Following on from my previous post about creationists and the daft things they think, I couldn't help but ponder on the bizarre ways they try to contort and obscure facts to fit their dogma, and how they think this delusional practice is somehow equivalent to "science"; to this end I came across this lovely little piece about Ken Ham who runs the Creation Museum in Kansas (as per previous blog entries here). Ken is an Australian and believes that the Earth is only 6000 years old, and that the Noah/Flood story is literally true; the writer of this blog points out the problem Ken has in explaining how Koala bears physically got to Australia after they were deposited on the top of Mount Ararat in 2300BC. Here is a snippet from the post:
"So how does Ham account for these wonderful creatures? His abbreviated timeline of the universe has Noah's ark landing on Mount Ararat along about 2300 BCE. Then what? Do the seven koalas walk to Australia from there? Seems rather a long walk, followed, I suppose, by rather a long swim. All without encountering a single eucalyptus tree -- the basis for their exclusive diet -- until they arrived at their destination on the other side of the world."
I just thought what a wonderful mental image this paints, imagine those 7 little koala bears trudging across the Indian sub-continent moaning to each other as they went, "I'm bloody starving… mate"
2 comments:
Were you there at the beginning? The big bang? Were you there when the koala "evolved" (mutated is probably a better scientific word) from whatever it was before? I think not. If I believe that God gathered the animals to the ark, certainly He could've dispersed them across the globe post-flood. Your religion has to be based on events occuring without supernatural intervention, which place the odds in my favor and require loads more of faith placed in the human "animal" with monkeys as our uncles. LOL. Sorry, you're the one that has to explain how the koalas got to where they are today. Your religion is falsifiable(look it up): there is a chance it can be disproven. My faith is unfalsifiable, since I have no one to prove it to but myself. Oh by the way, the biggest thing you have to reconcile is reasoning yourself into existent. It's circular logic by default. Good science is predictable, observable and repeatable. None of which evolution is, thereby making it a religion.
Ryshroom, In summary, what a lot of bollocks.
Post a Comment