VenomFangX

[LeopJag]

www.youtube.com/user/VenomFangX

VFX is back...if anyone cares to discuss..

he makes me embarrassed to be Canadian...

[Derdadort]

Yeah...
Did you watch the trailer for that genesis-movie?

[creature386]

There are countless people like him, no matter where they come from.

[LeopJag]

Dec 20, 2013 14:03:59 GMT 5 Derdadort said:

Yeah...
Did you watch the trailer for that genesis-movie?

I haven't actually...

so who is the latest creationist wackjob on youtube these days? the last one i saw was "NephilumFree",,, yea i haven't been following this hardly at all for quite some time....

[Derdadort]

Well, you didn't miss anything...
They're actually producing a 3D movie about the first book of the bible. In an artistic point of view not that bad, but I simply don't get why they had to animate extant animals, too?
I'm really happy not to life in America (nothing against our American forum members).

[creature386]

Dec 21, 2013 14:54:30 GMT 5 Derdadort said:

I simply don't get why they had to animate extant animals, too?

Maybe they wanted it to be fully animated, they even animated the landscapes.

[Vodmeister]

DarkMatter's satirical critique of Noah's Arc:



Brought out this response from our beloved VenomFangX:

Let's look at all the problem in this video.

First problem is there wasn't 6 million animals on the ark; Noah only had to take 2 of each kind, not 2 of each species. There are many species of finch, Noah only had to take 2 finches which would produce all the species once they got off the ark. That reduced to amount of animals dramatically, since there are only about 10 to 20 thousand different kinds of animals.

The next problem the tally of the animals; Noah did not need to bring every kind of insect, because they do not breath with their nostrils. Noah was only instructed to take animals that breath with their nostrils, because insects can survive a flood just fine on floating debris. Many insects are buoyant, as well as their eggs too.

Next it shows a lion eat another animal, which is wrong, because all the animals were vegetarian until after the flood, as per Genesis 1 which says that the fruits and veggies were meat for all life.

Next it shows a giraffe hit its head on the entrance, but Noah would have taken babies.

Next it says Noah could not bring enough food, however if Noah took babies, which eat far less, and all the animals were vegetarian, stocks of grain and other dry vegetarian foods could be stored.

Next it says the elephants would require 365,000 pounds of food, which is not true; Noah would have taken baby elephants which eat far less. As for water, Noah would have had a moon pool in the ark would allowed for easy access to plenty of water, as well as a place to dump waste.

Next, the author again makes the error of assuming the lions eat meat, which is simply not true.

Next it says babies are not possible to bring because they would have to travel, this is assuming the way animals are spread out today is how they were spread out in the beginning, which is simply an unnecessary assumption.

Next it says that mount everest would need to be covered, which is not true, since everest would have been created by the flood by the clashing of the sliding hydroplates. The Bible says the valleys sank and the mountains arose as a result of the flood, so everest would not have existed before the flood. So the altitude of the flood waters the author says is wrong.

Next the author makes the mistake of assuming the amount of oxygen in the preflood world was the same as today, we know that is wrong because of the size of fossil insects which would have required triple the amount of oxygen to reach those sizes and be able to breath.

As for ocean life, yes most ocean life would and did die, the amount of diversity of ocean life today is greatly reduced to that of the past due to a mass extinction event (the flood).

The author then asks what will the animals eat when they get off the ark? We read that the plant life had already began to grow back, and animals also did begin to eat each other. This would have been fine since animals procreate quickly.

As for one species not being enough to produce other species, that's absurd; genetic diversity would have been greater in the beginning since all the species derive from the originals, also it should be noted that evolutionists believe all life came from a single ancestor, so clearly even evolutionists believe one species is enough to produce all the other species. The fact the author says there would not be enough genetic diversity to produce new species proves evolution can't be true, since no new species can be created when there is no genetic diversity, so how then did we ever get new species?

As for genetic defects; defects are the result of genetic decay and entropy, which the farther back you go, the less years of genetic entropy you have. The closer to the beginning, the closer to the originals, which had no genetic problems at all.

As for why God would cause a flood and not just stop everyone's hearts, it is because a miracle would not leave evidence; a flood that destroyed the world would and did. That is why the world is covered 3/4 in water, and why the 1/4 that is land is made of strata layers laid down by water full of dead things buried rapidly.

Everything the author lists is either a strawman, a misrepresentation of what the Bible actually teaches, or an assumption based on how the world is today, which is wrong.

The Bible warns not to be eager to be a teacher, since teachers will be held responsible for how they influence people. The author of this video will answer to God for deceiving hundreds of thousands of people.

[creature386]

"Kind" is a taxonomic term, I learnt something new.

[theropod]

Mar 19, 2015 9:53:16 GMT 5 Vodmeister said:

DarkMatter's satirical critique of Noah's Arc:



Brought out this response from our beloved VenomFangX:

Let's look at all the problem in this video.

First problem is there wasn't 6 million animals on the ark; Noah only had to take 2 of each kind, not 2 of each species. There are many species of finch, Noah only had to take 2 finches which would produce all the species once they got off the ark. That reduced to amount of animals dramatically, since there are only about 10 to 20 thousand different kinds of animals.

The next problem the tally of the animals; Noah did not need to bring every kind of insect, because they do not breath with their nostrils. Noah was only instructed to take animals that breath with their nostrils, because insects can survive a flood just fine on floating debris. Many insects are buoyant, as well as their eggs too.

Next it shows a lion eat another animal, which is wrong, because all the animals were vegetarian until after the flood, as per Genesis 1 which says that the fruits and veggies were meat for all life.

Next it shows a giraffe hit its head on the entrance, but Noah would have taken babies.

Next it says Noah could not bring enough food, however if Noah took babies, which eat far less, and all the animals were vegetarian, stocks of grain and other dry vegetarian foods could be stored.

Next it says the elephants would require 365,000 pounds of food, which is not true; Noah would have taken baby elephants which eat far less. As for water, Noah would have had a moon pool in the ark would allowed for easy access to plenty of water, as well as a place to dump waste.

Next, the author again makes the error of assuming the lions eat meat, which is simply not true.

Next it says babies are not possible to bring because they would have to travel, this is assuming the way animals are spread out today is how they were spread out in the beginning, which is simply an unnecessary assumption.

Next it says that mount everest would need to be covered, which is not true, since everest would have been created by the flood by the clashing of the sliding hydroplates. The Bible says the valleys sank and the mountains arose as a result of the flood, so everest would not have existed before the flood. So the altitude of the flood waters the author says is wrong.

Next the author makes the mistake of assuming the amount of oxygen in the preflood world was the same as today, we know that is wrong because of the size of fossil insects which would have required triple the amount of oxygen to reach those sizes and be able to breath.

As for ocean life, yes most ocean life would and did die, the amount of diversity of ocean life today is greatly reduced to that of the past due to a mass extinction event (the flood).

The author then asks what will the animals eat when they get off the ark? We read that the plant life had already began to grow back, and animals also did begin to eat each other. This would have been fine since animals procreate quickly.

As for one species not being enough to produce other species, that's absurd; genetic diversity would have been greater in the beginning since all the species derive from the originals, also it should be noted that evolutionists believe all life came from a single ancestor, so clearly even evolutionists believe one species is enough to produce all the other species. The fact the author says there would not be enough genetic diversity to produce new species proves evolution can't be true, since no new species can be created when there is no genetic diversity, so how then did we ever get new species?

As for genetic defects; defects are the result of genetic decay and entropy, which the farther back you go, the less years of genetic entropy you have. The closer to the beginning, the closer to the originals, which had no genetic problems at all.

As for why God would cause a flood and not just stop everyone's hearts, it is because a miracle would not leave evidence; a flood that destroyed the world would and did. That is why the world is covered 3/4 in water, and why the 1/4 that is land is made of strata layers laid down by water full of dead things buried rapidly.

Everything the author lists is either a strawman, a misrepresentation of what the Bible actually teaches, or an assumption based on how the world is today, which is wrong.

The Bible warns not to be eager to be a teacher, since teachers will be held responsible for how they influence people. The author of this video will answer to God for deceiving hundreds of thousands of people.

Just priceless. A fanatical christian actually resorting to evolution (although in a totally screwed way) in order to explain how Noah managed to fit all those animals on the ark, and even criticising atheists for not accounting for it in the context of parodising the bible…

[creature386]

Thinking about it, he would have been better off if he said "God simply created new species".

[Vodmeister]

Mar 20, 2015 0:07:31 GMT 5 creature386 said:

Thinking about it, he would have been better off if he said "God simply created new species".

Which leads me to question, why did God even need Noah to gather one of every "kind" of animal anyway? I mean, he is God after all. As an omnipotent omniscient being, he can create as much of anything at will.

[creature386]

Then his argument suddenly sounds more intelligent. XD
Has anybody actually understood how much the biblical God has been weakened since the end of the paradise? I mean, a lot of suffering is happening even though God didn't even want carnivores, so it looks like the snake incident weakened God greatly. What do you think? This is relevant for the question why he didn't create new animals.

[theropod]

Mar 20, 2015 0:23:10 GMT 5 Vodmeister said:

Mar 20, 2015 0:07:31 GMT 5 creature386 said:

Thinking about it, he would have been better off if he said "God simply created new species".

Which leads me to question, why did God even need Noah to gather one of every "kind" of animal anyway? I mean, he is God after all. As an omnipotent omniscient being, he can create as much of anything at will.

Because VenomFangX would have some sort of problem with it if god just used magic, don’t ask me why: I couldn’t really follow his reasoning, but it seems it was so compelling that it made him believe in evolution, even greatly accellerated evolution that somehow works with just two specimens able reproduce with each other respectively, and only after the flood of course

It is hilarious on so many levels, it seems the harder creationists/religious fanatics try to disprove scientific logic, the deeper they get into the sh…

[Vodmeister]

Indeed, hilarious how VenomfangX, a dedicated young earth creationist, so desperately wants to prove evolution while rubbishing the ideas of God simply using magic. The irony smacks one right through the monitor.


Some people are too stupid to realize their own stupidity... fascinating

[theropod]

Mar 20, 2015 3:00:42 GMT 5 Vodmeister said:

Indeed, hilarious how VenomfangX, a dedicated young earth creationist, so desperately wants to prove evolution while rubbishing the ideas of God simply using magic. The irony smacks one right through the monitor.


Some people are too stupid to realize their own stupidity... fascinating

And it's creationists who think evolution is rubbish because they don't see it happening. Now this creationist actually proposes hundreds of species derived from a single one in less than 6000 years! Far quicker than actual evolution, and yet for some reason actual evolution can't work…why exactly?

The funny thing is, in all the laughable argumenta brought forth by creationists against specific scientific findings that one way or another support evolution, I have yet to see one that actually tries to disprove evolution itself.
Obviously such an argument would be BS nevertheless, but isn't it peculiar how these people go on and on about how they think carbon dating doesn't work, or how some stories from the bible aren't actually impossible if you make enough assumptions that are either impossible or hypocritical, but never actually produced even as much as a proper excuse for why anyone would ratherr believe thhe universe is 6000 years old and was created by an omnipotent bloodthirsty dictator?