I was only kidding as well, and I’m not sure what Creationism has to do with any of this. Are there creationists who expect science to explain The Flintstones?
The Flintstones is clearly set after some sort of nuclear armageddon! How do they know what Christmas is before the birth of the Nazarene?
Because Christmas is really a bunch of pagan traditions? After all, assuming Jesus existed, no one would have kept track of his birthdate.
And how would a nuclear holocaust revive extinct species?
:dubious: The Soviet Union was the Second World.
First World: The English and their allies.
Second World: The Russians and their allies. (Including China when the term was coined?)
Third World: India’s non-aligned group.
Fourth World: Prey.
Christmas AND computers*! Explain that, if the Flintstones isn’t a post-apocalyptic world!
The dinosaurs are obviously mutated existing lizards and such. They don’t really LOOK like real prehistoric creatures, anyway!
*Not to mention a Roman alphabet
There’s this, too:
But those pagan traditions only coalesced in the Mass of the Christ, the folk memory of which survived apocalypse into the Flintstones post-nuclear world. They also explicitly mention the word Christmas, which of course doesn’t have meaning pre-Christ.
As for the extinct species; radiation mutating the genes of existing species. This is also why they can talk.
Nanotechnology and quantum physics.
(That’s science fiction for “witchcraft and sorcery”).
I hadn’t even thought of this - and it’s true.
Now that Richard’s been identified, scientists could try to match his DNA with the DNA of the two bodies found in the Tower, to confirm whether or not they’re the Princes - but the royal family has said no. Even if there were a DNA match, though, it wouldn’t tell us who killed them.
Just for funsies, by the way, here’s what Richard and Henry did with another young boy who was also a nephew of Richard’s and a potential heir to the throne. Richard kept a close eye on Warwick - he may have kept him in the Tower, or may have freed him from it, it’s not clear - and possibly made him his heir when his own legitimate son died. Henry stuck him in the Tower and had him killed.
(Sidetrack: The possibility that Richard made Warwick his heir is interesting because it shows the importance of legitimacy in this context. Richard had an illegitimate son, whom he appears to have loved and taken good care of - he made him captain of Calais, for example - but there’s no suggestion that he ever even considered making his illegitimate son his heir when the legitimate one died. He went for either Warwick or another of his nephews, John de la Pole. Legitimacy mattered. So when Henry VII took the throne and was going to marry the Princes’ sister to bolster his claim, he absolutely *had *to reverse the act declaring them all illegitimate.)
At the risk of opening a can o’ worms and potentially hijacking the thread, why wouldn’t you assume Jesus existed? I mean, yeah, the walking-on-water, turning-water-into-wine, coming-back-from-the-dead bit I’m certain is a myth, but what makes you doubt that a man named Yeshua bar Yosef actually lived in 1st century Palestine? The idea that these miracle stories coalesced around a wandering preacher who was executed by the Romans for sedition seems the most economical explanation of the Gospels.
I take a different tack - I rather suspect Richard had them killed: he was the one who, after all, usurped the throne, had them declared illigitimate, and threw them in the Tower (from whence they were never seen again).
However, in my opnion, it simply does not matter very much: the notion that him having the princes killed somehow discredits him as a King simply lacks an air or reality - particularly when spread by the Tudors, who routinely had inconvenient relations killed.
Simply put, whether Richard did or didn’t doesn’t matter very much. He certainly wasn’t above killing people to support his throne - no ruler of England at the time was; between the Wars of the Roses and the Tudor era, murder of relations to maintain oneself on the throne was practically required.
There is no reason to believe that such murder unfitted Richard for monarchy any more than his crooked back unfitted him for monarchy (this too was thought to be a Tudor propaganda invention, but it turned out to be true).
In That’s Not What They Meant!: Reclaiming the Founding Fathers from America’s Right Wing, Michael Austin describes “Founderstein.” Who is a composite Founder constructed from parts that agree with whatver message a writer is trying to put across. Writers who mention things like “when Washington signed the Declaration of Independence” or “when Jefferson wrote the Constitution.” All of the Founders had different life experiences & often disagreed. Sometimes things got ugly.
Austin concentrated on the Right Wing for that book but said that, of course, the other side could be just as guilty. Currently, the Far Right is really churning out the Foundersteins…
(He also pointed out that Warren G Harding coined the phrase “Founding Fathers.” Yup, the guy who gave us “normalcy”–and one of the finalists in the Worst President Ever contest.)
Maybe King Dick just mused, “Will no one rid me of these turbulent preteens?”
Grin! My fault.
There are certainly creationists whose model of prehistory resembles The Flintstones! The Creation Research Institute has a center in Santee, California (suburb of San Diego) and I drive by them every day. They seriously (!) claim that dinosaurs and humans co-existed.
(A friend recently suggested that a bunch of us go there on a field-trip…but as I doubt my ability to observe their museum displays without becoming impolite, I felt it was best not to expose myself to the provocation.)
Actually, that’s another point in “Henry” column. If the older boy had just hit puberty, who knows what he was into? He could have been insisting the whole castle recycle, reading Ayn Rand, or wanting Justin Beiber to play at court. Any one of those might have made someone snap.
So do most mainstream scientists.
Wise-ass! 
(Still, I’m sure looking forward to leg of dinosaur for Thanksgiving dinner!)
Aren’t they forced into that position by their belief in a young earth?
I am of the opinion that if the earth were really 6000 years old, then the Bible would mention dinosaurs because dinosaurs are freaking sweet. And no oblique “behemoth” references. We’re talking rich men passing a velociraptor through a needle’s eye.