Family Day at AIG's $27 Million Lie

Ken Ham had told us that there was no death till the fall. Adam and Eve had no children till they were cast out

so please explain the chidren playing with the dinosaurs and not being eaten

is this Ham's version of Joe Camel where cartoons were used to get kids to smoke.

all bible thumpers lie

"planets and other bodies" can bend light to make it travel faster through space toward Earth

So, planets can bend light to make it travel faster than...the speed of light?

so please explain the chidren playing with the dinosaurs and not being eaten

dhogaza: they were vegetarian before "the fall". There were no children before the fall. Vegetarian dinosaurs and children did not exist at the same time in Ham's world, but they do in the displays.

Anonymous is correct, the reason for the slight of hand in the displays is for getting the children aboard, like in "Joe Camel". this is a prime example of a bible thumper being a lying shack of sh__ (LSS). among their sheep they usually get by with their lies, no questions asked. people who accept this kind of BS are not very discerning.

Hey guys, let's cut to the important stuff. Where is the walking, talking snake?

Actually it was one of the more interesting characters in the story. Really must have got his part cut for time reasons or something. Where did he come from, why was there a smartass snake hanging around the only 2 people in the world anyway, why did he lead the people astray (boredom?), and where did he go after he got fired? The snake deserves a few chapters all by its self.

I love how not too far down Zachary's page, we see a couple displays where they openly admit they're opposed to "human reason." Hey, they said it, not me.

they were vegetarian before "the fall". There were no children before the fall. Vegetarian dinosaurs and children did not exist at the same time in Ham's world, but they do in the displays.

— some anonymous bible guru

I dont want to know why all the human characters are white.
I dont want to know.

Y'all at the Panda's Thumb are just jealous because you can't afford a $27 million museum.

Nice tour Zachary. I think I'm in love with Eve.

ERV,

I do want to know why they end at the waist, or do I?

bigjohn,

Actually, I believe that many natural history museums are worth considerably more than 27 million and they present real science. The Smithsonian comes to mind. Of course creationists can always rent space there to show videos. It is a free country after all.

The phylogenetic trees involving humans, that they show, seem to be just made up. The one under human reason isn't even close to accurate. The common ancestor of extant great apes is thought to have existed over 10 million years ago and the common ancestor of all apes much older than that. Not only that, but we diverged from the chimp lineage as recently as around 5 million years ago. The phylogeny that they show isn't to scale and isn't even trying to be accurate. It is like they just made it up without even looking at some actual phylogenetic representation.

Another aspect is that they have a tremendous amount of evolution in the ape lineage after the flood. They have only one ape kind listed, giving rise to everything else after the flood from gibbons to gorillas. One surprise is that Lucy evolved after the flood. So the geologic formations in the great rift valley in which the fossils of Lucy were found cannot be flood sediment. It doesn't look like the creationist phylogeny is made to scale, but if it is, since they claim that the flood happened around 4,500 years ago (2500 BC), by their estimates it would seem that an upright walking hominid evolved from the ape kind in only around 500 years. Could Homo erectus be part of the ape kind that evolved after the flood?

My bet is that they do not have representations of all the fossil hominids and where they fall on the "trees." If they did even the clueless would begin to suspect that someone had a screw loose. You just have to remember that these are the guys that claim that "macro" evolution can't happen and they are claiming massive amounts of evolution in just a few hundred years.

The phylogenetic trees involving humans, that they show, seem to be just made up.

So, planets can bend light to make it travel faster than...the speed of light?

I dont want to know why all the human characters are white.

You're right you don't want to know.

Curse of Ham

why, that's just such a shocker! uh, ron, how could they have been otherwise, and be still be consistent with Ken's aim for the museum of CREATIONISM. I'm still surprised you actually had to "see it to believe it" so to speak.

On another note, I've never heard the creationist argue that Lucy evolved post flood. This seems to be a new twist.

Ron,

You make a good point. I don't remember seeing any references on the supposed scientific material. Of course, no one ever expected more than misrepresentations of science from these people anyway.

Chris,

It would appear that we are still dealing with the "curse of Ham". Oh well, maybe he will meet with the same fate as Hovind. I sure hope somebody is paying real close attention to the finances of this "museum".

What? Is this entire museum diaramas? Are there no actual historical or archeological items?

Planets are obviously more dense than the "vacuum" around them, so this must be because they've taken their mass from this "vacuum", so the space around them has even less matter to slow light down than a "vacuum" does. Hence, the light can move even faster.

Bob

That's nice, but the amount of traveling the light does near planets or stars is only a tiny fraction of the distance it travels to get here from its starting point. ;)

Henry

You wouldn't be trying to justify your bogus claim if you hadn't made it, and "so to speak" is supposed to cover your butt?

It isn't projecting, Sir toe jam, I'm not the one that came up with the dog shit argument. "Projecting," isn't that another common creationist ploy? What else are you going to come up with?

Just remember that I'm not the one that followed anyone to another thread to make the crack. Beats me why it is such a big deal.

I just looked at Zachary's pictures.

Gotta admit, the place is slick.

And Eve is pretty hot!

(I shouldn't say things like that though, it might count as some kind of weird Oedipal thing. Yes, she's like 200 generations removed, but eventually, she's all my female ancestors rolled into one. Don't know what to make of that, Freud-wise. Still, great grandma had it goin' on, and even though he did grow up in the middle east (which explains my affinity for falafel), at least grandpa didn't look like Yassar Arafat. I was always worried about that, so I never grew a beard, just in case I inherited some kind of scraggly beard gene.)

Did anybody notice if Gr. Grandma and Grandpop had bellybuttons? I always wondered about that.

And was Adam circumcised, or did that come later? After all, he should have been, was the proto-jewish male. If so, was he created sans foreskin, or did he lop it off himself? If he was created that way, how come we have genetic instructions for making the parts he didn't have? I though you can't add information to the genome.

If he did it himself, how did he get the idea for that.

Eh. explains a lot about compulsive behavior in my family, I guess.

So many questions....

Posted by Henry J on May 29, 2007 5:08 PM (e) Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'qouote'