Expelled - April's Fools

April's Fools and the Noah's Ark Hoax

Perhaps the greatest danger posed by the creationists results from their almost universal lack of a sense of humor and their incredible credulity. They never laugh when they read each other's books, and they easily can be made to believe almost anything. A society where everyone is gullible will not survive for long, and a world without humor is indistinguishable from hell. I fear that creationist dominance of the schools is leading to a generation of Americans who have no training in critical thinking and will believe anything -- a generation which has never been allowed to laugh at preposterosity.

Read the full story about the HOAX expedition for Noah's Ark HERE

The Whole Silly Flood Story (Down Under)

The Land Down Under

Ed Vinson asks just how far it is from Mt. Ararat to Sydney, and which of Noah's sons got stuck with herding all those numbats, wombats, platypi, and wallabies down there without mixing any rats in. G'day, Mate!

Koalas

They live only in Australia. Their diet is so restricted--to a few subspecies of eucalyptus--that they're threatened now by destruction of the only kinds of trees they will eat. It's also hard to imagine them migrating. Over many generations they might slowly spread through an area--but travelers, they ain't.And when they did migrate over 9,000 miles, in a tiny herd from Ararat to New South Wales, eating a convenient trail of long-disappeared eucalyptus (which took how many years after the Flood to grow?), they left no trail of koala fossils behind.

Click the banner to read the whole piece...

Evan Almighty: The 40 year old Virgin Mary's Ark?

This Noah's Ark sequel is another 'Jim Carrey' sequel that is sans Jim Carrey (see Dumb and Dumberer, The Son of the Mask, Ace Ventura 3 [coming soon - unfortunately]) and apparently is the most expensive comedy ever made, coming in at 175 Million dollars. Just think how many Creation Museums one could have built for that money? - Eight or nine? This'll be a great movie for the Christian set who want a movie about a favourite Bible character without the blood, whipping and bloody gore. Yes, I'm talking about Rambo IV.

The movie is bad. So bad I gave up streaming it before the ship set sail. It's kind of like the Titanic in reverse - The ship is full of animals instead of people; it's based on a myth instead of a real incident; and in the end it doesn't sink... the movie did. This is the second blog this week I've done referencing the Titanic and I'm not sure if I can do a third. What's up with that?

Man, I love Steve Carell, he's the best, but he's gone the way of comedic family movie sell-out faster than Tim Allen or Eddie Murphy ever did in this Dr Dolittle meets the Santa Clause mess. I'm sure he got paid plenty for it, so who can blame him? Keep doing the Office and all is forgiven. The only way this movie would have worked is if the Ark set sail leaving a cameo Kirk Cameron left behind drowning in the flood of endless animal wee wee and poo poo jokes.

I'm not sure if I worked the Kirk Cameron reference in there logically, but all I've really been wanting to say is that this movie is as stupid as a Creationist Museum, and that Kirk Cameron is a shmuck. Bon Voyage...

The first rainbow? - Noah's ark is mythology and nothing more

The narrative bible concerning Noah and his Ark is mythology and it's amazing to have to explain that to people.

There is a problem with the theory that a mist covered the earth until a flood that happened approximately five thousand years ago. It's painfully sad to know that Christians follop around themselves to get all this to make sense for them. What about all the countless varieties of animal/plant life that live in desert environments. Why did camels have the water storing humps if there were no deserts? and we wouldn't have had deserts or desert animals at all if the whole earth was a greenhouse with no rain. Some plants depend on fire to seed. Was there another creation of desert life three thousand years ago, after the flood, when the mists went away? No rain? It's crazy when you do the math. Rain feeds rivers and gets things flowing - it's called the water cycle. There's so much more I could say, but it's a big of a waste of time eh? We're very adapt at believing myths and legends it seems.

And was it the very first rainbow they tell us. I thought a mist would have refracted the sun's light and created many rainbows if you go with the mist theory - did the laws of refractive light and the fundamentals of physics get a do over.

There are literally thousands of animals that have been incredibly designed from the inside out to live and flourish in hot dry desert conditions (See Website). Also there are many plants that necessitate fire to sprout their seeds. Forest fires have been a normal and necessary regeneratory cycle for life... hard to have fire in a greenhouse like the one that hardline 7-day creationists believe in.

Quote:

It will probably never be clear what the Genesis author had in mind when he told us the story of Noah's rainbow, but it seems likely that he meant for us to believe that the bow created by the Lord was, indeed, the very first rainbow. If it hadn't been the first rainbow, then the entire story loses its symbolic impact--even if the bow had been the best rainbow, ever. In order to explain how that rainbow could have been the first one, inerrantists must explain how water droplets in the air would not have refracted sunlight.

There are three possibilities:

• No water in the air
• No sunlight
• No law of refraction

The first possibility requires too many improbables: no water condensation of evaporated lake and ocean water, no waterfalls, and no rainfall. The second is just as unlikely as the first. Since God let there be light on the first day, and created the sun on the fourth, inerrantists would have to argue that there was a continual cloud cover from the time of creation until just after end of the flood. The third explanation might seem at first to be the simplest. All the inerrantist has to do to harmonize the rainbow story is assert that God must have suspended his law of refraction of electromagnetic radiation until he awarded Noah his bow in the sky.

The reason why the third explanation doesn't work is that Noah and his family would not have been able to see without refraction; all light through their eyes' lenses would pass right through to the retina without bending to a sharp focus. Noah and his family would have been living in a world filled with very blurry objects indeed, and they surely would have noticed and reported the sudden change in clarity once God had made the law of refraction operable.