Maybe you've seen this before, but I just found it and enjoyed it immensely!

I saw this on FB. I think it's fantastic.

Always good. I like the funny Australian(?) accents.

THAT'S FRICKING AWSOME!!!!

My favorite bit was where Noah said "I'm a 600 year old man responsible for seeing that the earth is populated with milions of species of animals after god insists on drowning all but a single boatload of the friggin things! Could you at least try to help me out a bit? It's no wonder I'm going to turn into a hopeless alcoholic when this is all over..."

This should be shown to kids at school...but I suspect the predictable response from christians would be "Well god made it possible"...

Best line was an aside:
"Why does he always have to be the favorite son? Friggin Shem! I think I'll become the world's first anti-semite

I suppose it's apposite to point everyone to this little piece of Pharyngula goodness ...

The video clip below is from a game called Noah's Adventures. It's awful—Noah sounds like a drunk with brain damage, the graphics look like a preschooler tried fingerpainting with his feces, and the whole plot is ridiculous.

Now here's the question: is this the work of a sincere creationist, or is this the product of the evil atheist conspiracy, made with the intent of making creationists look like talentless, tasteless hacks? I can't tell.

EDIT: just read one of the comments on that page, by Zeno:

It seems to me to be as sincere as it is crappy. No matter how feculent, any religiously inspired travesty will get fulsome praise from the devout. They take sincerity for quality and eagerly spoon up the most noisome dreck.

Which probably explains why Thomas Kinkade has so many fans amongst creationists and other fundies. But I digress.

Is there really any point to discussing the Flood? It is physically impossible, and there is no evidence for it. Isn't that enough...?

falconjudge wrote:Is there really any point to discussing the Flood? It is physically impossible, and there is no evidence for it. Isn't that enough...?

Do you see anyone discussing the flood? The thread's about a comedy youtube video on Noah's Ark, and some random humorous posts.

theist flud apologetics in 3.2.1........

yeah these videos are really funny, and already posted in the forum

quixotecoyote wrote:Best line was an aside:
"Why does he always have to be the favorite son? Friggin Shem! I think I'll become the world's first anti-semite

falconjudge wrote:Is there really any point to discussing the Flood? It is physically impossible, and there is no evidence for it. Isn't that enough...?

If creationists would accept those two arguments there'd be no such thing as creationism.

May I suggest that any interested non-believers (believers also) go to www.creationtoday.org and click on the video tab. Kent Hovin was a school teacher and now has a challenge out to debate anyone. I believe he has challenge out of about $50,000.00 with regard to evolution, age of the earth, etc. Lots of free videos. Really interesting, I think. Please do watch them.

Carol wrote:May I suggest that any interested non-believers (believers also) go to http://www.creationtoday.org and click on the video tab. Kent Hovin was a school teacher and now has a challenge out to debate anyone. I believe he has challenge out of about $50,000.00 with regard to evolution, age of the earth, etc. Lots of free videos. Really interesting, I think. Please do watch them.

Kent Hovind, spending time in jail for tax fraud(what a good example to kids he is?), isn't among people I'd trust to cough up money. Furthermore, Kent Hovind is free to declare that whatever you shows to his lying face, insufficiently compelling to earn the money. And please, don't think for a second we haven't seen that particularly decietful tactic employed by the terminally credulous before.

I've heard the rumour about Kent Hovind and 'taxes' before. I do not know if it's true or not. I do know, however, that his lectures and debates are not a bad influence on any age level. I do find it interesting when those of a different opinion get so defensive about their Darwinistic (is that a word, lol) views.

Carol wrote:I've heard the rumour about Kent Hovind and 'taxes' before. I do not know if it's true or not.

If you do not know whether or not it is true, then learn to do research before trotting out the usual crap.

Some of your research could also include responses to creationism on this site. Do you have cogent replies?

Carol wrote:I've heard the rumour about Kent Hovind and 'taxes' before. I do not know if it's true or not.

What rumor? The man is in prison. See for yourself:
http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderSe ... &x=75&y=16


As for his teachings being all-age-appropriate, about about the fact that he used to sell anti-Semitic hate-books like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

Kent Hovind wrote:I believe that dinosaurs are not only in the Bible, but the have lived with man all through his six thousand year history.

How to win Kent's money

Kent Hovind wrote:Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 above, under "known options") is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence.

Option 3:

Kent Hovind wrote:3. The universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known as evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed.

Given the above, why should anyone treat Kent as other than a blithering idiot?

I'm a firm believer in the saying 'learn something new everyday'. I'll try to find out if I've been watching an evil 'tax evader'.
Thanks for the reprimand. Are you going to return the favour and view some of Kent's clips?

Fenrir wrote:

Kent Hovind wrote:I believe that dinosaurs are not only in the Bible, but the have lived with man all through his six thousand year history.

How to win Kent's money

Kent Hovind wrote:Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 above, under "known options") is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence.

Option 3:

Kent Hovind wrote:3. The universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known as evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed.

Given the above, why should anyone treat Kent as other than a blithering idiot?

Haha, his challenge is even dumber than I remembered.
First of all, it can't be proved, for any event, that the way it happened was "the only possible way". To even include this instantly disqualifies the challenge from ever being taken seriously.

And of course, there's the all-encompassing get out of jail free-card stuck in there, for good measure; "prove beyond reasonable doubt", leaving Kunt Hoodwinked to decidede what constitutes sufficient "proof". But he's really, really unbiased, right?

In any case, what the fuck does any of Kent Hovinds posturing about the origin of the universe have to do with biological evolution?