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.

  • http://www.vaticancatholic.com/ RosaryCatholic

    4 minute video: Proof: DNA Refutes Evolution -
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7ZcKEZh_6U&list=UUqqN2e5-zgkQhHOs-ailqBQ

    For critical information on the faith of Christ and how Rome has lost the Catholic faith please go to: http://www.vaticancatholic.com

    21

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

      When you quote-mine Darwin, truncating what he wrote to obscure the meaning, and think it shows something about genes and DNA (which were not even known in Darwin’s time, and which have provided impressive confirmation of his theory), it only shows that you are a despicable liar. Lying in this way is incompatible with Christianity, and so I will suggest that you are in no position, until you repent of spreading lies on the internet, to decide who is a Christian and who is not, since repentance, belief that God is the Creator and is good and honest, and being committed to the truth are all key core elements of Christianity. You should be ashamed of yourself for bringing Christian faith into disrepute by misrepresenting science on the internet!

      • http://www.vaticancatholic.com/ RosaryCatholic

        No, you are the liar. Darwin admitted his theory would “absolutely break down” if irreducibly complex systems could be found. Simply because he claimed not to find any doesn’t mean none exist, and the fact is that there are an extremely large number of such systems in nature. For example, DNA is the mother of all irreducibly complex systems. Your false dogma of “evolution” is debunked. Stop worshipping man, Charles Darwin.

        Pope St. Pius X, E Supremi Apostolatus, Oct. 4, 1903: “While, on the other hand, and this according to the same apostle is the distinguishing mark of Antichrist, man has with infinite temerity put himself in the place of God.”

        39 minute video: The Antichrist Revealed: The Beast that Was, and Is Not, Has Returned – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPs7jdfaib0

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

          No, you may be misunderstanding rather than being deliberately dishonest, but you still should not be insisting on things publicly if you are not properly informed on the subject. If you want to view DNA as irreducibly complex and created by miracle, I have no objection. But that DNA drives evolution, visibly before our eyes, and encodes the evidence for evolution inasmuch as it clearly shows our relationships to other living things, as clearly as it provides proof of paternity in court cases.

          I do not worship Darwin. I do believe that the Creator is not a despicable liar of the sort that anti-evolutionary purveyors of nonsense are, who have made their God in their own image, a deceiver who makes it look like evolution occurred even though it did not. And presumably you engage in this campaign of misinformation because you worship the words of human beings, thinking that ancient humans’ words about creation must be adhered to as though they were God’s own statements about creation, rather than letting God’s own handiwork speak for itself.

          • http://www.vaticancatholic.com/ RosaryCatholic

            No, your religion is evolution. There is absolutely no evidence to support either mutational evolution or life arising by chance from non-living matter. There is also not one missing link in the fossil record. The closest “proof” of such was a hoax – “Lucy.” You believe in a pagan myth. Life is a miracle and was created by God as it states in the Bible.

            Pope Pius IX, Vatican I: “If anyone says that finite things, both corporal and spiritual, or at any rate, spiritual, emanated from the divine substance; or that the divine essence, by the manifestation and evolution of itself becomes all things or, finally, that God is a universal or indefinite being which by self determination establishes the totality of things distinct in genera, species and individuals: let him be anathema.”

            Pope Pius IX, Vatican I: “If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God; or holds that God did not create by his will free from all necessity, but as necessarily as he necessarily loves himself; or denies that the world was created for the glory of God: let him be anathema.”

            Genesis 2:3 – “And he blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.”

            50 minute video: Information Proves God – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYSmV2FlHDw

            54 minute video: Creation and Miracles – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYLy7CCgqDk

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

              You seem to think that you know what someone else’s religion is better than they do. And then you create a false antithesis, as though by quoting something popes have said about creation is proof that scientists are wrong. That is not the Catholic position, and I think you know it. Do you deny that human beings today are created by God, because we understand the natural processes involved in human procreation? Do you deny that God is the source of rain, because we understand weather systems from a scientific perspective? Why pretend that biology is different?

              Why not actually read what some great Catholic biologists, like Ken Miller or Francisco Ayala, have written, instead of repeating lies you’ve picked up from charlatans?

              • http://www.vaticancatholic.com/ RosaryCatholic

                You are a professional liar. For example, you wrote a book called: “The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in its Jewish Context.” There is no “Jewish context” to Christianity. The Old Law ceased when Christ was crucified:

                Pope Benedict XIV, Ex Quo Primum (# 61), March 1, 1756: “The first consideration is that the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law were abrogated by the coming of Christ and that they can no longer be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel.”

                You also wrote in “The Burial of Jesus: History and Faith” (as if history contradicts the Catholic faith, when it doesn’t), about “why Jesus’ disciples would have wanted to steal his body from the tomb.” You are a tool of the devil. Jesus Christ physically rose from death. His disciples never considered “stealing His body.” You spread the same Jewish lie that the Gospel speaks of:

                Matthew 28:12-15 – “And they [Jewish chief priests] being assembled together with the ancients, taking counsel, gave a great sum of money to the soldiers, Saying: Say you, His disciples came by night, and stole him away when we were asleep. And if the governor shall hear this, we will persuade him, and secure you. So they taking the money, did as they were taught: and this word was spread abroad among the Jews even unto this day.”

                Jesus Christ was not even a Jew. He was a Judean: 14 minute video: Was Jesus Christ a “Jew”? – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6A2HQNeO104

                No one should be listening to your lectures, reading your books/blogs or having anything to do with you. You are a professor of lies – you are paid to lie and to teach others
                to lie. Another example: you think the Bible contradicts itself. You try to crucify Jesus Christ, the Truth, all over again.

                Pope Pius IX, Vatican I: “Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth.”

                You also seem to respect Gnosticism since you wrote an entire book about it: “Review of The Gnostics: Myth, Ritual, and Diversity in Early Christianity.” Gnosticism is totally satanic. It is a heresy condemned by the Catholic Church. There is nothing Christian about it. The Illuminati believes in it. You stated: “…the Creator is not… a deceiver who makes it look like evolution occurred even though it did not.” The deceiver is you and your false “god” the devil who imagines lies and illusions like evolution pass for truth and science. You are a fraud, a disgrace and satanic. Leave me alone.

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

                  OK, so I think you are done here. You are an anti-Semite and/or don’t understand what “Jewish context” means. You claim to know what the early disciples thought and contemplated doing after the crucifixion with certainty and without evidence. You think that reviewing a book about an ancient current of thought means you adhere to it. And you ask me to leave you alone when you are the one commenting on my blog. I hope you find the help you need.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X