Despair! Anger

Dr. Loon

The Mother in this clip seems embarrassed by her own words.

sponsoredwalk

Behemoth, could it be? A sauropod be he?

MrPudding

Scary stuff.

MrP

checkyabadself

Of course there`s no dinosaurs in the bible. The bible was made up way after all of them became extinct.

GLaDOS

That really pissed me off, blatant brainwashing

kiffer

The last line that the last child says summed it up nicely for me...

anyway...
poor kids...
That mother did seem somewhat confused by the whole thing.
She was right about one thing... it is much easier to just say "God did it" when a child asks a difficult question then to actually try to answer the question...
Of course if you're asked the obvious follow up questions, such as, "How did God do it?", "Why did God kill the babies in the flood?" or for any more details than "God did it by magic" then you're back to square one and just have to start making stuff up or saying "I don't know"...
At which point you might as well have just gone for the difficult but more honest answer provided by the hard work of generations of scientists...
Rather than a literal interpretation of a Just-So story, which was probably never meant to be taken that seriously in the first place... but was probably meant to convey some moral message like most parables and fairytales (delete as appropriate).



"Those books and DVDs outside are Christian patriot missiles!"
Yeah... all they do is destroy?

I'm getting distressed by the amount of war analogues Christians use...
(Not that I'm expecting to see Creationists turning violent over this subject but the terms are still a little distressing)

Zillah

Ken Ham always makes me feel ill.

GlasnevinRed

Unbelievable.:mad:

Daftendirekt

Why do I watch these things? That was depressing.

token56

It is genuinely depressing, this blatant level of brain washing, indoctrination, and encouragement of uninquizative thinking. Just extremely sad that most of these children wont actually get a chance to think or decide for themselves.

Dave!

ughh

Karl Hungus

Does anyone else find it ironic that Ken Ham looks decidedly simian?

PeterIanStaker

lol @ Karl.

Carslberg don't do irony, but if they did...

Seriously though, I feel sorry for these kids. I really do.

Turtwig

. . .

kiffer

Karl, I thought the same thing my self...
If Ken Ham had asked if he looked like that he'd have heard a different sort of laughter...

Dades

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Does anyone else find it ironic that Ken Ham looks decidedly simian?

He'd make a good Primate of All Ireland!

Galvasean

If Behemoth is meant to be a sauropod then why idid they describe it as:
"15 Behold now the behemoth that I have made with you; he eats grass like cattle.
16 Behold now his strength is in his loins and his power is in the navel of his belly.
17 His tail hardens like a cedar; the sinews of his tendons are knit together.
18 His limbs are as strong as copper, his bones as a load of iron."

That could be frickin' anything. If they wanted to describe a sauropod what's the first thing you mention? What are it's defining features?



Oh yeah, a big long neck. Anyone who described a sauropod and forgot to mention that it had a long neck is either a) really crap at describing things or b) is mistaken and desribing something else. The Bible passage also fails to point out that it has four legs. Quite glaringly obviou that.

kiffer

the sad thing is ... People in the past were that bad at describing things... Though I expect you're right and it would be pretty hard to miss the neck...

Flick through Pliny's work and read some of his descriptions... Take the ostrich for exemple; he totaly neglects to mention the neck... Not even to say it's like a goose or swan but he does tell us that it throws stones at people and that it can digest even iron...
The behemoth description could describe any land large land animal that isn't domestic cattle and eats grass... Or even doesn't grass, frankly their lucky it doesn't claim that it's breath makes flowers turn rainbow coloured pokadots

fisgon

Galvasean wrote: »

If Behemoth is meant to be a sauropod then why idid they describe it as:
"15 Behold now the behemoth that I have made with you; he eats grass like cattle.
16 Behold now his strength is in his loins and his power is in the navel of his belly.
17 His tail hardens like a cedar; the sinews of his tendons are knit together.
18 His limbs are as strong as copper, his bones as a load of iron."

That could be frickin' anything. If they wanted to describe a sauropod what's the first thing you mention? What are it's defining features?



Oh yeah, a big long neck. Anyone who described a sauropod and forgot to mention that it had a long neck is either a) really crap at describing things or b) is mistaken and desribing something else. The Bible passage also fails to point out that it has four legs. Quite glaringly obviou that.

Yes but you're reasoning here, why even bother? It's a waste of brain synapses, you're actually giving some credence to what they say by examining it seriously, by even bothering to disprove the message. They don't give a sh1t about reason, or logic, or the truth, the inconsistencies in their version are utterly beside the point. It's like trying to argue semantics with a rock.

I actually found the first 3 minutes hilarious, like something out of Python, or one of those mock docs done by the guys who did Spinal Tap. These guys, the creationists really crack me up. Then we saw children talking, and that I found disturbing. I always think that Dawkins is not helping his case by describing religious education as child abuse, it's an overstatement and clouds the issue, but this I think you could describe as an abuse of children's minds, Goebbels would have been proud.

monosharp

Brainwashing, pure and simple. Surely there should be some law against this

Karl Hungus

monosharp wrote: »

Brainwashing, pure and simple. Surely there should be some law against this

Yet a lot of people consider that teaching kids about evolution in school is brainwashing. I don't think you can really criminalize something like this, parents will teach and raise their children in whatever way they see fit to believe what they want. Whether it's kids being lectured by monkey-man Ken Ham, or some minister in their Sunday school, or their own parents, it's the same thing really. I don't think that teaching children religious beliefs is something that could ever be made illegal, nor should it. I'd like to see religion's hold on humanity loosen further, but to try and force that by criminalizing certain things like the above lecture, I think would only tighten the grip on a lot of people.

Waking-Dreams

Yet a lot of people consider that teaching kids about evolution in school is brainwashing.

Yet they don't call for the teaching of Flat Earth Theory because they accept that that is false. If someone wants to call the teaching of scientific fact brainwashing, well... what can you say? They're obviously in their own little bubble of reality.

sonicthebadger*

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

Yet they don't call for the teaching of Flat Earth Theory because they accept that that is false. If someone wants to call the teaching of scientific fact brainwashing, well... what can you say? They're obviously in their own little bubble of reality.

Clearly they are entitled to their own opinions and their own facts. :rolleyes: