Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 38336



Ken Ham & Dr. Terry Mortenson, Answers in Genesis 69 Comments [4/28/2008 6:54:05 PM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: funky fresh salad
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3
Mark

Let's see, a book that contradicts itself and reality, is NEVER revised, and that serves to push a belief system thatis bat-shit crazy, or a system that is constantly revised and that pushes only to discover truth?

DAMN that's a hard fucking choice!! How will I ever make the right decision? Oh wait a minute...

4/28/2008 6:57:00 PM

HeathenAngel

They are being facetious, right? I mean.. come on, they can't REALLY expect to say something like that and NOT have people point out that their disgusting little tome has been rewritten so many times that it's hard to count... can they? Guys? Please tell me their joking.. come on. Please?

4/28/2008 6:57:03 PM

DevNull

Hmm. A book that endorses itself as the truth or one that cites emperical evidence...

4/28/2008 7:03:28 PM

Antichrist

You know, I tried to start 3 or 4 arguments to refute this but they all boiled down to one thing.

Fuck off idiots.

4/28/2008 7:04:19 PM

Galle

So, a bunch of self-contradictory claims that were never dependent on supporting evidence, or explanations which are continuously revised in light of new evidence? Gee, what a difficult choice!

Once again, creationists achieve a stunning own-goal.

4/28/2008 7:05:02 PM

cyborgtroy

It is written.

Maybe.

It's been re-translated so many times and re-edited that nobody knows anymore.

Plus it is neither clear nor consistent.

Evolution makes clear predictions, is based on clear and widely available evidence, and is worked on by humans who are still alive and who speak the language we do.

I would trust evolution.

4/28/2008 7:06:05 PM

Beltaine

The one that corrects itself when found to be wrong, of course.

4/28/2008 7:06:20 PM

Evilutionist

I'll take the one that is always revised to include the most up-to-date information, thanks.

4/28/2008 7:12:01 PM



M'yeah… I've read plenty of books that have had mistakes in them to know that revisions are a good thing.

4/28/2008 7:15:32 PM

Osiris

So it's your choice. A book that is wrong but refuses to admit it, or a book that makes damn sure it takes into account recent discoveries.

4/28/2008 7:23:59 PM

TB Tabby

Evolution belief...BECAUSE it is rewritten and rewritten and rewritten. Every rewrite provides a greater understanding of the universe. Of course, "evolution belief" is being used to describe ALL fields of science that bring the book of Genesis into question, not just evolutionary biology.

4/28/2008 7:24:58 PM

Arne

So the book "Evolution Belief", whatever book that is, wasn't ever written to begin with?

It is a similar theme to when fundies claim a naturalistic explanation of the existence of the universe is faulty due to invoking creation ex nihilo but God somehow....
No that is not a good analogy at all, let me rewrite it. It is a similar theme to when fundies claim.....

[Disregard my ramblings, I got the mother of all colds and it affects my mental capacity in a slightly negative manner]

4/28/2008 7:26:40 PM

GigaGuess

Okay, if a person walked around, screaming the sky was green, refusing to recant it even when it's clearly blue, is he still right?

4/28/2008 7:32:16 PM

emau99

The constitution has also been rewritten, and rewritten, and rewritten, etc. Does that make it a stronger document? Or a weaker one?

It's not like the bible hasn't ever been rewritten, translated, and edited.

4/28/2008 7:32:32 PM

CtraK

Enough is enough! I am tired of these motherfucking "answers" in this motherfucking Genesis!

4/28/2008 7:33:47 PM

DarkfireTaimatsu

Obviously you don't understand that a science book never staying the same is not a BAD thing. It means we're getting more accurate information.

4/28/2008 7:33:58 PM

Riin-thrall

As a rule, it's not a good idea to trust a source which describes itself as infallible and unchanging.

4/28/2008 7:42:59 PM

Joe-Bob

Can we come up with one where the preacher stands with his back turned away from the contradicting evidence and the biologist is in the lab exploring the world? I think that one would get our point across just fine.

4/28/2008 7:45:18 PM



Now then. Which would I rather play the game Crysis on? A computer which is 20 years old and has never been updated, or a computer which I update regularly apart from some basic parts e.g. the keyboard (last update 1994) and the mouse (last update 2000). Let me see... Chances are the fundie would pick the unupdated one, while any sensible person would pick the updated one. Why can't the fundies see that updates are good?

4/28/2008 7:47:27 PM

Methologica

Complete.
Utter.
Fail.

4/28/2008 7:47:50 PM

Tomby Stone

Ken Ham and Dr. Terry Mortenson are gay lovers. I refuse to revise and update that view in light of new evidence therefore it must be true.

4/28/2008 7:52:34 PM

...

The stupidity is unbelievable.

1. The fundies have a book based on wild unscientific claims that haven't been updated for 2000 years.
2. The rational people have books based on scientifically researched facts that get updated all the time.

And somehow the manage to twist this into them winning:). You gotta admire that.

4/28/2008 8:03:52 PM

Lithp

The Bible was repeatedly rewritten, R-Tard. The difference is that when people added things to the Bible, they never checked to make sure the new additions didn't conflict with the old ones!

Now which one are you gonna trust?

Also, Ctra is my new hero.

4/28/2008 8:04:10 PM

John

Which one are you going to trust: a thousandth-generation copy of a book written 3,500 years ago by a some anonymous bronze age Arab goat-herders or a book still being written today?

Would Ken Ham want someone operating on him using a medical book written by Galen or a current surgery textbook?

4/28/2008 8:12:29 PM

haywood jablomy

I'm sure this has been posted before. Even so, it has lost none of its asininity.

4/28/2008 8:21:18 PM
1 2 3