• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Creationist Junk

lordmongrove

Antediluvian
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
5,039
I was pootlig around on the internet lat night and came upon this thread from the Cryptomundo site

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/what-yowie/

Among the mostly sensable discussion was some of the most unhiged creationist ramblings. A guy calling himself Scott C used the unbillievable term 'credible evangelical scholars'. Is it any wonder that we have a hard time being taken seriously with clowns like these about? This guy might as well be crouched in a cave banging stones together.
 
I kind of want to reply to this because I'm a Christian, but I'm so totally embarassed by some of those who claim the same faith I don't really know what to say.

I don't want to get into comparative religion or try to convert anyone, but surely by now its obvious that those who insist on the literal truth of the Bible are themselves the dinosaurs. (And lets remember He may have an ironic sense of humour!).

Also, do any of these people read the New Testament? If they do, how do they miss out on the constant injunctions to love your neighbour, treat others with respect, respond to hate with kindness, etc. etc? I think they skip straght from Deuteronomy to Revelations. Which latter, IMHO, is the result of being careless when picking your mushrooms.
 
Hello Cochise of the North, there’s no need to be embarrassed by this. You’re not responsible for what others in the same faith think or how they act.

Thank you Lordmongrove that was priceless, it really was. What the hell does this mean by the way;

Are you arguing that plants existed for more than 24 hrs. apart from the sun?

It’s not fair for creationists to hijack your work, it really isn’t, and it must be infuriating. I’ve got to say though in all seriousness as someone who has a respect for this subject, my highlights aren’t from the creationists, they are;

'They speculate that land bridges must have persisted between southern South America and the Western Antarctic Archipelago “until at least the Late Eocene,” a period that began some 40 million years ago.' Only appreciable in the context it was used. Unlike, ‘Gigantopithecus’ hair is too long for yowie’ which stands alone. As does 'The latter might be related to dolls’.

Then there’s the poster who notes that ‘many aboriginal cultures of Australia don’t seem to have a nautical bone in them’. And then goes on to speculate about ‘the sudden departure of the horse’ from North America ‘What was up there? Really determined paleo-herdsmen? One-way signs for horses? Or just a fossil record whose incompleteness misleads us?’

Then;
I can’t help but wonder, looking at that reported sleeping position and the camel knees, why was this evolved? Is it better than lying in a nest or on one’s back? My personal thought is that it may have evolved among many anthropoid primates in order the better escape from nocturnal predators. If you put yourself in this position you will find it to be easy to launch yourself forward into a running position.
I would think that this would be likely to evolve in Australia more than anywhere else because there are so many large anthrophagic carnivores (i.e., thylacosmiloids, crocodilians, Varanus prisca) there whereas in, say Mongolia, i can’t think of very many.
It’s not just the answers after all it’s a public forum, it’s the main article as well. For example;

Perhaps Yowies are merely evolved Kow Swamp hominids
Which were found to be well within the modern human range, weak, poor and lazy attempt to bring some credibility into this question. Or is he asking if the Yowie is an aboriginal?

Are the Yowies relatives of the Aborigines, misidentified and said to be covered with hair?
What? .

What can you say to that, where would you even start? It's as pathetic as it's bigoted.

“Yowies: Are They the Bigfoot of Patterson-Gimlin, the Sasquatch of John Green and the Neo-Giants of Ivan Sanderson?” (Well, it’s a working title. LOL.)

do you speculate that they will be the same species as Sasquatch,
Is he writing for a particular demographic do you think?

I think the likes of this will do more harm to you and any other genuine cryptozoologist than an army of creationists.
 
Eveyrone needs to remember that the mythology of a previously obscure semi-nomadic ribe of peoples from the Midle East is not the be-all and end-all of 'why and how we got here on planet Earth'. The fact that one form of it currently tends to dominate the mindset various people across the globe is entirely transitory ;)
 
the mythology of a previously obscure semi-nomadic ribe of peoples from the Midle East

I've never heard the Romans described quite like that before.
 
oldrover said:
..Only appreciable in the context it was used. Unlike, ‘Gigantopithecus’ hair is too long for yowie’ which stands alone. As does 'The latter might be related to dolls’.
Actually, that last is entirely appreciable in context - the whole sentence reads:
The psychology is that humans always have tales of giants, monsters and little people. The latter might be related to dolls. It is part of human imagination. Of course as the Floresians show, this doesn’t mean that actual creatures resembling them don’t exist or never existed.
Particularly telling last sentence, mirroring much of the discussion we're having over on the Indian Yeti Expedition thread.
 
Jerry_B said:
Eveyrone needs to remember that the mythology of a previously obscure semi-nomadic ribe of peoples from the Midle East is not the be-all and end-all of 'why and how we got here on planet Earth'. The fact that one form of it currently tends to dominate the mindset various people across the globe is entirely transitory ;)

Mythology (and hence religion, atheism, rationalism - all of which require _some_ leap of faith) is very important in how people interpret evidence. however. In fact, as pointed out above, this article incorpoates its own 'narrative' which could become a mythology in time.

As Forteans (or people with an interest on Fortean facts) surely we should respect that there is a continuum something like

a) events which are fully explainable by today's orthodox science,
|
V
b) events probably explainable by current science but where the facts are insufficient/vague so the resoluliton between conflicting explanantions cannot be achieved (Jack the Ripper, most UFO's
|
V
c) The facts are broadly are accepted but the science has not yet quite caught up (ball lightning, SHC,
|
V
d) Vague or culturally affected perceptions of something which is too rare or ephemeral to yet have a scientific explanation (Ghosts, alien encounters, timeslips)
|
V
e) The wholly odd. (Mysterious Bouncing Boings, rains of specific creatures, etc. etc.

Surely what we should be doing (if anything) is weeding out mythology as explanation and trying to discover the true explanation - which may of course involve new learning, new science. Time slips, for example, if they exist, must surely be capable of scientific explanation, but we can barely attempt the explanation as yet, even though serious (but entirely theoretical) mathematical models exist which suggest the possibility. And sometimes, of course, we need to discard existing doctrine to get to the answer.

The common objection to Christianity these days is that it has been responsible for millions of deaths and vast suffering. Well, yes. But then so are guns. As the US gun lobby has it, guns don't kill people, people kill people. On the other hand Christianity was successful in moderating the behaviour of people when it preached tolerance and devotion (I put forward the cultural achievements of the Christianised Saxon peoples in England from about 750 to 1066 as an example of such a transformation). After all, what part of 'thou shalt not kill' is so hard to understand?

Unfortunatly all human belief systems are burdened with terrible consequences of past. That would seem to be the human condition - after all, Science got us the atom bomb and many another horror. Sure, it didn't necessarily mean to.
 
My point was rather that it is just one mythology out of many, and there's no reason why it in particular should have any sort of carte blanche to define everything around us ;)
 
I still don't see the logic, dolls, as in toy dolls? I realise he/she is saying something similar to me, but dolls?
 
There's the idea that dolls in earlier ages ere less child playthings as opposed to life-sized faery fetishes (corn dolls fall sort of into this category.) A 1;1 scale model of little people.
 
There was some crap talked all round on that thread. I think they may have al gone to the 'Rex Gillroy' school of cryptozoology.
I wasgoing to comment on the 100% proof bollocks that was being posted but i realized it would take me all night!
 
Jerry_B said:
My point was rather that it is just one mythology out of many, and there's no reason why it in particular should have any sort of carte blanche to define everything around us ;)

Fair enough. An interesting point might be to compare Fortean experiences from countries with other traditions - Japan or China, say - and see if there are differences of perception.
 
Back
Top