Do Young-Earth Creationists Have a Sense of Humor?

A friend shared this cartoon from the Answers in Genesis web site on Facebook:

On the one hand, I don’t find the notion of waiting two millennia to pee funny.

On the other hand, I find the idea of Noah’s flood being before the ice age hilarious – but I suspect that the maker of the cartoon didn’t intend that to be the joke.

Does this mean that, since young-earth creationism is itself laughable, none of their attempts at humor will seem funny?

  • *

    No I think what is funny is they are taking the piss

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000194137198 Stephen Savage

    No, it just means that the joke is on them.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Anthony-Lawson/100002721639251 Anthony Lawson

    It’s my understanding that in the current version of flood geology the flood occurred first and caused the ice age.

    • KreiderW

      Just checked on the website from which the “cartoon” above came. They do in fact teach that the Ice Age followed Noah’s flood. There is a somewhat long (for the web) article detailing how they believe it happened.

  • KreiderW

    I just noticed one thing humorous about this cartoon. What is the flood doing in the “six days theater”?

  • Just Sayin’

    Read the last score or two of David Tee posts and you’ll have your answer.

    • Kaz

      Score or two? What is being “scored”, here?

      • rmwilliamsjr

        score, as in “4 score and 7 years ago”, =20.

        quote:
        The word score originates from Old English scoru “twenty,” from Old Norse skor “mark, tally”, in the sense of say, a shepherd making a mark on a tally stick when counting sheep. Its use in the Bible is simply that of a common word at the time of translation then falling into disuse though language change.

        Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_four_score_and_ten_mean_and_where_does_the_term_'score'_come_from#ixzz27yHv76RH

        • Kaz

          Huh? I didn’t ask what “score” meant; I asked what is being scored on this site. I assume that it’s the like or dislike votes that one can make by clicking on the little up and down arrows in the lower left corner of each post, but I just wanted to be sure.

          I don’t want to get into the “Dr Tee” ordeal. However, as for the like and dislike votes, I’d say that they probably reveal little more than the general makeup or leanings of James’s blog followers, most of whom are either atheists, agnostics, or liberal Christians. If Cornelius Van Til were to rise from the grave and begin posting on this site then he’d probably get almost as many “dislike” votes as I do.

          • rmwilliamsjr

            curious how context does make such a difference.

            op:Does this mean that, since young-earth creationism is itself laughable, none of their attempts at humor will seem funny?

            reply just saying:Read the last score or two of David Tee posts and you’ll have your answer.

            reply kaz: Score or two? What is being “scored”, here?

            reply rw: def of score.

            reply kaz: i’m not talking about score =20 by rather about scored as in ↑↓ like/dislike votes.
            -=-=-
            what does “just saying mean” by the word “score”?
            there are at least the 2 options displayed here.
            who decides? is asking “just saying” if s/he is referring to the last 20 or so of DT’s postings or to the “scoring system” disqus adds underneath each post? authorial intent.

            or is meaning in how each of us interpreted “score” differently?
            audience/readers reception

            if we can get confused by so little, how can we make sense of something as complex as the Bible?

            my point is the communication is inherently ambiguous and this very short exchange shows it.

            • Kaz

              “….if we can get confused by so little, how can we make sense of something as complex as the Bible?…my point is the communication is inherently ambiguous and this very short exchange shows it.”

              Well, if nothing else, that’s a humorous approach. Deliberately create confusion and ambiguity and then use it to demonstrate that communication is inherently confusing and ambiguous.

              I never would have conceived of such an approach myself, but then my test scores revealed an aptitude (however limited it may be) for language, not the arts;-)

  • Gary

    Should have said, “Where’s the nearest coprolite factory”.

  • http://twitter.com/Feth312 Daniel

    James, I see you like to belittle people.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      Imagine. The word you are looking for is “imagine.” You are welcome to begin seeing at any point you decide to.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X