Fire-breathing dragon at Creation Museum!

A similar dragon billboard was up for quite a while in Cincinnati in 2010 and 2011. I drove past it frequently. Laughing at it never got old.

Secularists just can’t stand it when information they have censored from the public is being disseminated by us.

Just when you think they couldn't sink any lower.

What's next? Maybe an exhibit about the "curse of Ham" (Noah's son, not the ex-Aussie nutjob), and who exactly are the "descendants of Ham" who have inherited that curse and thus deserve to be "servant[s] of servants". Guess whom the AIG crowd consider the "race of Ham" or "Hamites".

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Ken Ham:

Secularists just can’t stand it when information they have censored from the public is being disseminated by us.

Good one, "information." Actually, I don't recall any of it being censored in the least. Laughed at, shown to be highly disingenuous, yes, but it almost seems that Ham's mendacious statements appear on the web, and even are linked by evil scientists and (you hear the fire crackle in Ham's pronunciation of it) atheists. Glen Davidson

Creationism always has been about image and marketing, rather than anything substantive. They're better at the marketing side, because that's where they spend all their time and resources. Actual scientists have to spend time doing some actual science.

What gets me about Byers - what really gets under my skin - is that he delivers himself of fact-free opinions without the slightest sense of having any actual reason for them whatsoever. He doesn't think that dinosaurs lasted long enough after the Flood to be remembered as dragons. Why not, for Pete's sake?

This is a bloke who thinks that koalas are literally bears and thylacines were just another one of the "wolf" kind, like dogs. He thinks there was a single world-wide flood. He thinks that the total human population in 2400 BCE was eight. He thinks that Pangaea split apart about then and the continents sprinted to their present positions as if equipped with outboard motors, then mysteriously slowed to a geological crawl, and that all this happened with nobody to notice. He thinks that super-evolution happened for several centuries, turning land quadrupeds into whales, and then stopped dead.

Compared to dead flat, babbling insane contradictions of reality like those, dinosaurs being remembered as dragons is a snap, but THAT he denies. Why? He can't be applying any sort of logic to the idea - well, this is Byers, after all. So what's he doing? What principle is he applying? Of course, it will be a thoroughly idiotic one, this being Byers, but nevertheless, by what unhinged byway of unreason has he reached such a conclusion? What on Earth causes someone who believes six, nay, sixteen impossible things before breakfast to draw the line at one more thing that would actually be possible if the sixteen impossibilities were factual?

Fascinating, as Mr Spock would say.

This is entirely the result of creationists fabricating and distorting dragon legends and folklore taking in parts of dragons that seem to fit dinosaurs while throwing out that other parts that don't. Then they invent the lie which claims that these are accounts of people allegedly seeing live dinosaurs that are claimed to be direct descendants of those who survived the non-existent Flood. All while ignoring the fact there's no traces of human bones and artifacts found alongside dinosaur bones in the fossil record. Therefore the notion of "The dragon thing is a common comment that dragons reported around the world were just dinosaurs that lasted after the flood. they would explain a dragon as some kind of dinosaur. Its a fair point although i don’t think dinos lasted long enough after the flood to be remembered." is entirely make believe.

One of the posters: "The Brave Triceratops"
Cute! I think they hired comic-book artists for those posters.

Ken Ham -

You went a little too far even for Robert Byers this time.

Also, the format of your propaganda makes it really, really obvious that your goal is to confuse and brainwash children.

Dave Luckett said: What gets me about Byers - what really gets under my skin - is that he delivers himself of fact-free opinions without the slightest sense of having any actual reason for them whatsoever. He doesn't think that dinosaurs lasted long enough after the Flood to be remembered as dragons. Why not, for Pete's sake? This is a bloke who thinks that koalas are literally bears and thylacines were just another one of the "wolf" kind, like dogs. He thinks there was a single world-wide flood. He thinks that the total human population in 2400 BCE was eight. He thinks that Pangaea split apart about then and the continents sprinted to their present positions as if equipped with outboard motors, then mysteriously slowed to a geological crawl, and that all this happened with nobody to notice. He thinks that super-evolution happened for several centuries, turning land quadrupeds into whales, and then stopped dead. Compared to dead flat, babbling insane contradictions of reality like those, dinosaurs being remembered as dragons is a snap, but THAT he denies. Why? He can't be applying any sort of logic to the idea - well, this is Byers, after all. So what's he doing? What principle is he applying? Of course, it will be a thoroughly idiotic one, this being Byers, but nevertheless, by what unhinged byway of unreason has he reached such a conclusion? What on Earth causes someone who believes six, nay, sixteen impossible things before breakfast to draw the line at one more thing that would actually be possible if the sixteen impossibilities were factual? Fascinating, as Mr Spock would say.

As a Christian believer who also accepts standard science I can't help but wonder if Ken Ham's little sideshow isn't a false flag operation designed to discredit Christianity. It certainly couldn't be doing the job any better.

robinson.mitchell said: As a Christian believer who also accepts standard science I can't help but wonder if Ken Ham's little sideshow isn't a false flag operation designed to discredit Christianity. It certainly couldn't be doing the job any better.

Robert Byers said: The dragon thing is a common comment that dragons reported around the world were just dinosaurs that lasted after the flood.

Just Bob said: Just when you think they couldn't sink any lower. What's next? Maybe an exhibit about the "curse of Ham" (Noah's son, not the ex-Aussie nutjob), and who exactly are the "descendants of Ham" who have inherited that curse and thus deserve to be "servant[s] of servants". Guess whom the AIG crowd consider the "race of Ham" or "Hamites".

Helena Constantine said:

Just Bob said: Just when you think they couldn't sink any lower. What's next? Maybe an exhibit about the "curse of Ham" (Noah's son, not the ex-Aussie nutjob), and who exactly are the "descendants of Ham" who have inherited that curse and thus deserve to be "servant[s] of servants". Guess whom the AIG crowd consider the "race of Ham" or "Hamites".

I think you're missing something there...Ham...Hamite...Ken Hamite? But I'm not clever enough to find it either.

Well, the Creation Museum's billboards ARE much better art directed than the atheist ones.

The dragon thing is a common comment that dragons reported around the world were just dinosaurs that lasted after the flood.

Could we comment on the accuracy of the billboards?

The velociraptor has no feathers. Bullshit. We know it has feathers. There are now 32 species of feathered maniraptoran dinosaurs, many older than Archaeopteryx. There are at least 250 specimens of Anchiornis, all older than Archaeopteryx.

The creationists are in denial about all 32 species of feathered dinosaurs. They're screwed. Xu Xing in China will fuck them real good.

(By the way, if they ever pull the trick on you, "Archaeoraptor was a fake, so they could all be fakes", just tell them that it was Xu Xing who proved it was a fake.

And if they say "University professors believed in Archaeoraptor", just tell them, the guy who suppressed the evidence showing that it was fake was Steve Czerkas. Who happens to be the authority that Creationists cite for a "scientific opinion" that those feathery things on dinosaurs are not feathers! And he is not, by the way, a Ph.D. nor a professor. Xu Xing-- the guy who proved Archaeoraptor was fake-- is our authority on dinosaur feathers. Their authority is Czerkas--the guy who suppressed evidence.

End Rant.)

And what do they think the fire-breathing dragon evolved from... I mean... "varied within a kind" from? It's got two horns like a triceratops, but no beak. The beak evolved first. Then eye horns, then nose horn.

Ken Ham is "censoring" feathered dinosaurs. Feathered dinosaurs are "expelled" by the anti-Darwinist thought police.

Why not teach the controversy, Ken?

Just Bob said: What's next? Maybe an exhibit about the "curse of Ham" (Noah's son, not the ex-Aussie nutjob), and who exactly are the "descendants of Ham" who have inherited that curse and thus deserve to be "servant[s] of servants". Guess whom the AIG crowd consider the "race of Ham" or "Hamites".

I can remember a book I found in the library as a kid--a reference of some kind, I think, maybe even World Book. But it wasn't anything specifically xian. It had a picture of 3 busts of representative human types--the 3 main races: hamitic, semitic, and japhetic.

I've always wondered where the fundy racial categorizers fit in more problematic groups. Are all peoples with really dark skin "hamitic"? Where do Eskimos fit? Amerindians? Pacific islanders?

Just Bob said: I can remember a book I found in the library as a kid--a reference of some kind, I think, maybe even World Book. But it wasn't anything specifically xian. It had a picture of 3 busts of representative human types--the 3 main races: hamitic, semitic, and japhetic. I've always wondered where the fundy racial categorizers fit in more problematic groups. Are all peoples with really dark skin "hamitic"? Where do Eskimos fit? Amerindians? Pacific islanders?

"Creationism Implies Racism?"

diogeneslamp0 said: Darwin invented racism. All the dinosaurs fit on the Ark. Stop asking questions.

apokryltaros said: "Creationism Implies Racism?"

diogeneslamp0 said: Darwin invented racism in 1859, and America was racist for two years until Stonewall Jackson freed the slaves in 1861. At least that's the impression I get from commenters on Amazon. Thank god for home schooling.

apokryltaros said: "Creationism Implies Racism?"

Yeah, that Talk Origins link quotes the 1991 version of Morris' book. I checked out the 1977 version. Morris says that "race" is strictly an evolutionary concept, evolutionists invented the word race, race only has meaning in terms of evolution. Then he, Morris, goes on to talk about racial difference, racial character, racial this, racial that... If you follow the Talk Origins link, you should follow it to read about Jerry Bergman writing to the Ku Klux Klan to complain about affirmative action for black people. Then he blames Darwin for the racism he, Bergman, was just promoting. Then when he got caught, he denied remembering writing the letter. He's got mental problems. On Amazon, Bergman poses as at least two different sock puppets so that he can post 5-star reviews for his own books, and promote them in comments, while pretending not to be the author of what he's selling. He controls his own star ratings on Amazon through multiple sock puppets. On Amazon, I try posting comments on his fake reviews to expose him as the author of the books he's reviewing. He keeps doing it. He's pathological.

diogeneslamp0 said: If you follow the Talk Origins link, you should follow it to read about Jerry Bergman writing to the Ku Klux Klan to complain about affirmative action for black people. Then he blames Darwin for the racism he, Bergman, was just promoting. Then when he got caught, he denied remembering writing the letter. He's got mental problems. On Amazon, Bergman poses as at least two different sock puppets so that he can post 5-star reviews for his own books, and promote them in comments, while pretending not to be the author of what he's selling. He controls his own star ratings on Amazon through multiple sock puppets. On Amazon, I try posting comments on his fake reviews to expose him as the author of the books he's reviewing. He keeps doing it. He's pathological.

On General "Stonewall" Jackson, there are various opinions. He was above all else a devout protestant (Presbyterian) Christian, and this was certainly the basis of his conviction that all persons, even the least, should be treated kindly, with charity, justice and goodwill. This he very honourably did with his slaves - his family held about half a dozen. But he was in no doubt that slavery was ordained of God, and he treated them, as he was entitled to do by the law of his time and place, as his possessions. He did teach reading to black children in his Sunday school classes - and although this was entirely so that they could read the scriptures for themselves, it was still the gift of literacy.

He was not killed by the Union Army, but was shot by pickets of his own side, and died of complications to the pneumonia that set in after an operation to amputate his shattered arm. A gifted general, if an eccentric one, he was also a decent man and a gentleman, like his great commander. I certainly would have strongly disagreed with nearly all of his opinions, and yet I would that Henry Morris and the current creationist crew had half his honesty and sense of honour.

apokryltaros said:

diogeneslamp0 said: If you follow the Talk Origins link, you should follow it to read about Jerry Bergman writing to the Ku Klux Klan to complain about affirmative action for black people. Then he blames Darwin for the racism he, Bergman, was just promoting. Then when he got caught, he denied remembering writing the letter. He's got mental problems. On Amazon, Bergman poses as at least two different sock puppets so that he can post 5-star reviews for his own books, and promote them in comments, while pretending not to be the author of what he's selling. He controls his own star ratings on Amazon through multiple sock puppets. On Amazon, I try posting comments on his fake reviews to expose him as the author of the books he's reviewing. He keeps doing it. He's pathological.

There is a strong correlation between believing in Creationism and being pathologically deceptive.

On General “Stonewall” Jackson, there are various opinions. He was above all else a devout protestant (Presbyterian) Christian, and this was certainly the basis of his conviction that all persons, even the least, should be treated kindly, with charity, justice and goodwill. This he very honourably did with his slaves - his family held about half a dozen. But he was in no doubt that slavery was ordained of God, and he treated them, as he was entitled to do by the law of his time and place, as his possessions. He did teach reading to black children in his Sunday school classes - and although this was entirely so that they could read the scriptures for themselves, it was still the gift of literacy.

He was not killed by the Union Army, but was shot by pickets of his own side, and died of complications to the pneumonia that set in after an operation to amputate his shattered arm. A gifted general, if an eccentric one, he was also a decent man and a gentleman, like his great commander. I certainly would have strongly disagreed with nearly all of his opinions, and yet I would that Henry Morris and the current creationist crew had half his honesty and sense of honour.

Scott F said: Creationism always has been about image and marketing, rather than anything substantive. They're better at the marketing side, because that's where they spend all their time and resources. Actual scientists have to spend time doing some actual science.

co said:

Helena Constantine said:

Just Bob said: Just when you think they couldn't sink any lower. What's next? Maybe an exhibit about the "curse of Ham" (Noah's son, not the ex-Aussie nutjob), and who exactly are the "descendants of Ham" who have inherited that curse and thus deserve to be "servant[s] of servants". Guess whom the AIG crowd consider the "race of Ham" or "Hamites".

I think you're missing something there...Ham...Hamite...Ken Hamite? But I'm not clever enough to find it either.

It's like Marmite, but even smarmier, and Vegemite, but somehow less meaty. How Ham does that, I'll never know.

Spirit, Water, Blood writes: Rushdoony wished for Whites to separate themselves from Negroes. [quoting Rush] "The white man has behind him centuries of Christian culture and the discipline and the selective breeding this faith requires [boldface by SWB]... The Negro is a product of a radically different past, and his [genetic] heredity has been governed by radically different considerations." I can’t tell you how happy I am that Phillips the Lesser associates with men who confess that they heed the warnings of Dr. [Robert Lewis] Dabney, who despise the thought of Whites being a minority in our own country, who believe that Christian faith requires selective breeding. On a personal note, I admire Doug for being able to form an all-white company in overwhelmingly brown San Antonio. I thought that was illegal... I think that’s wonderful. The man is awesome... Listen to Dr. Francis Nigel Lee call racial integration evolutionary. I couldn’t have said it better myself. [“November 30, 2005.” Spirit, Water, Blood (Blog). November 30, 2005. Link: http://spiritwaterblood.com/2005/11/november-30-2005/]

The mastodon looks like a mammoth, the raptor has no feathers and an oddly shaped sickle claw, the triceratops' horns are all wrong, and the head of the "brachiosaurus" looks like a diplodocus.
On a related note, I still think the long arms and sickle claws of maniraptors were originally adaptations to an arboreal lifestyle; in other words, for climbing trees.

KlausH said: The mastodon looks like a mammoth, the raptor has no feathers and an oddly shaped sickle claw, the triceratops' horns are all wrong, and the head of the "brachiosaurus" looks like a diplodocus. On a related note, I still think the long arms and sickle claws of maniraptors were originally adaptations to an arboreal lifestyle; in other words, for climbing trees.

KlausH said: ... I still think the long arms and sickle claws of maniraptors were originally adaptations to an arboreal lifestyle; in other words, for climbing trees.

I think the sickle claw originally evolved for climbing, serving the same function as the spikes on lineman boots. They did become vestigial in the larger forms, becoming weapons. I doubt that all maniraptors descended from flying forms, but think it is highly likely that they had highly active, feathered, arboreal ancestors.

KlausH, unless you have something substantial to back up your claims, you should change that "I think"-phrasing to "I believe..." 'cause that's what your doing. Imagining, believing, fantasizing. One could also, tactfully, say that you're making up hypotheses, which is fine in itself. But how would you test it? Do you predict that we will find arboreal, nimble maniraptor-fossils? Where and in what geological strata? Oh, dang, now I made it too easy for you...

Robert Byers said: The dragon thing is a common comment that dragons reported around the world were just dinosaurs that lasted after the flood

Niltava said: KlausH, unless you have something substantial to back up your claims, you should change that "I think"-phrasing to "I believe..." 'cause that's what your doing. Imagining, believing, fantasizing. One could also, tactfully, say that you're making up hypotheses, which is fine in itself. But how would you test it? Do you predict that we will find arboreal, nimble maniraptor-fossils? Where and in what geological strata? Oh, dang, now I made it too easy for you...

Dave Luckett said: ...He was not killed by the Union Army, but was shot by pickets of his own side, and died of complications to the pneumonia that set in after an operation to amputate his shattered arm. A gifted general, if an eccentric one, he was also a decent man and a gentleman, like his great commander...

diogeneslamp0 said: ... Many creationists assert instead that God did a miracle at the Tower of Babel to make Africans black. The founder of the creationist "Variation within a Kind" theory, Frank L. Marsh, in his important 1940 book "Fundamental Biology" asserted that, as a result of the Hamite curse, God allows the Devil to mutate the DNA of black people, thus turning them from white to black, kinking their hair, and perhaps most tragically of all, destroying their ability to appreciate Bruce Springsteen.

KlausH said: The mastodon looks like a mammoth, the raptor has no feathers and an oddly shaped sickle claw, the triceratops' horns are all wrong, and the head of the "brachiosaurus" looks like a diplodocus. On a related note, I still think the long arms and sickle claws of maniraptors were originally adaptations to an arboreal lifestyle; in other words, for climbing trees.

No, no... there wasn't any "Jurassic"! That's a lie of the devil. Or Darwin. Or somebody.

There was only Eden, down to the Flood. You know, when they rode triceratopses.

Damn, no matter how hard I try, I can't write stuff so stupid that AIGists wouldn't believe it.

Helena Constantine said: (On Lee as a military commander) Don't get me started...

Helena Constantine said:

diogeneslamp0 said: ... Many creationists assert instead that God did a miracle at the Tower of Babel to make Africans black. The founder of the creationist "Variation within a Kind" theory, Frank L. Marsh, in his important 1940 book "Fundamental Biology" asserted that, as a result of the Hamite curse, God allows the Devil to mutate the DNA of black people, thus turning them from white to black, kinking their hair, and perhaps most tragically of all, destroying their ability to appreciate Bruce Springsteen.

It must be a miracle if he was writing about DNA in 1940.

Helena Constantine said:

diogeneslamp0 said: ... Many creationists assert instead that God did a miracle at the Tower of Babel to make Africans black. The founder of the creationist "Variation within a Kind" theory, Frank L. Marsh, in his important 1940 book "Fundamental Biology" asserted that, as a result of the Hamite curse, God allows the Devil to mutate the DNA of black people, thus turning them from white to black, kinking their hair, and perhaps most tragically of all, destroying their ability to appreciate Bruce Springsteen.

It must be a miracle if he was writing about DNA in 1940.

Kevin B said:

Helena Constantine said:

diogeneslamp0 said: ... Many creationists assert instead that God did a miracle at the Tower of Babel to make Africans black. The founder of the creationist "Variation within a Kind" theory, Frank L. Marsh, in his important 1940 book "Fundamental Biology" asserted that, as a result of the Hamite curse, God allows the Devil to mutate the DNA of black people, thus turning them from white to black, kinking their hair, and perhaps most tragically of all, destroying their ability to appreciate Bruce Springsteen.

It must be a miracle if he was writing about DNA in 1940.

The material we now know as DNA was described as far back as 1871 (although its complexity wasn't recognised.) Albrecht Kossel won a Nobel prize in 1910 in part for isolating C,A,G and T. Suggesting in 1940 that DNA was was basis of heredity would have been very speculative, but not completely anachronistic. On the other hand, "The Boss" wasn't born until 1949.

Helena Constantine said:

Dave Luckett said: ...He was not killed by the Union Army, but was shot by pickets of his own side, and died of complications to the pneumonia that set in after an operation to amputate his shattered arm. A gifted general, if an eccentric one, he was also a decent man and a gentleman, like his great commander...

His great commander? You mean the military incompetent Lee? Do you know that right before Pickett's charge, Longstreet had to remind him that he wasn't playing out a Napoleonic wargame, and the Union troops could fire their files five times farther and five times faster than troops in Napoleon's day? The megalomaniac sent them on anyway and you see what happened. Don't get me started...

Perhaps, although for incapacity I'd put him a long way behind Generals Haig, Gough, Townsend, O'Connor, Percival, Chelmsford, Gordon and Buller, to name but a few from the British Army alone. And if Lee is to be excoriated for sending in massed foot (after a bombardment) against a low ridge held by fortified infantry and artillery equipped with black-powder muzzle-loaders, what is to be be said about Haig, who did it not once but at least four times, but on an incomparably larger scale, and against magazine-fed repeating rifles, efficient breach-loading rifled artillery, machine guns and barbed wire?

And yet, it is now fashionable to exonerate Haig, usually on the grounds that he was doing all he knew. Garbage. Repellent, disgusting revisionist filth. The man should have been retired in 1915, so he need not have been court-martialled in 1916, so he need not have been shot in 1917, which he bloody well ought to have been.

Every general, even the best of them, has off days, and those days cost unthinkably hideous amounts of blood and suffering. Douglas MacArthur did. Bernard Law Montgomery did. Dwight D Eisenhower did. Omar Bradley did. Marlborough did. Wellington did. Pershing did. Grant did. Napoleon did. Caesar and Belisarius and Hannibal, too. Even Alexander. And so did Lee.

Maybe Lee does not deserve to be in the company of the greats. Sure, he's not up there with Alexander or Napoleon. Maybe not Wellington, either, or even George Patton. But if we are to use terms like "megalomaniac" for Lee, what are we to call, say, George Armstrong Custer or "Chinese" Gordon? Or, from my own country's inventory, Thomas Blamey?

Dave Luckett said: Perhaps, although for incapacity I'd put him a long way behind Generals Haig, Gough, Townsend, O'Connor, Percival, Chelmsford, Gordon and Buller, to name but a few from the British Army alone. And if Lee is to be excoriated for sending in massed foot (after a bombardment) against a low ridge held by fortified infantry and artillery equipped with black-powder muzzle-loaders, what is to be be said about Haig, who did it not once but at least four times, but on an incomparably larger scale, and against magazine-fed repeating rifles, efficient breach-loading rifled artillery, machine guns and barbed wire?

I infer from the first entry of this thread that fire-breathing dragons are really dinosaurs. A late occurrence of such a dinosaur is the one killed by Saint George. Wikipedia tells that Saint George died in the year 303. Dinosaurs must therefore have existed at about that time.

Still later dinosaur observations are of course possible if one assumes that a medieval artist like Bernt Notke (1440-1509) used a living or at least recently dead model for hia realistic sculpture of the dinosaur being killed by Saint George. You may see it in the Great Church (Storkyrkan) of Stockholm.

RM said: I infer from the first entry of this thread that fire-breathing dragons are really dinosaurs. A late occurrence of such a dinosaur is the one killed by Saint George. Wikipedia tells that Saint George died in the year 303. Dinosaurs must therefore have existed at about that time. Still later dinosaur observations are of course possible if one assumes that a medieval artist like Bernt Notke (1440-1509) used a living or at least recently dead model for hia realistic sculpture of the dinosaur being killed by Saint George. You may see it in the Great Church (Storkyrkan) of Stockholm.

RM said: I infer from the first entry of this thread that fire-breathing dragons are really dinosaurs. A late occurrence of such a dinosaur is the one killed by Saint George. Wikipedia tells that Saint George died in the year 303. Dinosaurs must therefore have existed at about that time.

Still later dinosaur observations are of course possible if one assumes that a medieval artist like Bernt Notke (1440-1509) used a living or at least recently dead model for hia realistic sculpture of the dinosaur being killed by Saint George. You may see it in the Great Church (Storkyrkan) of Stockholm.

RM said: I infer from the first entry of this thread that fire-breathing dragons are really dinosaurs. A late occurrence of such a dinosaur is the one killed by Saint George. Wikipedia tells that Saint George died in the year 303. Dinosaurs must therefore have existed at about that time. Still later dinosaur observations are of course possible if one assumes that a medieval artist like Bernt Notke (1440-1509) used a living or at least recently dead model for hia realistic sculpture of the dinosaur being killed by Saint George. You may see it in the Great Church (Storkyrkan) of Stockholm.

nor marginally accurate human depictions of non-avian dinosaurs?

Helena Constantine said:

diogeneslamp0 said: ...Many creationists assert instead that God did a miracle at the Tower of Babel to make Africans black. The founder of the creationist "Variation within a Kind" theory, Frank L. Marsh, in his important 1940 book "Fundamental Biology" asserted that, as a result of the Hamite curse, God allows the Devil to mutate the DNA of black people, thus turning them from white to black, kinking their hair, and perhaps most tragically of all, destroying their ability to appreciate Bruce Springsteen.

It must be a miracle if he was writing about DNA in 1940.

Frank L. Marsh wrote [1941]: Consideration will now be given to this latter process [amalgamation / race-mixing] which appears to have been the principal tool used by Satan in destroying the original perfection and harmony among living things.... [p.448-9 / 48-9] [Some racist quotes from Prophetess Ellen G. White] True, God created only one race, Adam and Eve. But as we look around the earth today we find, taking the one character of skin color, that we can line representative individuals of man up in a row in such a way as to have the color grade from white at one end of the row, through ruddy, yellow, red and brown to ebony black at the other end. Where did all these endless varieties come from? Apparently the devil has been busy meddling with the processes of mutation and amalgamation [race-mixing]. The one race of Adam, a race of ruddy hue (3SpG 34) [reference to Ellen G. White], has become more and more confused until today we recognize at least three basic races designated as Caucasian, Ethiopian, and Mongolian. [p.458-9/ 58-59] As was true before the flood, it was doubtless true after the flood that God did not cause the development of races. It was very likely again the work of Satan who wa doing all in his power to confuse and destroy harmony in the human family. It it is true that our bodily characteristics as well as our dispositions and natural “slants” are dependent for their specific nature upon the chromatin material in the forty-eight chromosomes in each of our body cells, and if it be true that these units, or “genes”, are complex chemical compounds with definite structures, then we can see in our mind’s eye a physical basis for the accomplishment of changes in hereditary factors. We can see how chemical changes in some of these genes could cause changes in the expression of external characters in individuals, such as receding brow in place of a high one, kinky, flat hairs in place of round, straight ones, heavily pigmented skin in place of a more lightly pigmented one, prominent cheek bones in place of “normal” ones, flattened arches in the foot instead of higher arches, et cetera. Such sudden changes are spoken of as mutations and are very possibly the explanation for the development of races. The curse of God rested in a special way upon the descendants of Canaan because he manifested the same degraded characteristics which had been developed by his father Ham. Again, this curse was doubtless manifested in a more complete removal of God’s protection from his line, thus giving Satan free rein in accomplishing a greater degree of degredation [sic], in some strains of this race, possibly, than in either of the other two races. It is here that we may justifiably turn for an explanation of the physical conditions of the Hottentots and Bushmen rather than to an origin in some fabled man-beast cross.[p.462-3/ 62-63] [Note: Ellen G. White's associates said that specifically the Hottentots and Bushmen were the products of human-animal mating. This was believed by George M. Price part of the time, and Harold W. Clark all the time.] [Frank Lewis Marsh, "Fundamental Biology", Chapter 9. In: "The Early Writings of Harold W. Clark and Frank Lewis Marsh." Edited by Ronald Numbers. First page numbers from Numbers' reprint, second page numbers from Marsh's original edition]

apokryltaros said:

RM said: I infer from the first entry of this thread that fire-breathing dragons are really dinosaurs. A late occurrence of such a dinosaur is the one killed by Saint George. Wikipedia tells that Saint George died in the year 303. Dinosaurs must therefore have existed at about that time.

Except that A) the latest non-avian dinosaur corpses/bodily remains date from 65 million years ago, B) no human depiction of dragons do not closely, if at all, match the appearance of any dinosaur. and C) the dragon that Saint George slew did not breath fire: if you bothered to read the legend, the beast spat venom and spread the Plague.

So is RM a Poe?

diogeneslamp0 said: So is RM a Poe?

Our resident Canadian YEC is not banned, but he is restricted to cogent comments, and so far he has failed to comply.

Matt Young said: Our resident Canadian YEC is not banned, but he is restricted to cogent comments, and so far he has failed to comply.

i thinking maybe never to be happen just a line of reasoning

A few years ago I blogged about a children's book on creationism (by Duane Gish) that featured a fire-breathing Parasaurolophus:
http://thedispersalofdarwin.wordpress.com/2009/08/28/dinosaurs-by-design-thrift-store-treasure/

- Michael Barton

David Orr also blogged about this same book, using my photos:
http://chasmosaurs.blogspot.com/2010/10/vintage-dinosaur-art-gishosaurs.html

I wouldn't be overly surprised if we did discover a dinosaur could breathe fire or something burning/scaldingly similar. Nature has produced some remarkable bits of WTF engineering. I would be quite surprised however if said dinosaur, or any dinosaur*, survived the tens of millions of years needed to then be noted by people and passed into legend.

*Not including avians of course.
--dan