InFO Digger
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 1 de Ene, 2023
I never thought I'd see a day where Eric Hovind of all people would be the reasonable one in the conversation. Kent truly is the eternal fucktard
Creationists - Jack Chick, Kent Hovind, etc.
- Iniciador del tema DykesDykesChina
- Fecha de inicio
-
🔧 Site instability resolved. You can report double-posts and broken attachments. For bigger issues, use the Technical Grievances thread.
🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa. -
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Registrado
- 13 de Sep, 2019
I thought Kent was the creationist museum in Ky guy. This DAL shit is astoundingly gayer.
- Registrado
- 24 de Feb, 2019
He used to have his park in FL then it got siezed and shut down. Now he moved with it to another state. He already has had a kid die there by drowning and the father is so thralled by him that he didnt press charges.
- Registrado
- 26 de Sep, 2021
Out of interest was the dead kid the same as the kid reported to have "gone missing" in a previous post?
If not....has the kid like been found yet or is this a question I dont wanna know the answer to?
- Registrado
- 24 de Feb, 2019
After more looking seems missing kid was the one with the pedophile who is safely at home and his parents are discussing legal recourse.
The dead kid is a different one.
- Registrado
- 26 de Sep, 2021
Wait WHAT?!
Fucking hell I missed that bit in the.....wait HE KNOWINGLY LET THE KID FUCKER JUMP INTO BED WITH A KID AT HIS PROPERTY?!
Christ almighty how the fuck do you go from scamming dumb fuck fundies and being callled out on youtube 1.0 to......fucking this?!
- Registrado
- 24 de Feb, 2019
He actually fought that since the house was on property yet not a part of DAL that technically it was not on DAL property....
He seriously likes to simp for pedophiles so much that it makes you wonder about him.
- Registrado
- 28 de Dic, 2014
It is the lolcow cycle. For some reason, all lolcows eventually end up here, regardless of ideology or any position on the political spectrum. It's like lolcow traits are generally indicative of some more fundamental evil.
- Registrado
- 12 de Jun, 2019
Tge one good (alleged) thing I can say about Jack chicken (other than He predicted Clown world albeit was off a bit but a few details) was that the man was (supposedly) a Friday the 13th fan. I can't remember exactly where I read this cause it was so long ago, but I swear it was a real article.
Someone actually got a chance to visit Jack in the compound where he lived and ran chick publications. And upon arriving what he saw was that Jack had a stack of Friday the 13th video tapes on his shelf...though said journo never got any clarification if it was jacks personal collection, or if it was material for a burning the congregation was planning.
Still if it was Jack's personal selection it kinda makes sense. After all the rules of slasher movies dictate if you have pre martial sex, do drugs or really do anything immoral or indicent than you pay the price by ending up perforated by a maniac in a mask. And the final girl survivor is almost always the one female of the group who DIDNT engage in any salacious or deviant behavior.
Really I'm surprised pure flix hasn't revived the old school slasher formula for their movies. Then again, "Bible" camp blood just doesn't quite have the same ring to it.
Someone actually got a chance to visit Jack in the compound where he lived and ran chick publications. And upon arriving what he saw was that Jack had a stack of Friday the 13th video tapes on his shelf...though said journo never got any clarification if it was jacks personal collection, or if it was material for a burning the congregation was planning.
Still if it was Jack's personal selection it kinda makes sense. After all the rules of slasher movies dictate if you have pre martial sex, do drugs or really do anything immoral or indicent than you pay the price by ending up perforated by a maniac in a mask. And the final girl survivor is almost always the one female of the group who DIDNT engage in any salacious or deviant behavior.
Really I'm surprised pure flix hasn't revived the old school slasher formula for their movies. Then again, "Bible" camp blood just doesn't quite have the same ring to it.
PoppyFizz
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 30 de Sep, 2020
A few years ago while grocery shopping at Walmart, I stumbled into an older gentleman handing out these church pamphlets. "This is from the lord" he said handing me his copies. To my surprise what did I find amongst the papers? A Chick Tract. I instantly recognized what it was and my face was beaming in excitement. So much so, the old man handed me two more. As I continued shopping I found a couple stray ones just lying about. Fast forward to present day after routinely vising the store every Thursday morning and scouring the aisles for lose tracts, I have collected over 200 unique tracts. Here's a couple of photos of my collection.
Última edición por un moderador:
- Registrado
- 28 de Dic, 2014
It pisses me off I lost my collection of these in a move years ago. They always used to be at the laundromat and in pay phones (when those existed).
Frenzy of Sharks
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 23 de Jul, 2024
I know I'm late on this but Jack Chick is a name I haven't heard in a long time.
I remember reading these comics for a bit and they're just as I expected them to be.
I'd rather watch Bibleman to be honest.
Creationist lolcows are a favorite type of old school lolcow of mine because they were one of my first instructions to what a lolcow was aside from Chris-Chan.
Has it been that long.
Frenzy of Sharks
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 23 de Jul, 2024
Probably some classic Creationist cringe.
Here is the Ark Encounter, a life sized replica of Noah's Ark. Ken Ham suckered a small Kentucky town from hundreds of thousands of dollars only in the hope of generating tourism only for the town to not get much back on their investment and the tourist spot is a hard sell. There was also a legal despite between Ark Encounter and the insurance company over water damage while ago.
Here is the Ark Encounter, a life sized replica of Noah's Ark. Ken Ham suckered a small Kentucky town from hundreds of thousands of dollars only in the hope of generating tourism only for the town to not get much back on their investment and the tourist spot is a hard sell. There was also a legal despite between Ark Encounter and the insurance company over water damage while ago.
- Registrado
- 1 de Jul, 2017
The problem seems to be Ark Encounter is some distance away from his other venture, the Creation Museum, which is no doubt bad for visitor numbers. But I have some respect for Ken Ham, because he does make a slick product despite holding to silly beliefs and seems to have jettisoned a lot of the wackier creationist beliefs like the craters on the Moon being made during Noah's flood (the "fountains of the deep" part in Genesis) or the Paluxy tracks in Texas being made by giants (the Nephilim) hunting dinosaurs or whatever. You can read his creationist "science journal" and find weird shit like actual geologists and ph.Ds trying to reinterpret evidence in favor of the world being 6,000 years old. My favorite are the astronomy and cosmology ones because their arguments are just downright bizarre.
Ken Ham is like the inverse of Kent Hovind, who uses all sorts of dumb arguments, writes long and rambling papers that come off as written by a druggie, is a sovcit lunatic convicted felon, and runs a theme park co-owned by a child molestor where two kids have drowned. Ark Encounter actually looks well-designed even the exhibits are silly, Hovind's Dinosaur Adventure Land looks creepy even on the outside and is straight up dangerous to your health. So Kent Hovind will always be the number one creationist lolcow in my book, outside of maybe the classic Youtube loons like VenomFangX or NephilimFree.
- Registrado
- 27 de Dic, 2023
Damn now this really is some classic creationist cringe. I remember ads for that playing while my dad was watching Fox News years ago. Its existence doesn't really bother me but the fact that it was funded and subsidized by both local and the Kentucky state government flies in the face of the US constitution. It's no different than if some shitlibs in a blue state used their government to subsidize an Islamic center or a Buddhist temple.
Frenzy of Sharks
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 23 de Jul, 2024
So one concept I remember back in the day is the concept of Intelligent Design, the idea that things like Evolution and the Laws of Physics (like Thermodynamics) are reality because there is a force that made them to be (in this case a deity).
A big reason why this explanation for the existence of everything fails is that its proponents advocate it under the impression that because life on Earth is a thing and the Universe as we know it is so "finely tuned" because there must exist a merciful creator that wants us to exist. The thing that is missing from here is that the Creationists that advocate for this theory fail to understand is that most of the Universe is a death void (black holes and pulsars emitting ionizing radiation, many of the planets that we've found so far (including exoplanets) are uninhabitable, and space is filled with deadly cosmic radiation that you wouldn't be able to survive in without a space suit) and most importantly the people that advocate for Intelligent Design decided to start out with a conclusion (everything exists so therefore God must have done it) and end with a hypothesis (does existence rely on an outside intelligent force) which is not how the Scientific Method works. It's the same classic trap that many Creationists make for themselves that is known as the 'God of the Gaps' fallacy where if you don't know the answer to something, therefore it must be God that did it (imagine having the math question One plus One being presented to you on a test and if you don't know the answer then you decide to choose 'God' as an answer to that math question).
Intelligent Design at the time was a crackpot pseudoscientific theory as a response to the fact that public schools in America legally cannot teach any specific religious doctrine (the First Amendment prohibits the state from officially establishing or promoting any kind of religion, hence why there is no 'Church of America') so a lot of religious groups at the time wanted to throw anything at the wall that could stick to justify teaching the Genesis creation narrative in public schools because something like Evolution gets in the way of teaching the narrative that the world was created in seven days in a public classroom setting.
There's also something Intelligent Design has in common with another pseudoscientific theory which is Astrology (the ancestor of Astronomy and Psychology). Astrology is a belief that the heavenly bodies you see in the night sky must be the work of gods and the positions of the planets and the Sun must influence your personality (this is how people in ancient times explained the Universe around them and how they explained human psychology back then). Now we know why much of the Universe is the way it is thanks to objective observations and human psychology is now more easily explained without the need of involving religion. But despite this, there's people who still believe in Astrology because they claim it to be true when really believing that the stars have anything to do with your life choices and personality is entirely dependent on faith.
Now the question remains, what came before the Universe existed? The answer is no one really knows. Could it be a deity that made everything? Maybe, or it could be something else entirely where the explanation doesn't require the presence of a deity (we may never really know for certain anytime soon). But one thing is for sure, you shouldn't believe in something just on blind faith alone and solid concrete evidence must be present to prove that something is true. For something to be objectively true, it always leads back to the 'Pics or it didn't happened' meme.
A big reason why this explanation for the existence of everything fails is that its proponents advocate it under the impression that because life on Earth is a thing and the Universe as we know it is so "finely tuned" because there must exist a merciful creator that wants us to exist. The thing that is missing from here is that the Creationists that advocate for this theory fail to understand is that most of the Universe is a death void (black holes and pulsars emitting ionizing radiation, many of the planets that we've found so far (including exoplanets) are uninhabitable, and space is filled with deadly cosmic radiation that you wouldn't be able to survive in without a space suit) and most importantly the people that advocate for Intelligent Design decided to start out with a conclusion (everything exists so therefore God must have done it) and end with a hypothesis (does existence rely on an outside intelligent force) which is not how the Scientific Method works. It's the same classic trap that many Creationists make for themselves that is known as the 'God of the Gaps' fallacy where if you don't know the answer to something, therefore it must be God that did it (imagine having the math question One plus One being presented to you on a test and if you don't know the answer then you decide to choose 'God' as an answer to that math question).
Intelligent Design at the time was a crackpot pseudoscientific theory as a response to the fact that public schools in America legally cannot teach any specific religious doctrine (the First Amendment prohibits the state from officially establishing or promoting any kind of religion, hence why there is no 'Church of America') so a lot of religious groups at the time wanted to throw anything at the wall that could stick to justify teaching the Genesis creation narrative in public schools because something like Evolution gets in the way of teaching the narrative that the world was created in seven days in a public classroom setting.
There's also something Intelligent Design has in common with another pseudoscientific theory which is Astrology (the ancestor of Astronomy and Psychology). Astrology is a belief that the heavenly bodies you see in the night sky must be the work of gods and the positions of the planets and the Sun must influence your personality (this is how people in ancient times explained the Universe around them and how they explained human psychology back then). Now we know why much of the Universe is the way it is thanks to objective observations and human psychology is now more easily explained without the need of involving religion. But despite this, there's people who still believe in Astrology because they claim it to be true when really believing that the stars have anything to do with your life choices and personality is entirely dependent on faith.
Now the question remains, what came before the Universe existed? The answer is no one really knows. Could it be a deity that made everything? Maybe, or it could be something else entirely where the explanation doesn't require the presence of a deity (we may never really know for certain anytime soon). But one thing is for sure, you shouldn't believe in something just on blind faith alone and solid concrete evidence must be present to prove that something is true. For something to be objectively true, it always leads back to the 'Pics or it didn't happened' meme.
Última edición:
- Registrado
- 23 de Jul, 2019
>ark encounter has water damage
Frenzy of Sharks
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 23 de Jul, 2024
Ironic, isn't it?
They've built a replica of a legendary vessel that was meant to save its animal and human inhabitants from a great flood that made the world into the movie Waterworld and it couldn't even handle some Kentucky rain with Ken Ham being a shady businessman with his dispute with an insurance company.
- Registrado
- 1 de Jul, 2017
Actually that's just the anthropic principle. Creationists and intelligent design proponentsists of course agree with it, but it's still an open question in actual cosmology and science about why our universe seems fine-tuned for life. You're also presenting a really strawman version of it. The argument is that physical constants of our universe like the strength of the four forces (especially gravity), the ratio of matter to antimatter in the Big Bang, or how nucleosynthesis works are precise enough they permit the formation of complex atoms and molecules. Were things a little different, it's very dubious if stars or planets could form at all, let alone life. Earth itself is of course a very rare world too of which a true Earth twin (habitable zone, large moon, stable star, not tidally locked etc.) should not naturally form in many cases, which explains the absence of intelligent alien life within the nearby universe.