Creation Museum requires donations to evolve

Kivaro

They need money to build a life-size replica of Noah's ark, so contributions will be gratefully accepted. They intend to use 4 teams of Amish carpenters to build the gigantic floating zoo. (You can't make this crap up).

The museum itself would be great craic to visit, as it has exhibits of humans and dinosaurs living side-by-side on the planet (i.e. at the same time).

What's great about the link explaining this great enterprise are the posts at the bottom of the article:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/creation-museum-evolves-hoping-add-life-size-ark-170347907.html

Quatermain

Just when I begin to believe humanity might have some hope for it...Why must you tear it all down? This...This...

I do believe I just got sick into my own scorn.

Kivaro

Want an Ark?

I Noah a guy.

Penn

I would like to donate.

Life-sized? I want to see just how big they make it. Then, it can be pointed out "You forgot these animals", "What about space for these animals?", "You can't put those animals next to those animals, they'll eat each other!"

I think the greatest proof that Noah's Ark couldn't possibly be real would be to actually try and build it and see how implausible it is.

Penn

Is there any other evidence that dinosaurs lived after the Flood? ("Yes. Dragons may have been dinosaurs!")

....

sbsquarepants

Penn wrote: »

? "You can't put those animals next to those animals, they'll eat each other!"

I think the greatest proof that Noah's Ark couldn't possibly be real would be to actually try and build it and see how implausible it is.

Like accidentally putting the velociraptors in with the sheep. That's a mistake you only make once!:D
I wonder what critters we should have running around the place, but noah put them in the wrong holding pen?

JimiTime

Penn wrote: »

I would like to donate.

Life-sized? I want to see just how big they make it. Then, it can be pointed out "You forgot these animals", "What about space for these animals?", "You can't put those animals next to those animals, they'll eat each other!"

I think the greatest proof that Noah's Ark couldn't possibly be real would be to actually try and build it and see how implausible it is.

Scoffing at these creationist things etc is fine, but these arguments are quite stupid. I mean, the key element in these things is God. So to then say, 'Its totally implausible, as the animals would eat each other scoff scoff....'. I mean, I can't believe the lack of cop on in the argument. Bring God into the equation, and your objections are silly. I see similar things with the resurrection account. 'Well dead people don't rise from the dead, scoff scoff...'. Well duh! If they did, the account would be completely unremarkable. The claims are not that all these things were natural occurances. Use yer noggin lads.

doctoremma

JimiTime wrote: »

'Well dead people don't rise from the dead, scoff scoff...'. Well duh! If they did, the account would be completely unremarkable.

And because they don't, the account is completely unbelievable.

MagicMarker

JimiTime wrote: »

Scoffing at these creationist things etc is fine, but these arguments are quite stupid. I mean, the key element in these things is God. So to then say, 'Its totally implausible, as the animals would eat each other scoff scoff....'. I mean, I can't believe the lack of cop on in the argument. Bring God into the equation, and your objections are silly. I see similar things with the resurrection account. 'Well dead people don't rise from the dead, scoff scoff...'. Well duh! If they did, the account would be completely unremarkable. The claims are not that all these things were natural occurances. Use yer noggin lads.

Wait a minute..... are you saying you take the Noah's Ark story literally?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Scoffing at these creationist things etc is fine, but these arguments are quite stupid. I mean, the key element in these things is God. So to then say, 'Its totally implausible, as the animals would eat each other scoff scoff....'. I mean, I can't believe the lack of cop on in the argument. Bring God into the equation, and your objections are silly. I see similar things with the resurrection account. 'Well dead people don't rise from the dead, scoff scoff...'. Well duh! If they did, the account would be completely unremarkable. The claims are not that all these things were natural occurances. Use yer noggin lads.

So what? God shrunk all the animals?

I always find it odd believers seem happy with the concept that God will both use natural mechanism to enact his will (ie a flood) while at the same time having to use supernatural jiggery pokery in order to actually make it work.

Or to put it another way, if God knew he was going to have to wipe out all animals on Earth why would he make them all so big that when it came to the Ark he would have supernaturally shrink them all done.

The idea of a god that has to alter his own creation using once of supernatural actions is frankly stupid. It is the god equivilant of building your Ikea sofa outside your house, disassembling it brining it in and then building it again. Just build it once when you are inside yer house.

I am always bewildered at how stupid you guys think your god is, but I guess this is a reflection of the fact that these stories come from limited humans not from an actual limitless god

Dades

JimiTime wrote: »

Scoffing at these creationist things etc is fine, but these arguments are quite stupid. I mean, the key element in these things is God. So to then say, 'Its totally implausible, as the animals would eat each other scoff scoff....'. I mean, I can't believe the lack of cop on in the argument. Bring God into the equation, and your objections are silly. I see similar things with the resurrection account. 'Well dead people don't rise from the dead, scoff scoff...'. Well duh! If they did, the account would be completely unremarkable. The claims are not that all these things were natural occurances. Use yer noggin lads.

So what you're saying is there's no point in bringing reality into the equation when all a creationist will say is "God saw to it so it wasn't an issue"?

You probably have a point. It's so bananas to begin with there's little point in being sucked into a debate where the "G" card can be played at any time.

Penn

JimiTime wrote: »

Bring God into the equation, and your objections are silly.

Bring Superman into the equation and my objections are silly. Bring millions of animal experts and zookeepers into the equation and my objections are silly. However, I'm trying to go with the least silly objections.

28064212

Zombrex wrote: »

I am always bewildered at how stupid you guys think your god is, but I guess this is a reflection of the fact that these stories come from limited humans not from an actual limitless god

Pfft, He's not stupid, that would all be way too much hassle. It was much simpler for Him to just create the world last Thursday with all these false memories and contradictions in place already.

Why did he decide to create it last Thursday? Well, God works in (...all together now...) Mysterious Ways

Zombrex

28064212 wrote: »

Pfft, He's not stupid, that would all be way too much hassle. It was much simpler for Him to just create the world last Thursday with all these false memories and contradictions in place already.

Why did he decide to create it last Thursday? Well, God works in (...all together now...) Mysterious Ways

Don't be stupid, it was last Friday. And we were all originally unicorns, but then he turned us into apes and made us forget that we were unicorns. Sounds silly? Well that is because you are limiting God, God can do what he likes. If he wants to make us unicorns and then apes he can, who are you to say he can't.

28064212

Zombrex wrote: »

Don't be stupid, it was last Friday

FRIDAY?!?!? BURN THE HERETIC!!

Penn

JimiTime wrote: »

Scoffing at these creationist things etc is fine, but these arguments are quite stupid. I mean, the key element in these things is God. So to then say, 'Its totally implausible, as the animals would eat each other scoff scoff....'. I mean, I can't believe the lack of cop on in the argument. Bring God into the equation, and your objections are silly. I see similar things with the resurrection account. 'Well dead people don't rise from the dead, scoff scoff...'. Well duh! If they did, the account would be completely unremarkable. The claims are not that all these things were natural occurances. Use yer noggin lads.

Actually, if we're bringing God and unnatural occurances into it, why did they need the ark at all? God had already judged that Noah was righteous and should be saved. Why not just "magic" Noah, his family and all the animals onto a boat God made for them? Why not just "magic" everything he didn't want on the earth (like the millions of people killed in the flood) away? Why not just "magic" things in the way he wanted, rather than drown everyone? Why did it take so long for the water to recede, why didn't he just "magic" it away? Why give Noah exact measurements to make the ark which weren't big enough in the first place meaning he had to "magic" all the animals smaller?

Serious questions.

oldrnwisr

Penn wrote: »

Actually, if we're bringing God and unnatural occurances into it, why did they need the ark at all? God had already judged that Noah was righteous and should be saved. Why not just "magic" Noah, his family and all the animals onto a boat God made for them? Why not just "magic" everything he didn't want on the earth (like the millions of people killed in the flood) away? Why not just "magic" things in the way he wanted, rather than drown everyone? Why did it take so long for the water to recede, why didn't he just "magic" it away? Why give Noah exact measurements to make the ark which wasn't big enough in the first place meaning he had to "magic" all the animals smaller?

Serious questions.

Because He works in mysterious (and breathtakingly stupid) ways.

Zombrex

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Because He works in mysterious (and breathtakingly stupid) ways.

Odd that "mysterious ways" always ends up being very similar to "ways you would expect ancient humans with a very limited understanding of the natural world would make up when creating stories to explain how they find themselves"

fitz0

JimiTime wrote: »

Scoffing at these creationist things etc is fine, but these arguments are quite stupid. I mean, the key element in these things is God. So to then say, 'Its totally implausible, as the animals would eat each other scoff scoff....'. I mean, I can't believe the lack of cop on in the argument. Bring God into the equation, and your objections are silly. I see similar things with the resurrection account. 'Well dead people don't rise from the dead, scoff scoff...'. Well duh! If they did, the account would be completely unremarkable. The claims are not that all these things were natural occurances. Use yer noggin lads.

I actually can't believe it's not satire. The last line broke my irony-o-meter.

JimiTime

doctoremma wrote: »

And because they don't, the account is completely unbelievable.

But that is not the argument. You don't believe in God, that where your argument stops. Scoffing at accounts of specific things that are said to be attributed to God and picking them apart as if the claim being made is that they were natural occurances is rather silly.

doctoremma

JimiTime wrote: »

But that is not the argument.

Agreed, it was a throwaway.

JimiTime wrote: »

Scoffing at accounts of specific things that are said to be attributed to God and picking them apart as if the claim being made is that they were natural occurances is rather silly.

I pick apart the claim that they happened, especially when that claim is suggested to be a truth. Otherwise, you could make up any old nonsense and protect it from questioning. Oh wait.....

If your only defence is that "it's magic", I'll object to the suggestion that it is me being silly

oldrnwisr

JimiTime wrote: »

But that is not the argument. You don't believe in God, that where your argument stops. Scoffing at accounts of specific things that are said to be attributed to God and picking them apart as if the claim being made is that they were natural occurances is rather silly.

The problem with this, Jimi, is that we live in a universe governed by physical laws (gravitation, thermodynamics etc.). For a law to be considered a law it must apply at all times at all points in the universe. If there is a condition under which these laws can be suspended (e.g. through the action of your God) then they cannot be considered laws. So the problem with playing the G card in patching up the factual and logical inconsistencies in an explanation is that it causes the train to run right off the tracks. Using God to shore up an otherwise naturalistic explanation is like sawing through the tree branch you're sitting on.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

But that is not the argument. You don't believe in God, that where your argument stops. Scoffing at accounts of specific things that are said to be attributed to God and picking them apart as if the claim being made is that they were natural occurances is rather silly.

Not when they are presented in the Bible as events that did not require special intervention from God.

There is nothing in the Bible that says for example that God shrunk all the animals to fit them on the Ark. The story seems to be expressing a genuine insistence that all the animals of the Earth got on an Ark that couldn't possibly have held them. It doesn't say anywhere "Oh course it couldn't possible have held them all so God shrunk them all down to size."

It is far more reasonable to read a story like that of the Ark as people who genuinely had no idea how many animals there were and really didn't think there were that many (thus they could all fit on a big Ark), than to read it as a story that requires but never mentions special intervention by God in order to make it work. The story does mention intervention by God throughout the story (God made it rain for example, presumably because those writing the story knew it would never rain enough to flood the world naturally). The idea that there would also be other things God did in order make the story would that simply are not mentioned is rather implausible.

It does back to PDN's fav subject, what was the authors understanding. Is there anything in this story that suggests the authors knew fitting that many animals on the Ark was impossible and that it required magic by God? No not really. Such concepts are only inserted later by believers who know it wouldn't have happened otherwise.

JimiTime

fitz0 wrote: »

I actually can't believe it's not satire. The last line broke my irony-o-meter.

And yet, yee still don't get it. You seem so preoccupied with laughing about it with one another, that you can't see how silly it is. You are laughing at an argument of your own invention, rather than anything that is claimed by Christians or creationists etc. I see creationists say some wacky things etc, and get mocked accordingly. Yet a lot of you pick an argument thats not made.

'Huh huh, hope he didn't stick sheep in with velociraptors scoff scoff...' Ehhh, we are talking about the existence of a being who created the universe, if it was his will then I don't think he'd have an issue with sheep and velociraptors sharing a penn.

The only argument, is the existence of this being. If you don't believe, well then you simply don't believe his actions occurred. If you do, then you believe it would not be a big feat for him to do as claimed. Yet some of you guys muddle the arguments, by not believing in God, AND THEN showing how ludicrous such events are. Well guess what, without God, these events are a larf. You don't need to tell me that dead people don't rise from the dead, or that a lion wont eat a sheep if its locked in a penn with it etc. What idiot would make such a claim? And yet, these phantom idiots is who you all seem to be scoffing at. Theres enough idiocy in the world to laugh at with you guys inventing more.

Sarky

If you take the stories of Lazarus and Jesus seriously, then I'm afraid yes, you DO need to be told that people don't rise from the dead.

They don't do this. Beliefs to the contrary are laughable. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings, but I'm not going to sugar coat it for you.

doctoremma

JimiTime wrote: »

Well guess what, without God, these events are a larf. You don't need to tell me that dead people don't rise from the dead, or that a lion wont eat a sheep if its locked in a penn with it etc. What idiot would make such a claim

So are the miracles of resurrection/walking on water not part of the reason you believe in god? But you don't believe them if you don't believe in god?

How does one start to believe in god then? I mean "genuinely believe", not "taught to believe".

Without miracles, there is no evidence of god. Without god, there are no miracles. That sounds ever so circular.

Zombrex

Sarky wrote: »

If you take the stories of Lazarus and Jesus seriously, then I'm afraid yes, you DO need to be told that people don't rise from the dead.

They don't do this. Beliefs to the contrary are laughable. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings, but I'm not going to sugar coat it for you.

I think Jimi's point is that there is no point appealing to the laws of nature to say this doesn't happen when Christians are specifically invoking something beyond the laws of nature to make it happen.

So I would agree with him that saying it didn't happen because it cannot happen is a bit pointless.

But equally constantly invoking "God did it" in order to justify belief in any fantastical event as reasonable is equally ridiculous. Just because God might have risen someone from the dead or sent a world wide flood doesn't mean he did.

Stating he could doesn't make it any more reasonable to believe he did. In fact when you look properly at what God is supposed to be the opposite conclusion emerges very quickly.

He could do anything, which raises the far more important question (asked by another poster earlier in this thread) why he bothers with parlor show antics. The god of the Bible comes across as a cheap magician, not the all powerful master of the laws of nature. That in itself is a reason to think the concept is ridiculous.

mrac

JimiTime wrote: »

And yet, yee still don't get it. You seem so preoccupied with laughing about it with one another, that you can't see how silly it is. You are laughing at an argument of your own invention, rather than anything that is claimed by Christians or creationists etc. I see creationists say some wacky things etc, and get mocked accordingly. Yet a lot of you pick an argument thats not made.

'Huh huh, hope he didn't stick sheep in with velociraptors scoff scoff...' Ehhh, we are talking about the existence of a being who created the universe, if it was his will then I don't think he'd have an issue with sheep and velociraptors sharing a penn.

The only argument, is the existence of this being. If you don't believe, well then you simply don't believe his actions occurred. If you do, then you believe it would not be a big feat for him to do as claimed. Yet some of you guys muddle the arguments, by not believing in God, AND THEN showing how ludicrous such events are. Well guess what, without God, these events are a larf. You don't need to tell me that dead people don't rise from the dead, or that a lion wont eat a sheep if its locked in a penn with it etc. What idiot would make such a claim? And yet, these phantom idiots is who you all seem to be scoffing at. Theres enough idiocy in the world to laugh at with you guys inventing more.

I agree with you 100%. People laugh at me when I say all the chaos in the world is caused by the pesky frost giants running amuck. Now of course this sounds crazy if you dont believe in Odin and the other Norse gods but since I do the frost giants make perfect sense and I find it offensive when people apply their logic to my deeply held beliefs.

JimiTime

Sarky wrote: »

If you take the stories of Lazarus and Jesus seriously, then I'm afraid yes, you DO need to be told that people don't rise from the dead.

They don't do this. Beliefs to the contrary are laughable. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings, but I'm not going to sugar coat it for you.

Your desire to mock is certainly clear, as mentioned previously. Don't think that anything you say offends or hurts my feelings though. I just think its mad a lot of you don't see the irrelevance of your argument. *shrugs*

JimiTime

Zombrex wrote: »

I think Jimi's point is that there is no point appealing to the laws of nature to say this doesn't happen when Christians are specifically invoking something beyond the laws of nature to make it happen.

So I would agree with him that saying it didn't happen because it cannot happen is a bit pointless.

Well done. You get a gold star;)

But equally constantly invoking "God did it" in order to justify belief in any fantastical event as reasonable is equally ridiculous. Just because God might have risen someone from the dead or sent a world wide flood doesn't mean he did.

That is a more coherent argument. Rather than rushing ahead to the actual events, the argument of Gods existence etc are necessary. If you conclude that he doesn't exist, then the alleged actions are irrelevant.

JimiTime

doctoremma wrote: »

So are the miracles of resurrection/walking on water not part of the reason you believe in god?

But you don't believe them if you don't believe in god?

How does one start to believe in god then? I mean "genuinely believe", not "taught to believe".

Without miracles, there is no evidence of god. Without god, there are no miracles. That sounds ever so circular.

This is a completely different topic. What we are talking about, is how silly it is to laugh at Noahs ark etc as if it is claimed they are natural events.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

That is a more coherent argument. Rather than rushing ahead to the actual events, the argument of Gods existence etc are necessary. If you conclude that he doesn't exist, then the alleged actions are irrelevant.

Obviously correct. But equally just because you believe he does exist, or might exist doesn't make any particular claim he did something any more reasonable.

For example it is no more less or likely that God made Jesus come back from the dead than he may or may not have made my missing sock disappear. Given that God can do anything he can do anything. There seems no more reason to think he will do one thing over another.

Believers often invoke their belief in the existence of God as some how a justification for their believe he did particular things, when in fact these are two different things.

Using a purely natural example, I believe Barrack Obama exists. That doesn't make the belief that he is the person who kicked a ball into my back garden any more justifiable, even though it is entirely possible where as if you believe Obama doesn't exist then it is impossible.

There is an implied assumption in a lot of Christian justifications for belief in the supernatural elements of the Bible, it is not only a belief in God but a belief in the particular God that is already described in the Bible. You don't simply believe in God you believe in the specific God that did raise Jesus. It then becomes some what circular to say that it is reasonable to believe in the resurrection if you believe in God, since the "God" that this belief involves is one that has already done the resurrection. If you simply believe in a God that could have resurrected someone without the assumption that he did then such a belief doesn't make the resurrection any more reasonable since God could have done anything.

Or to sum up, even if I did believe a god existed that would bring me no closer to believing the resurrection happened. A lot of Christians seem to take it simply for granted that belief in God means the resurrection must have happened, but that is because they already have formed their notion of "God" as the being that resurrected Jesus, the two concepts are intertwined long before the question even arises, as if this is the only god that could exist.

Sarky

They ARE claimed as such. Perhaps not by you, but if you don't believe such claims then why are you getting upset on behalf of the people who do?

JimiTime

Sarky wrote: »

They ARE claimed as such.

So there are people that argue that Noahs Ark, and the resurrection happened without divine intervention? Really?

Sarky

Whoops, I misread your post as suggesting nobody claims that those stories were true. Mea culpa. You try being this coherent after a rock concert and a metric sh*ttonne of alcohol.

fitz0

JimiTime wrote: »

And yet, yee still don't get it. You seem so preoccupied with laughing about it with one another, that you can't see how silly it is. You are laughing at an argument of your own invention, rather than anything that is claimed by Christians or creationists etc. I see creationists say some wacky things etc, and get mocked accordingly. Yet a lot of you pick an argument thats not made.

Oh I assure you, I wasn't laughing. This is no laughing matter. Your previous post is remarkable in its display of doublethink. It was more that than the ark story that I was commenting on.

But even so, there is no argument of my own invention here. You said 'God made it possible.' I contend that that is a silly position to take, since I do not believe there is a god. You can keep on believing it but since there is no geological or archaeological evidence to show there was such a flood, under such evidence I don't think there was any ark for your god to do a Ford Anglia on.

JimiTime wrote: »

'Huh huh, hope he didn't stick sheep in with velociraptors scoff scoff...' Ehhh, we are talking about the existence of a being who created the universe, if it was his will then I don't think he'd have an issue with sheep and velociraptors sharing a penn.

I don't think sheep are carnivorous so they should leave our Penn all to the raptors. Even though they were all long extinct.

JimiTime wrote: »

The only argument, is the existence of this being. If you don't believe, well then you simply don't believe his actions occurred. If you do, then you believe it would not be a big feat for him to do as claimed. Yet some of you guys muddle the arguments, by not believing in God, AND THEN showing how ludicrous such events are. Well guess what, without God, these events are a larf. You don't need to tell me that dead people don't rise from the dead, or that a lion wont eat a sheep if its locked in a penn with it etc. What idiot would make such a claim? And yet, these phantom idiots is who you all seem to be scoffing at. Theres enough idiocy in the world to laugh at with you guys inventing more.

You tell me that, not believing in these events, we shouldn't show how ludicrous they are. On the contrary it's because we don't believe them that we can show how ludicrous they are. If I believed the account of the ark wholeheartedly I wouldn't be able to demonstrate the absurdity of the story. You're right, it doesn't make sense without a deity. Or with one for that matter. It's all very contrived from a global perspective, but I'd imagine it's mighty impressive from the localized, primitive view of a 3rd century goatherd in Asia Minor. When people claim this ark, said to be 300 cubits by 50, or 157m x 26.2m, is an actual historical fact then we on this forum rightly roll our eyes.

No evidence + supernatural intervention = scepticism.

Scepticism is what we deal in here.

Do you believe these stories to be evidence for your god?

What we poke fun at is the idiocy in the world as handed down by the various religions, cults and sects. The tales of rib-women, talking flaming shrubbery, floating menageries, marrying 6 year olds, gold plates read from a hat, these are some of the things that baffle and amuse us. You may not like that, you may think we're just 'muddling the arguments' and that's just fine for you to think that. But we'll still poke fun at the illogical, the absurd and the downright silly.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

So there are people that argue that Noahs Ark, and the resurrection happened without divine intervention? Really?

There are people who claim that there was no supernatural intervention in order to get all animals on the Ark. This is the "Kind" theory common in Creationist circles, that one of each "kind" of animal went on the ark, with "kind" being some sort of undefined biological division a few levels above species.

Sin City

Guys if the Noahs ark fairytale were true, why did God want all the animals (not the ones on the ark ) dead. Surly they cant sin. And why did he leave the likes of fish and the likes of Whales and Dolphins live , surely they would survive a flood.

Wouldnt a disease that would only effect humans have a better effect , surely God being God would know this

GarIT

If snakes are bad, St.Patrick tried to got rid of snakes in Ireland, why did they not just refuse entry into the arc?

Did noah bring a girl onto the arc?

sbsquarepants

Zombrex wrote: »

So what? God shrunk all the animals?

I always find it odd believers seem happy with the concept that God will both use natural mechanism to enact his will (ie a flood) while at the same time having to use supernatural jiggery pokery in order to actually make it work.

I have a bit of trouble with this one too. Why bother with the time and effort of flooding the whole damn place? And why kill the animals anyway? What did they do, supposedly we're the only ones with free will so whatever the animals done was gods fault! Why not just zap everyone out of existence? He makes a whole universe in 7 days but it takes a month to clean up one microscopic part of it. SHENANIGANS - there, i said it!

Sarky wrote: »

If you take the stories of Lazarus and Jesus seriously, then I'm afraid yes, you DO need to be told that people don't rise from the dead.

They don't do this. Beliefs to the contrary are laughable. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings, but I'm not going to sugar coat it for you.

3 words for you my friend.
Fabrice Ndala Muamba.:D

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

Scoffing at accounts of specific things that are said to be attributed to God and picking them apart as if the claim being made is that they were natural occurances is rather silly.

Well, if you think that "my magic deity did it" is an acceptable explanation for everything, then I think it's rather silly for anybody to ask you to explain anything.

Penn

JimiTime, could you point out where in the Bible it says God shrunk all the animals and prevented them from fighting?

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

Well, if you think that "my magic deity did it" is an acceptable explanation for everything, then I think it's rather silly for anybody to ask you to explain anything.

The mother of all "A Wizard Did It"

Frink: "Yes, over here, [...] in Episode BF12, you were battling barbarians while riding a winged Appaloosa, yet in the very next scene, my dear, you're clearly atop a winged Arabian! Please do explain it!
Lucy Lawless: Uh, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that... a wizard did it.
Frink: Yes, alright, yes, in episode AG04-"
Lucy Lawless: Wizard!

Galvasean

I'd like to see the Ark restoration so long as they build evil dinosaurs to put outside and make it look like they are attacking it.



edit: In fairness, kudos for them including Einiosaurus in the comic. That dino doesn't get enough spotlight.

Quatermain

Creationist claptrap aside, how often do we get to see an angel riding a t-rex into battle? The closest in recent years has been that Harry Dresden fellow, and he was...*Drumroll*...

A wizard.

Pushtrak

Sin City wrote: »

Surly they cant sin. And why did he leave the likes of fish and the likes of Whales and Dolphins live , surely they would survive a flood.

What would the state of the water be? Some life forms would require fresh water, and some would require salt water. It wouldn't be ideal for even those used to existence under water. Or the types of plant life on which they would depend.

Sarky

Dolphins must be special in god's eyes. They regularly have sex for fun instead of babies, and homosexuality isn't a big deal for them. But where's their hellfire and brimstone?

Quatermain

Sarky wrote: »

Dolphins must be special in god's eyes. They regularly have sex for fun instead of babies, and homosexuality isn't a big deal for them. But where's their hellfire and brimstone?

You can find it in Tesco. It has "John West" on the tin.

Kivaro

And another thing:

Why is there a penguin in the Garden of Eden exhibit?



And what the feck is Adam doing with the sheep, who doesn't at all look happy? Which begs the question: Was Adam Irish?

Penn

Kivaro wrote: »

And another thing:

Why is there a penguin in the Garden of Eden exhibit?



And what the feck is Adam doing with the sheep, who doesn't at all look happy? Which begs the question: Was Adam Irish?

The answer to all your questions is "God."

Quatermain

A penguin? It's easy to explain. This is not the museum, but rather the live-action remake of "Madagascar". Or something.