Skip to main content
Log In | Register

TR Memescape


Topic: Ken Ham's New Completely Absolutely Scientific Diorama (Read 375 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Doobie Keebler
  • Needs a Life
  • Ridiculous Callipygous
  • 897

  • 335

Ken Ham's New Completely Absolutely Scientific Diorama
The only issue I have with it is that Ken doesn't mention if this diorama is based on Observational or Historical Science. Any insights Dave?

Can you imagine what it would be like to survive being attacked by a giant only to be chomped by a dinosaur?  :sadcheer:

At least the King not only has a Queen, it appears he was allowed a little slave nookie on the side. Very naughty. :cheer:








#AlternativeScienceFacts
"You know what uranium is, right? It's this thing called nuclear weapons. And other things. Like lots of things are done with uranium. Including some bad things. But nobody talks about that."

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
  • 4,410

  • 918

Re: Ken Ham's New Completely Absolutely Scientific Diorama
Reply #1
It's basically just fundy porn. They can't look at actual porn, so they get their naughty thrills by "educating themselves on the pre-Flood populace".
Truth is out of style

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
  • 4,410

  • 918

Re: Ken Ham's New Completely Absolutely Scientific Diorama
Reply #2
I can just see the preliminaries before they got this diorama built.

"They were really filthy and wicked back then." "Orly? Like how filthy and wicked?" "Well, since you ask..."

3 hours later: "We totally need a diorama of this. Just for educational purposes, you understand."
Truth is out of style

  • 9,896

  • 66

Re: Ken Ham's New Completely Absolutely Scientific Diorama
Reply #3
Lol

  • Fenrir
  • Needs a Life
  • 610

  • 191

Re: Ken Ham's New Completely Absolutely Scientific Diorama
Reply #4
It appears dinosaurs only had two limbs. Good to know.
It's what plants crave.

  • 582

  • 104

Re: Ken Ham's New Completely Absolutely Scientific Diorama
Reply #5
It's basically just fundy porn. They can't look at actual porn, so they get their naughty thrills by "educating themselves on the pre-Flood populace".
That would explain why no one could afford a shirt back then.

EDIT:
"ok, so toss in a dinosaur and a giant or whatever. Couple of slaves. Oh, and NONE of the dudes should be wearing shirts! yeah, just skimpy little loincloth thongs!"
"Hey boss, the arms of a dino snapped off, you want us to make a new one?"
"just toss the dino there, but make sure that EVERY dude has a rock hard 6 pack, and remember, NO SHIRTS!"
  • Last Edit: February 19, 2017, 06:52:20 AM by [Serious]

  • Faid
  • Needs a Life
  • 3,794

  • 712

Re: Ken Ham's New Completely Absolutely Scientific Diorama
Reply #6
Guys that's a Carnotaur. It's got like stubby lil' arms.

It's not like that thing will lose the Kitsch award by being scientifically accurate, though.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Doobie Keebler
  • Needs a Life
  • Ridiculous Callipygous
  • 897

  • 335

Re: Ken Ham's New Completely Absolutely Scientific Diorama
Reply #7
"You know what uranium is, right? It's this thing called nuclear weapons. And other things. Like lots of things are done with uranium. Including some bad things. But nobody talks about that."

  • MikeS
  • Needs a Life
  • 1,547

  • 277

Re: Ken Ham's New Completely Absolutely Scientific Diorama
Reply #8

  • Faid
  • Needs a Life
  • 3,794

  • 712

Re: Ken Ham's New Completely Absolutely Scientific Diorama
Reply #9
I'm still trying to make out what the animals in the middle door picture are supposed to be.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • fredbear
  • Needs a Life
  • Militantly Confused
  • 701

  • 129

Re: Ken Ham's New Completely Absolutely Scientific Diorama
Reply #10
I'm still trying to make out what the animals in the middle door picture are supposed to be.
Plesiosaurus?
"...without considering any evidence at all - that my views are more likely - on average - to be correct.  Because the mainstream is almost always wrong" - Dave Hawkins

  • 7

  • 2

Re: Ken Ham's New Completely Absolutely Scientific Diorama
Reply #11
The bald guy standing in front of the middle door looks like he's straining to take a massive dump.

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
  • 4,410

  • 918

Re: Ken Ham's New Completely Absolutely Scientific Diorama
Reply #12
And what's with all the garden gnomes with shields?
Truth is out of style

  • Faid
  • Needs a Life
  • 3,794

  • 712

Re: Ken Ham's New Completely Absolutely Scientific Diorama
Reply #13
Also, it appears that many of the audience are identical twins. Probably has something to do with the Perfect Genome people had those days.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.