May 25, 2006

The Creation Evidence Museum

Some of Carl Baugh's claims:

1. Before the Flood, the earth was surrounded by hydrogen which was so cold it was metallic and this collapsed when God shouted. This is nonsense. It is impossible that such a surrounding cloud of hydrogen could ever be cold enough, especially in such proximity to the earth.
2. People could hear the 'singing' of the stars before the Flood. Apparently the metallic hydrogen (which could not have existed) enabled this to happen.
3. People could 'feel' the time before the Flood.
4. People can affect radioactive decay rates with their minds. There is absolutely no evidence for this.
5. Eggs do not hatch outside the earth's magnetic field. Baugh claimed that NASA did an experiment demonstrating this. Absolute nonsense.
6. Granites (which contain radioactive elements) are not exploding because they are in 'perfect balance'. However, radioactive elements do not normally 'explode' of course - that requires very special conditions which are not easy to arrange (if it were otherwise, every terrorist group would have atomic bombs!). Even pure radioactive elements will not 'explode', so the fact that granite does not has nothing to do with 'perfect balance' of the granite.
7. He argues that, in some way, radioactive minerals align themselves with the magnetic field, which is nonsense.
8. He says that people were smarter before the Flood, attributing this to a supposedly higher oxygen pressure. There is absolutely no evidence that high oxygen levels would make people more intelligent. He talked nonsense about 'four molecules of oxygen', linking this to his subsequent theories about oxygen saturation. Furthermore, there is no basis for his extravagant claims about the curative effects of high oxygen pressures - if it worked as he claims, paraplegics would be lining up to be treated (many hospitals have suitable hyperbaric chambers).

Above is the proof discovered in 1934 by Mr. A.M. Coffee. It's claim to fame is that it is a human footprint in stone that was presumed to be over 225 million years old.
Of course, this means that humans either lived 225 million years ago, which is impossible since Adam and Eve were born around 6,000 years ago, or that the stone is 6,000 years old tops, which means that the earth is in fact 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs and humans lived together....I think this is what it means. Even Answers in Genesis has a major problem with this imbecile.

The Creation Evidence Museum has all the answers here.


  1. I've encountered people like this before. PEople who are so frighteningly brainwashed that rather than admit flaws in the beliefs in which they have ZERO EVIDENCE, they decide to call fault to the scientific process instead.

    Even more frightening is that people like this actually have jobs and operate motorvehicles.

  2. Oh and PS-

    Hacks like this usually explain the dinosaur problem by saying that God made the earth with dinosaur bones IN it just to make us wonder.

    God is so funny. Whatta trickster! No wonder they love the guy!

  3. 45% of Americans are YECs (Young Earth Creationists). The think the Flintstones is loosely based on real history.

    And you are right. Anything that doesn't make sense, is easily explained by 3 words: God did it.

  4. I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said this:

    Big Bang Theory: God Spoke and BANG- It Happened.

    No other sticker I've seen so far encapsulates the utter lack of critical thinking on the part of fundies.

  5. The good news, of course, is that our cave-dwelling ancestors went bowling and had cute wives like Betty Rubble.

    The footprint in the rock is pretty neat. But the Virgin Mary's face on a toasted Triscuit... priceless.

  6. That's a strange "foot-print"
    Why are all the toes except for the first one exactly the same size and why is there no arch?

    Answer: It's not a real foot-print.

  7. That footprint looks pretty stilezed to me. Bottom line is it LOOKS fake.

  8. Your diatribe would go off a lot better if you didn't resort to name calling and instead site credible or at least semi credible sources for your claims. Name calling is the last resort of those who have no real proof of their arguments.

  9. Dan, you have a problem because I called an imbecile an imbecile?
    Most of the post is a copy and paste job.
    I think the point is pretty clear.

    Name calling is the last resort of those who have no real proof of their arguments.
    There is nothing but proof that makes this guy either wilfully ignorant, or just an imbecile. If someone looks up to the sky and says the sun is only about 2 miles from the earth, and he knows it, I think it name calling is just fine, and proof isn't needed on my part.