The working title of my new, perpetually-ongoing series will be Conservapedia: real or troll? The only way it won’t be perpetual is if Conservapedia decides to stop posting nonsense.
The site features a sidebar with the heading In the News: what the MSM isn’t fully covering. The following bit was featured there in the past couple days.
Expert says that the discovery of a 20-year long rainfall in Ireland points to the Great Flood of the Bible being historical.
Do Conservapedia’s moderators actually engage any brain cells before they post and/or approve this stuff? More likely, they see some snippet that validates their worldview and greenlight it before giving it full consideration.
Let us break this thing down just a bit. The linked article cites the “ancient Annals of the Four Masters” which supposedly records the history from Noah’s Flood to the present day. This 20-year rainfall is recorded as occurring the exact same year as the Biblical Flood, as calculated by young-earthers using the Bible to determine the date of Old Tesetament events.
Unless they are just going on an end run around all logic by saying that God inspired this “Four Masters” bit, then there needed to be people around to witness and record this 20-year rainfall. But, and here’s the tricky bit, those same people who witnessed and recorded the 20-year rain would have been wiped out by Noah’s Flood along with whatever record they left behind.
It hurts my brain just to think about how anyone can think this is rationally possible. The Bible is easy enough because you can just say “well, no one recorded what Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham and Joseph did. But God told Moses or whoever later on.”
I won’t deny that parts of this “Annals of the Four Masters” may very well be true and useful as a historical document. But if you’re going to tell me that an account, whether written or oral, survived a flood that destroyed the whole earth leaving eight people alive thousands of miles away, then I’m just going to shake my head and laugh.