FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from

Amused Muse

Inspiring dissent and debate and the love of dissonance

My Photo
Location: Surreality, Have Fun Will Travel, Past Midnight before a Workday

Master's Degree holder, telecommuting from the hot tub, proud Darwinian Dawkobot, and pirate librarian belly-dancer bohemian secret agent scribe on a mission to rescue bloggers from the wholesome clutches of the pious backstabbing girl fridays of the world.

Sunday, April 29, 2007

Dutch Creationist Builds "Noah's Ark"

See the petrified petting zoo here.

Labels: , ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd say there is a highly unscientific poll attached to the site. The results are running 4 to 1 agin us'ns that got real smarts. The gullible innocents are stuffing the ballot box.

April 29, 2007 8:17 PM  
Blogger Kristine said...

What I want to know is why Noah couldn't save the Trilobites!

April 30, 2007 12:28 PM  
Anonymous Chris said...

Holy Shit!

Do you believe there was a real Noah's Ark as described in the Bible?
Yes 82%
No 18%

April 30, 2007 2:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Trilobites don't strike me as being all that attractive; not cuddly, like kitties. On top of that, they were marine creatures. They would have survived a flood.

There's nothing at all holy about eighty-two percent of the respondants believing in the Ark. Those people are woeful ingnorant of ship building. A craft like the Ark would have broken up and sunk shortly after launch.

April 30, 2007 8:23 PM  
Blogger Kristine said...

Holy Shit!

Yes, Chris, I can believe it.

Until high school (where I finally met geeks like me), I was the only kid I knew who accepted evolution.

One of the kids in my church youth group said that evolution was disproved because you never find a fritos corn chip in a potato chip bag. (I don't know what this man now thinks about breaded rats in KFC.)

Trilobites don't strike me as being all that attractive; not cuddly, like kitties.

Yeah, but did trilobites barf up their Iams at 1 a.m. in the morning? ;-)

A craft like the Ark would have broken up and sunk shortly after launch.

Probably because 40 days of rain enough to flood the earth would have created more turbulance than seen in Jupiter's Red Spot! (Well, not really, but still.) :-)

May 01, 2007 2:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Did trilobites barf their IAMs at one in the morning?"

I don't know. I wasn't there as best I can recall. Nor have I ever heard of fossilised trilobite puke.

May 01, 2007 6:01 PM  
Blogger Kristine said...

We were there, but we were just Cambrian sponges. ;-)

May 01, 2007 11:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe the trilobites ate us, and we gave them the gutache.

May 02, 2007 11:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

On a more serious note-
Creationists describe those of us who don't believe in Genesis as willfully ignorant. I would not bounce that back at them. Rather, they are woefully ignorant; they cannot see the forest for the trees, that Genesis is internally inconsistent. There are at least two creation stories which differ in detail. Genesis 1 has plants created on the second day, animals the fifth, and humanity, male and female, the sixth. But the fourth verse of Genesis 2 has this fumblethumbs Yahweh come along, create man, then the plants, then the animals in a search for a helpmeet for his man. Holy Christmas!!!! You would think that an omniscient being could fast forward a million years or so to access the lyrics of "There Ain't Nothing Like a Dame" from Rogers and Hammerstein's "South Pacific" and know what Adam needed.

The best I can make of it, the entire book of Genesis is myth. Just where the Bible shades from myth and legend into history is something I don't know. I seriously doubt that anyone else knows either.

May 02, 2007 11:24 PM  
Blogger Kristine said...

I'm writing a second novel in which I explore some ideas about Genesis (which I hope are new, and haven't already been written by sci fi writers better and more knowledgeable than me). I was watching Walking the Bible on PBS - actually a really good show - in which it almost seemed that certain Bible stories were not about people at all, but the land - the area around Soddom and Gommorah in particular, which is dotted with "Lot's wives," pillars of gypsum and suflur in this place that can at any moment explode. It made me wonder how many of the stories in the Bible were originally (since they were oral traditions long before they were ever written down) about places, places and their impact upon people that eventually got turned into characters in a story.

I like the idea - and you know, something spooked me when I started thinking about other stories in context of their geological area. I don't know if it's true, but some of it fits - especially when you consider how the biblical stories are related to earlier Babylonian and Egyptian myths. I'd like to expand on it in my novel, which I will finally have time for this summer.

May 04, 2007 12:35 PM  
Blogger Kristine said...

You know, people miss out on a lot when they take these stories literally. It cheapens the stories, and fanatics don't even see that.

May 04, 2007 12:36 PM  
Blogger MothandRust said...

what on earth would christians talk about at sunday school if it wasn't for Noah's ark or Jonah's whale?

It would be a sad time indeed.

May 11, 2007 4:38 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home