There are a few things on this sign which confuse me.
1) It says "...a very long, flexible tongue! This adaption enables giraffes to reach leaves...."
In what possible way can a God-given immutable attribute be considered an "adaption"? Do you want me to believe in creation or don't you?
2) "...its closest living relative the okapi."
Two things here:
One: saying "living relative" implies other species have become extinct in the past which is really only possible if one doesn't subscribe to the idea of fossils being tricks of the devil or planted by God to test our faith. (The only other notion I can think of off-hand is that, against God's express wishes, Noah neglected to take all the other giraffe relatives into the Ark and they drowned. Seriously, what a jerk).
But two: how can any species be related to any other species if they were all created on the spot, as it were? It makes no sense! There's no common ancestor, so they aren't related. That seems fairly plain.
3) The giraffe subspecies. I get God making different species, that's fine. But why make nine different subspecies of giraffe?? They can't have, you know, changed into subspecies by themselves from one original giraffe because that's just stupid. So they must have all been made like that right from the start. I'm supposed to believe that God had so much free time after making all the millions of other animals that he went "hey, you know what, I'm gonna make nine different versions of this one. It'll be great. I'll give this one squiggly spots, and this one big blocky spots...OOOH, five horns on this one!! Sweet!" ??
However, I noticed that all their giraffes have names starting with G. Because they're giraffes. But you know who else's name starts with G? I reckon maybe God is a giraffe. That's why he made so many subspecies.
There are a few things on this sign which confuse me.
1) It says "...a very long, flexible tongue! This adaption enables giraffes to reach leaves...."
In what possible way can a God-given immutable attribute be considered an "adaption"? Do you want me to believe in creation or don't you?
2) "...its closest living relative the okapi."
Two things here:
One: saying "living relative" implies other species have become extinct in the past which is really only possible if one doesn't subscribe to the idea of fossils being tricks of the devil or planted by God to test our faith. (The only other notion I can think of off-hand is that, against God's express wishes, Noah neglected to take all the other giraffe relatives into the Ark and they drowned. Seriously, what a jerk).
But two: how can any species be related to any other species if they were all created on the spot, as it were? It makes no sense! There's no common ancestor, so they aren't related. That seems fairly plain.
3) The giraffe subspecies. I get God making different species, that's fine. But why make nine different subspecies of giraffe?? They can't have, you know, changed into subspecies by themselves from one original giraffe because that's just stupid. So they must have all been made like that right from the start. I'm supposed to believe that God had so much free time after making all the millions of other animals that he went "hey, you know what, I'm gonna make nine different versions of this one. It'll be great. I'll give this one squiggly spots, and this one big blocky spots...OOOH, five horns on this one!! Sweet!" ??
However, I noticed that all their giraffes have names starting with G. Because they're giraffes. But you know who else's name starts with G? I reckon maybe God is a giraffe. That's why he made so many subspecies.
that map was the bit I liked best about the sign, having the skin patterns instead of just a name. I thought it was pretty clever. The sample location dots on the map don't really make sense outside of the actual paper though.
The map is on Wikipedia too (on the giraffe page) so that's where they will have got it from.
