’re doing science, then you’re a liar or an idiot.

i think watchman takes on faith that these are well meaning people.

I have been defamed by many a fundie, i assume nothing.

Give the fundies no quarter, i’ve seen and heard them say things that would curl your toes.
Those people haven’t found god, they’ve found the party of god. And in that, power. Power over thought and deed, and they’ll not easily surrender it.

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
Albert Einstein

“The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being.”
Isaac Newton

“As deep as any ocean
And sweet as any harmony
She blinded me with science
(She blinded me with science!)
And failed me in biology”
Thomas Dolby

The mindless mock. Can anything really be proven to be true, or must we accept everything on the basis of faith? As a psychologist, I am constantly bombarded with studies, and I’ve conducted a few of my own. I’ve never proven or disproven anything by my studies, and neither have any of my colleages. What’s averred as scientific truth one day, is ridiculed several years, or even months later when brand new so-called scientific “evidence” comes in to “prove” the previous study dreadfully wrong. Scientific studies can’t prove a thing. That’s why we use probability coefficients. We’re all just guessing. God cannot be proven, and the notion of God is foolishness to all who haven’t experienced the divine love of God, which surpasses all human understanding.

I was being sarcastic, Marq, but hopefully you knew that.

Yeah, I knew-I just can’t resist ruining a joke with facts. 😛 Sorry!
Continuing on the logical picking apart of Genesis (one of the two silliest books of the Bible-the other being Revelations), yes that whole “God not knowing whether Adam and Eve would eat the fruit” and “Adam and Eve being ignorant of right and wrong” are quite true. But what of the original situation? God had Adam and Eve frolicking about naked as jaybirds. But, evidently, this was sinful and bad, for once they partook of the fruit they knew to cover themselves up. So, if it was so bad, why would God be contented to allow Adam and Eve sin every day of their lives? What was he planning to do, allow them to sin until they died and then hit them with, “Aha! You dirty sinners, you sinned every day! It’s off to hell with you! “

BLT, that’s a ridiculous arguement-

As a psychologist, I am constantly bombarded with studies, and I’ve conducted a few of my own. I’ve never proven or disproven anything by my studies, and neither have any of my colleages.

Then you state:

Scientific studies can’t prove a thing.

Oh for crying out loud. It’s one thing to claim that about psychology, where quantifiable evidence is very difficult to come by, but absurd to make a similar claim about physics, chemistry, biology, and astronomy. Mountains of evidence have been gathered in all those fields and others. Innumerable things have been proven. The fact that theories are adjusted to reflect new and better experimental evidence or to correct mistakes are not flaws of science, but, indeed its backbone and strength. This is a flaw in understanding science and scientific method that typifies wingnuttus Americanus.

Marq, everything you now believe to be the gospel truth about physics, chemistry, biology and astronomy, will seem absurd and laughable in 1,000 years. Have you ever heard of paradigm shifts? You seem smart enough, I’m sure you have. Well, over the past decade, in case you hadn’t noticed, the foundation of Darwin’s theory has been steadily crumbing and it is about to fall apart completely. Then we will witness another paradigm shift and that shift will be a dramatic one. I’m happy to note, that you have also made a shift, from ad hominem attacks and puerile insults to scholarly debate.

BLT, which part of the “foundation of Darwin’s theory” would that be? Mutation, natural selection, speciation, radiation, adaptive pressure? Just where do you see the “crumbling”?

And if there should be some dramatic, Copernican paradigm shift in biology, do you really expect “Doctor” Baugh to contribute to it in any way, or even to be pleased with the new paradigm to come?

“everything you now believe to be the gospel truth about physics, chemistry, biology and astronomy, will seem absurd and laughable in 1,000 years”

Dr. PB&J is right, you know. I’ve visited 3005 A.D., and in those days, gravity pulls up rather than down, atoms are the size of marshmallows (and just as tasty!), and the Easter Bunny is real. Amazing what a few paradigm shifts will do.

BLT, what you don’t know about science would fill a high school textbook. In fact, it DOES fill a high school textbook. You should try reading one sometime.

Your position is that because science can’t “prove” anything, it’s okay to believe whatever you want.

Science isn’t in the business of “proving” things in the mathematical sense. Science only gathers evidence to support or refute theories. Many things have been proven by science if you use a more human definition of “proof.” As in “the following evidence is sufficient that anyone should consider the theory of evolution to be proven, unless they’re a fucking idiot.”

Karl, can you tell me what is so idiotic about the arguments against Darwin identified by Russel Humphreys in his article, Evidence for a Young World? You should be able to find that article on the internet if you simply google it in.

BLT —

I tell you you should go read a high school science textbook, and your response is to ask me to write one for you. Pay me a few grand, and I’ll give it a shot. Meanwhile, here’s an abridged version to get you started:

Humphreys #1: Oh dear, our understanding of how spiral galaxies have preserved their shape is incomplete. Therefor the universe is 6,000 years old. And yet the fact that we can SEE galaxies that are billions of light years away isn’t a problem for Humphreys.

Humphreys #2: He’s courteous enough to include the explanation of what he considers a problem; he just states, without support, that this explanation isn’t “substantiated.” He’s wrong; there is plenty of evidence of the existence of the Oort cloud and the Kuiper belt.

Humphreys #3: Mud becomes sedimentary rock. This isn’t high school science, it’s grade school science. Perhaps Humphreys was out sick that day in fifth grade.

Humphreys #4: Yep, there’s not enough salt in the ocean. Especially if you use real data when you talk about how salt gets into the sea and lie about the data on how it gets out.

And so on. When this idiot mentions what “evolutionists” say in response to his fictional problems, one of his most-repeated complaints is that the responses involve theories that are “complex.” Obviously anything that’s hard to understand must be wrong.

If you want to continue deluding yourself, I strongly urge that you stay away from websites like [http://www.gate.net/~rwms/crebuttals.html]. Something you WON’T find on the web is a list of all the evidence that supports evolution and an old universe. These theories are so all-encompassing and so utterly _required_ for any rational understanding of so many countless observations that there’s simply no hope of “listing” all the evidence in favor of them.

I hear yo’ hyperbaric biosphere on the stair,
I know you ain’t no scare-eyed honey
There’ll be a beast if you just
Sign up fer prayer…

It’s no damnin’ matter
It’s no cardinal crime….

Omigod — Is that the SAME “Dr. BLT” who had his wingnut ass kicked all over the board at NewsHounds? Hysterical. You kids will enjoy bending him over the railing. He is IMMENSELY mental.

I was going to say something about the weight-delta-ignoring comparison of F-14 vs. pterodactyl aerodynamics…but this unexpected sighting of a legendary, recycled troll has stolen my pre-Flood breath away.

Have at him. Hours of fun, and no messy clean-up!

Wait a minute — now that I think of it, he was getting his ass kicked HERE, last time I saw him.

They’d enjoy him over at the ‘Hounds, though.

Rotwag, before you start salivating likePavlov’s dog, understand this: I spent little time and effort on those who prefer Junior High bullying tactics, ad hominem attacts and toilet talk. While Karl comes across as a bit arrogant and supercillious, at least he exercises a modicum of respect and self control, and he tries to approach the subject matter from a scholarly point of view,

Karl:

#1: What does seeing galaxies that appear to be billions of light years away really tell us as it concerns evolution?

#2. requires further explanation

#3. actually, if you follow Occam’s Razor, which suggests that given a choice between explanations, one should choose the simplest, the explanation which requires the fewest assumptions, then some of that grade school text book stuff doesn’t look too bad. Although most scientists follow this logic, I must admit, I am not entirely sold on it.

#4. I’m not sure you’ve adequately made a case for Humphey’s alleged intellectual dishonesty. In what respect has he llied about the data?

Actually, I should add that (though this may just be my lack of faith talking), I believe that the Genesis account of creation may not be one that was meant to interpret literally. Having said that, I believe that one day our understanding of evolution will more closely approximate the biblical account than the Darwinian account.

BLT —

Until I get that check for a few grand, I’m not going to spend time doing endless follow-ups with you in which I site references to data sources and whatnot. You can look this stuff up for yourself.

The Occam’s razor reference is interesting however.

I’m guessing, though it’s not clear, that you’re arguing that Humphrey’s distaste for “complex” scientific explanations is supported by Occam’s razor. (If that’s not what you were arguing, it should have been, because it’s actually a mildly clever point).

In a sense, Occam’s razor DOES support creationism. “God did it” is, in fact, the simplest explanation for a lot of things. Shorten “God did it” to the single word “magic” and it is ALWAYS the simplest explanation for ANYTHING:

Question: “Why does the pitch of a car horn sound higher as the car approaches and lower as the car recedes?

1) “Sound waves, Doppler shift, etc., etc., blah blah.”

2) “Magic”

Obviously #2 is simpler. But it’s not useful and it’s not science. It doesn’t give you a theory you can test, and it doesn’t give you information that you can build on to increase your understanding of the world. That’s why science, by definition, doesn’t use the “magic” explanation. You can use it for anything, and it tells you nothing.

There are probably literally millions of instances in the history of science where the evidence has allowed for only two alternative explanations: “Magic”, or “we don’t understand this phenomenon well enough yet.” Scientists have always chosen the latter alternative, and looked deeper, found the information needed to explain the phenomenon, and added to the world’s knowledge. That’s what scientists do; that’s what science is.

And that’s why creationism isn’t science.

About durability of scientific theories: Archimedes law is still valid, after 2200 years.

For that matter, Newtonian mechanics is superceded by relativity theory, but it is still damn good for computing orbits of planets etc.

About magenta canopy in the sky: does the Bible use the word “magenta” anywhere? For that matter, I do not even recall anything described as “pink”. Are pink and magenta legitimate colors or some godless humanist inventions? Modest proposal number one: check which colors are real, i.e. which colors are mentioned in the Bible.

Modest proposal number two: the flood story does not make much sense unless Ararat was the highest mountain. Check which mountains are real, and which are godless humanist inventions (like Mt. Kinley in Alaska).

Mt. Ararat was the only mountaintop that had an available handicapped parking space,

I am no physical scientist. I have spent my years focusing on Literature, Text-Linguistics, Hebrew, etc.

An interesting proposition was made by another person much like myself, John Sailhamer, one of the world’s foremost authorities on Classical Hebrew. The proposition suggests that not only are many young earthers mistaken in their science, but they are mistaken in the point of the Genesis One. He looks at the the Pentateuch completely as literature; his only concern as a scholar is the authorial meaning. (The first five books of the Tanak, OT, form a very coherent, strategic, and intelligent peice of literature.) He maintains that the God of the Pentateuch is not “creating” the cosmos in the statements of chapter one, “Day One, Day Two,” but he is preparing the land (i.e. the promised land, canaan). The term “haerets” means land in Hebrew and is most often used in the Pentateuch to refer to the land promised to the seed of Abraham. There were other medieval rabbis who also took the passage this way.

I think the book he presents his findings in is called “The Genesis Flood.” A very respectable scholar who deals with the ancient text. The text itseld may say nothing about the age of the earth or how it was created. It only says that the God of the Pentateuch is responsible for it.

to the guy,commenting on talking snakes.world mythology,from every continent,has talking animals,birds,bats,elephants,dogs,cats,ants,spiders,fish,frogs,etc.the difference between,history,myths,legend,fables,camp fire tales,is evidence.almost everyone,used to believe in genesis as history,then evolutionary theory was taught,because athiests,are interpreting the data.in the future,something will be discovered,that will give evidence,to talking animals,besides,parrots,minor birds.when you get more evidence,a myth can be called history,not legend.but we have parrots,minor birds,,,who knows,,,,some snakes today still have legs,as the genesis snake had legs.maybe,you never thought about this

Ding dong dilly, william clyde! The Cool Coach is here and he’s telling you, homes, no one’s posted on this thread in three years.

Badoodle-boo-yeah! You just got served a SPREAD of TRUTH by the Cool Coach! Urban out.

This is the best comment thread ever! Hi William!!!!

there’s plenty of evidence for a young earth. don’t shoot the messenger. the messenger is’nt the KOOL KID in sKool. the messenger just has you sign here oops someone else’s mail it was marked urgent but you were too busy not reading hope for the flowers by trina paulus and becoming a caterpillar again and all we are saying is give kreationism a chance as something kinda possibly pearly (pig? me? never-all in all just another brick in the wall-PIGLOO) and we all gotta be specialists i guess in the sociocultural gym sock fabric of society and i feel kinda smelly and here’s this knitting class recycling me into a sweater jack kerouac wrote on teletype and whirling dervishes wheelabout like ancient hebrew scrolls 100 foot worth condensing 7 years living into 3 weeks typing sorry for the gooey goofiness all we are saying is forgive the hard as flint KEN HAMS, KENT HOVINDS, enjoy the flinted fire from afar in your KEROUAC circle like me can’t take the KRISTIAN CULTURE but support the findings but it’s hard to be objective in the KULTURE KAOS.