Am I a complete idiot or does that not make sense given the TRex's tiny arms? Splitting things open only helps when you intend to HOLD the thing you split open and eat out out of it, right?
Futhermore, wouldn't they get stuck in his teeth?
Even further than that, wouldn't it take an 'arc' -sized load of coconuts to make a nice snack for such a large creature?
I'm not a biologist, so help me to understand how ludicrous this is on a scale of 1 (terribly ludicrous) to 10 (substance trip gone very very wrong).
2007-05-28 16:06:45 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
It could grip it by the husk.
2007-05-28 16:08:51 · answer #1 · answered by Doc Occam 7 · 4⤊ 5⤋
Please take the time to read. Honestly, I am a Catholic priest, and the Creationsist museum is a clear symbol of a gross misunderstanding of the Holy Scriptures. For a year now I have been on this site reading these questions about creation and evolution. I wish people would take the time to study and understand what real theologians, scholars, and scientists are saying and teaching abou it. Yet, the general populace seems to be satisfied with a badly edited and watered down version from the news. And even the news does not seek to report the arguement objectivly. All is reported for the sake of controversy believing that is what the people really want. Sorry, but what I see being said really upsets me. And I cannot stand all the half baked opinions people offer and the insults to boot.
To answer your question and teach a little. I will say this. Are you sure they are saying that the T-Rex is splitting the coconut or that primitive man used T-Rex teeth to split them? I think the later is what the people of the Creationist museum are saying. Still, I am not sure unless I speak with them face to face.
Anyway, to help us all with the controversy I offer what I was taught. First, Evolution and Creationism are NOT opposed to each other. Evolution and Creationism are studying the same subject; the beginning of existence. However, each are asking different questions to study it. They are NOT asking the same question and neither will get the same answer. Evolution is asking "how" our existence came about and "how" we have the varied species we have from past to present. Creationists (especially the biblical authors of Genesis) are asking "why" creation came about and "why" we are in the condition we are now. Neither contradicts the other because the answers that arise from "how" or "why" are different and specific to their field. They are not meant to cross and confront each other. Nor would it be helpful or proper to do so.
Also, the people of the Creationist museum fail to realize that Genesis is a myth and therefore cannot be taken literally. Now do not missunderstand me. Just because I call it a myth (as biblical scholars do) does not mean it is untrue. Myths are a literary device used to lead or point to a truth bigger than the story. The symbolism and exaggerations within it are expressions or emphasis of the truth they are telling. Myth (also philosophy and theology) is the only method proper in studying something beyond the scope of science. Science must use empirical evidence and for science to go beyond this is improper for it is incapable of studying the truth. However, myths, philosophy, and theology can study the truth for they do no necessarily rely on empirical evidence. Therefore, their field of scope is larger and can study what is beyond our senses.
Yet, when the religious try and study the truth of Scripture without taking into account the genre a particular book is written in (e.g.) myth, historical, poetic, prophetic, and apocalyptic, then they distort the intended truth. And when this happens you get the farsical fiasco like the Creationist museum. I hope this helps you. Sorry it is so long. May the Lord bless and keep you. May the light of His face shine upon you.
God's and your beast of burden
Fr. john
2007-05-28 16:52:54 · answer #2 · answered by som 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I'm with Laptop, we need an eleven.
I kind of want to go to that museum, actually. It's pretty close to where I live, and I think it'd be a trip. I really want to ask someone: if there was no death before the fall, where did the loin cloths the little robot kids are wearing come from? I saw the picture of them playing by some dinosaurs (?!?) and I just died laughing...
2007-05-28 16:12:35 · answer #3 · answered by N 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
On a scale of 1 - 10 that measures the "ludicrousness" of an idea, creationism falls somewhere around 12. To go and build a museum dedicated to it is somewhere between 15 and "just plain moronic."
2007-05-28 16:12:07 · answer #4 · answered by Digital Haruspex 5 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Obviously a 1 (ludicrous), man, I mean that whole museum is a 1 including the people who built it and work there.
I try not to think about it though as this misinformation drives me crazy. I mean whats next a museum showing that humans used to eat copper and drink lava as their main diet?
2007-05-28 16:12:06 · answer #5 · answered by b_dubs_3030 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Sharp tooth are many times for biting off meat. on account that cows are herbivores they do no longer want sharp tooth. I assure you, although, it hurts if a cow ever by twist of destiny bites down on your hand!
2016-10-09 01:01:06 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would say that notion tops off at about 11 or 12. These creationists must have access to a warehouse full of mind-altering drugs.
2007-05-28 16:11:17 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
This is ludicrous. His teeth were obviously made for chewing bran muffins.
2007-05-28 16:09:54 · answer #8 · answered by ? 5 · 5⤊ 0⤋
yea, that seems right. I think I saw that on the Flintstones...here's another fun fact. Did you know that god created birds beaks to play records.
2007-05-28 16:26:49 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Does it go to 11?
2007-05-28 16:09:15 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
what an utterly ridiculous notion
2007-05-28 18:19:32 · answer #11 · answered by The Tourist 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋