Bill Nye visited a Noah’s Ark he doesn’t believe should exist

Jul 12, 2016

By Jessica Contrera

Bill Nye the Science Guy doesn’t believe that a gargantuan wooden boat filled with pairs of wild animals once floated across a flood that covered the entire earth. So last week, he went to visit the people who do – and the boat they built to prove it.

Nye was the first high-profile visitor to Ark Encounter, the Noah’s Ark museum that opened Thursday in Williamstown, Ky. The $100 million project was built by Answers in Genesis, a Christian ministry that believes the Bible’s story of Noah is a literal fact. For $40, visitors can step into a 510-foot-long ship filled with exhibits on Noah (the ministry says he lived to be 950 years old), his animals (about 7,000 on board) and the year-long flood (which ended with a rainbow).

This replica Noah’s Ark is known to some as Ken’s Ark; the man behind it is Ken Ham, the Christian fundamentalist who operates the Creation Museum just outside of Cincinnati. Ham believes the earth is just a few thousand years old. His museum and ark are meant to convince others to believe the same. That mission was not achieved when Nye, clad in his usual bow tie and accompanied by a crew working on a documentary about him, made his trip to the ark.

“I wanted to see how successful this thing is, or could be, and I wanted to see how children are reacting to it,” Nye said Sunday.

His takeaway? The kids are being “brainwashed.”


Continue reading by clicking the name of the source below.

178 comments on “Bill Nye visited a Noah’s Ark he doesn’t believe should exist

  • It was a clash of world views.”

    They stole that piece of nonsense from the post modernists. All is a relative narative and we all have our own “truths,” or world views in this case.

    Never thought about the timing of that debate before but it seems that old Hammy knows how to leverage the money he needs to fleece even more sheep with his scams. Bill played right into his moneyed hands with the timing of that debate it seems. At $40 a pop he should show a profit quite soon as the construction monies were basically donations from the brain dead.



    Report abuse

  • So last week, he went to visit the people who do – and the boat they built to prove it.

    He would prove it if they had a 950 year old man and his sons build it and get it to float in the high seas. Not likely.



    Report abuse

  • Reading the comments to the original article in the WaPo is disturbing. Those of you across the pond who can’t understand how someone like Trump could be a presidential nominee might get a better picture through those comments. I had to stop.

    Regarding Nye’s visit, I think it was a poor decision; Ham used it as validation and his followers ate it up.



    Report abuse

  • Vicki

    The tone of the comments seem to be changing. Reason to the rescue!

    Nye is optimist instead of a realist, he actually thinks these people are teachable. Actually they need to be untaught before teaching them anything.



    Report abuse

  • @OP – He took selfies with many of them, and couldn’t help noticing how unfinished the museum looked to him. (“I guess they’re using the same cranes Noah used. The same brand,” he cracked.) He said he hopes that the project goes bankrupt and closes before it is completed.

    … . .and the same Bronze-age gopher steel and concrete foundations!

    http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2015/07/awful-lot-of-go.html
    Awful lot of gopher steel in this structure

    If you click on the source link on the picture at Panda’s Thumb it takes you to the Hamster’s site where there are pictures of the fame under construction and the cranes!



    Report abuse

  • @OP – This replica Noah’s Ark is known to some as Ken’s Ark; the man behind it is Ken Ham, the Christian fundamentalist

    Proper names pleeeease!!
    It is on concrete foundations and fastened together with steel bolts!

    Ken’s SHED! or Ham’s MEGA-STY!



    Report abuse

  • Obviously we have similar, fantasy theme parks in the UK, we used to have “Camelot” in Charnock Richard, a quaint theme park based on the myths of King Arthur and the knights of the round table. However, this seems a lot more insidious, the brainwashing of the under 10’s shouldn’t be publicly funded! Religion would die if sensible governments banned all religious schools and made it law that you have to be 18 to enter a church!
    I can see no argument against this rationale!



    Report abuse

  • @ #8

    ‘Spamalot’!

    Wouldn’t be surprised if some of the folk at Ark Park hotly condemn ‘Wizardry World of Harry Potter – Orlando’.



    Report abuse

  • Ironically in an attempt to create a replica of a biblical item to gather more people to worship and believe, Ken may well have created his own Golden Calf.

    But that aside, I still find it amusing that anyone takes the idea of any of this seriously. There is no time in history when that thing could have fit all animals in it, god would still be extraordinarily capricious to have save only 2 of each species as the animals had done nothing wrong, creating things that get so far out of your control that you feel it necessary to create a flood that has never been proven to occur… as with everything in the bible there is a litany of things wrong with it.

    Ken Hamm seems to hold onto his faith the same way a child holds on to their favorite fairy tale. In fact, that’s pretty much exactly what we have here.



    Report abuse

  • achromat666 #11
    Jul 13, 2016 at 7:33 am

    Ken Hamm seems to hold onto his faith the same way a child holds on to their favorite fairy tale. In fact, that’s pretty much exactly what we have here.

    I recall that on the (very) old RDFS site, we were debating and laughing at, Ham’s attempts to attract funding and sponsorship for parts of his “Ark”.
    One poster called Roger, reported back here, that he got banned from the AIG website for asking if he could sponsor two “short thick planks”!



    Report abuse

  • 13
    Pinball1970 says:

    @vicky

    Stories like this come across as a joke until you see these guys debating, then you know they are serious.

    We have a watered down version of this nonsense in the UK.

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Creationism_in_the_United_Kingdom

    I am not sure if they are still operating, I could not bring myself to read all the info.

    If people are that stupid AND arrogant then they deserve all they get.

    Marginalized, laughed at, ridiculed, bullied prevented from working in science and above all contact with children – civilization should have rules!



    Report abuse

  • Alan4discussion #18
    stolen a theist name!!

    I disagree Alan. Folklore, and myth belong to all humanity, otherwise all the creation stories and heroic legends would belong only to Hindus, Druids and the followers of the original Greco-Roman religions.



    Report abuse

  • Hi Mark

    You need to click on the name in the grey box immediately to the right of the orange box labeled “Source”.
    So in this case it’s the grey box labeled “The Washington Post”.

    The mods



    Report abuse

  • Ancient man, at whatever stage of development, whether represented by Lucy, Peking Man, Nebraska Man, Neanderthals, etc, would have experienced sunrise and sunset, forest fires, drought, eclipse of sun and moon, rain and sunshine, the rainbow, and the varieties of precipitation which we experience today. Thy would have had no developed scientific understanding of the causes of these phenomena and life would generally have been a daily struggle to survive as hunter/gatherers, etc. Only recently have we been able to come to some understanding of tides, the water cycle, and the causes of eclipses, etc.

    What perplexes me is how could the bronze age fabricators of the myth have explained so logically the transition from a pre-existent world without rainfall, and hence no rainbow, to a world with a coloured bow in the sky signifying no more devastating flooding??



    Report abuse

  • Bobby #23
    Jul 13, 2016 at 2:34 pm

    What perplexes me is how could the bronze age fabricators of the myth have explained so logically the transition from a pre-existent world without rainfall, and hence no rainbow, to a world with a coloured bow in the sky signifying no more devastating flooding??

    Bronze age peoples were very observant about the natural world, but as most of them had no writing or reading abilities they were dependent on story tellers, scribes and priests for historic information.

    The Australian Aborigines are a good example of oral traditions passing information.

    the transition from a pre-existent world without rainfall, and hence no rainbow, to a world with a coloured bow in the sky signifying no more devastating flooding??

    I’m not sure where this comes from?
    Throughout human history there have been rainfall, rainbows and floods, – unless those concerned lived in isolated communities in the desert getting water only from wells!

    Creation myths throughout the world have fanciful explanations of where natural phenomena originated!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths



    Report abuse

  • ‘I’m not sure where this comes from?’

    The Genesis account.

    ‘Creation myths throughout the world have fanciful explanations of where natural phenomena originated!’

    This is not fanciful, but totally logical. 99% of the time I see a lot of rain without rainbows and sometime a rainbow without rain locally. Very strange.



    Report abuse

  • I wonder if the ark being built in Holland (arkofnoah.org) will make it across the Atlantic ? I am astounded that the news media didn’t ask him(AFAIK) why he did not build the ark near enough to water that it could be seen to float. I also wonder why they did not pick up on the steel plates and bolts used to tie things together. Don’t remember hearing about hardware stores back then.



    Report abuse

  • ‘This link shows how it works.’

    I know how it works; but the bronze age myth-makers didn’t.
    I don’t think you grasp the implications of the appearance of the new phenomenon high in the sky which is mentioned as appearing only after the Deluge.



    Report abuse

  • Bobby #29
    Jul 13, 2016 at 5:36 pm

    ‘This link shows how it works.’

    I know how it works; but the bronze age myth-makers didn’t.
    I don’t think you grasp the implications of the appearance of the new phenomenon high in the sky which is mentioned as appearing only after the Deluge.

    It is very easy to grasp! The authors had seen rainbows as storms faded and the Sun shone through, and they thought they looked colourful and mystical, so they included them in the story they made up about the deluge to enhance the exaggerations about the folk-law of a boat rescuing a few animals during a local; flood.

    The size of the boat in the earlier Babylonian tablet story was probably greatly exaggerated too!



    Report abuse

  • I took a look at the Ark website, and specifically their “rules” for patrons. I find it rather ironic that they say “…animals are not allowed…”. Seriously, you couldn’t make that up!

    Also, that they are allowed to eject anyone they please (paraphrasing a little) without any real reason, and without giving a refund!

    I’m guessing that would include anyone who started asking too many questions, such as…

    ”what about the immense task of feeding them all?,

    So how many hundreds of tons of food would be required, and how on earth did they obtain the thousands of different foods required for such a diverse group of animals?,

    How did they keep the perishables fresh, did they have huge refrigeration storage facilities aboard?,

    How would they manage all that mucking out, it would have mean carting tons and tons of poo up and out of the boat each day, I mean, have you seen how much one Rino spits out?,

    What about disease, did they have a team of veterinarians aboard, or maybe thats how we lost the Unicorns huh?,

    Where did they get all the fresh grass and other “fresh” plant life needed to sustain the thousands of animals that would require it to stay alive?,

    So, where DID all the trillions of cubic miles of water come from, and where did it actually recede to… it just sounds so impossible?

    How did they get the animals to play nicely, or where they all caged completely separately?,

    So, how did they get two of each species all together to be picked up… did they send out a flyer?

    The small animals with short (or no) legs, how did they get to the venue… did they hitch a lift?

    Tell me again, with a boat to crew (in such stormy weather), and thousands of sea-sick animals to look after (that would surely be an impossible task, even for a small army of Zookeepers), Including old Noah, just how many crew members were there?

    But my favourite one would be, So, the animals that eat only live animals for their diet, did Noah take a few “extra” animals to feed these critters, or did “God” command them to become “vegetarian” for a few months?

    I Guess my stay at the “Ark” would be a short one!



    Report abuse

  • ‘So, where DID all the trillions of cubic miles of water come from, and where did it actually recede to… it just sounds so impossible?’

    The account of a great universal Flood, or Deluge, which surged backwards and forwards across the face of the Earth, scouring the land, repeatedly eroding and depositing layers of sediment, and the jumbled remains of forests, plants and animals, is recorded in the hundreds upon hundreds of remarkably similar stories in diverse tribes; handed down from the survivors. This tumultous flooding went on for days, weeks, months – an unimaginable scenario. Compared to this catastrophe the floods in the Tigris and elsewhere, leaving a bit of gunge, are mere splashes. The original, probably low-lying, equatorial land was completely submerged. The ‘fountains of the deep’ – great reservoirs of underground water, surged up, with cataclysmic earthquakes belching forth lava to produce the huge sheets of basalt which cover great expanses without break all over the Earth. At some stage the earth began to be pushed up in places out of the water. Such a push would be followed by great surges of rock-laden torrents which would evenly abrade some of the mountaintops and rocks at each new lowered sea-level, cutting, with equal ease, across both hard and soft layers; resulting in a planation surface. Since planation surfaces (or planed surfaces) are found throughout the world at roughly three levels, this would indicate more than three further massive upthrusts of the land, with concomitant abrasion, scouring and deposition, caused by the violently disturbed and surging waters. The scouring rocks left scattered over these great planation surfaces bear witness to the catastrophe. See creation.com/african-planation-surface.



    Report abuse

  • I wouldn’t read too much into people’s ability to spot the connection between rainbows and rainfall if I were you, Bobby, even if they weren’t aware of the exact mechanism at the time. It’s not exactly unique to the Judeo-Christian myth, after all.



    Report abuse

  • Bobby #33
    Jul 13, 2016 at 6:46 pm

    The scouring rocks left scattered over these great planation surfaces bear witness to the catastrophe. See creation.com/african-planation-surface.

    You really should get some GEOLOGY reference books instead of reading these fancy stories which have been made up by science illiterates, trying to use their bibles as science text books!
    The world’s scientists and scientific bodies, regard creation.com as a joke in bad taste!

    Just like engineers know that Ken’s Shed err Ark ,with its steel brackets and bolts, could not possible be a replica of a bronze-age boat! (Hint steel had not been invented in the bronze-age!)

    Continental drift, mountain building, subduction, volcanism ice ages, and erosion, have been well mapped out over millions of years, and changes in sea-levels have been mapped out over thousands of years.



    Report abuse

  • ”what about the immense task of feeding them all?”

    Well, I’ve done my Research, and discovered that most of the animals on the ark were fed on fish, primarily carp. And to keep the food supply out of reach of the hungry animals — they were on short rations, after all, no knowing how long they’d have to subsist — Noah subcontracted to another bunch the task of building a secondary vessel, one to contain the supply of edible fish, and protect them from wild aquatic predators. This was towed or tied to the main ark. Long ago there were many tales about the perilous efforts to cross this rope bridge to bring supplies for every feeding time, but these tales have all but been forgotten, but — don’t forget — this was indeed the world’s first multi-story carp ark.



    Report abuse

  • ‘But my favourite one would be, So, the animals that eat only live animals for their diet, did Noah take a few “extra” animals to feed these critters, or did “God” command them to become “vegetarian” for a few months?’

    It is claimed that all creatures, including man, were vegetarian at this early stage. It was only after the Deluge that man was given meat as food.
    Noah, seeking evidence for a landing place in the receding flood, sent out the most intelligent creature on the ark; the raven. It did not return to him. It was the first rebel in a hitherto obedient animal kingdom. Animal behaviourists tell us that this species is among the most intelligent of creatures; jays, jackdaws, etc. and the man-wary magpie. These ‘bird brains’ challenge the primates in this respect. In the dove family we find the pigeon with the homing instinct. The dove which Noah sent out came back.
    Also it is claimed that immature dinosaurs could have been on board, and that many animals may have been in a state of hibernation. Perhaps?



    Report abuse

  • ‘I wonder if the ark being built in Holland (arkofnoah.org) will make it across the Atlantic ? ‘

    The ark was not a sea-going vessel. It was just a glorified raft – a big box, preserved in safe waters, waiting for the upthrusting Earth to eventually cradle its landing.



    Report abuse

  • ‘I wonder after the flood why marsupials wanted to go to Australia so bad? That’s a long swim’

    It is claimed that the single land mass was divided in Peleg’s time. As some of the creatures became predatory it was probably though wise to segregate them to some degree prior to this. Perhaps?



    Report abuse

  • ‘Also, isn’t there a serious genetic diversity problem if there was only two of every animal?’

    At this early stage there was not a mutational build-up to the cascade of genetic defects we inherit today such that we are advised to procreate early. Incestual behaviour among was not prohibited until some time after the Deluge. Inherited defects and infertility are major problems now. You should read John Sanford’s ‘Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. All species are on the way out unless Aubrey de Grey finds an answer; and we rival Mesuselah? Perhaps?



    Report abuse

  • Bobby #42
    Jul 14, 2016 at 3:45 am

    It is claimed that all creatures, including man, were vegetarian at this early stage. It was only after the Deluge that man was given meat as food.

    I realise that Creation.com is very adept at copying scientific language to make up answers off the cuff to any questions which arise, but the scientific evidence from thousands of researchers who made the original discoveries by looking at, and testing, rocks and fossils say otherwise.

    You can identify carnivores by their digestive systems, their teeth, the bite marks on the bones of their prey and the remains of food in their fossilised dung.

    Bobby #44
    Jul 14, 2016 at 4:04 am

    ‘I wonder after the flood why marsupials wanted to go to Australia so bad? That’s a long swim’

    It is claimed that the single land mass was divided in Peleg’s time.

    Super-continents (Gondwana and Pangea) have broken up twice in Earth’s geological history, but it is laughable to suggest this happened only a few thousand years ago.

    As some of the creatures became predatory it was probably though wise to segregate them to some degree prior to this. Perhaps?

    Predatory creatures evolved to become predatory millions of years ago before any emerged from the sea to colonise the land.

    You should read John Sanford’s ‘Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome.

    That is an fascinating example of self-delusion, but he only illustrates the fact that he does not understand the mechanisms of evolutionary genetics and natural selection. It is a mystery to him, but not to anyone who understands basic biology or genetics.

    You have obviously wasted a lot of your time reading creationist pseudo-science, but do not seem to understand even the basics of the real sciences of, astronomy, physics, geology, palaeontology or biology.

    One of the core features of the planetary sciences and Earth’s geology, is the time scale which Young Earth Creationists deny, but which is firmly evidenced in every reputable study (thousands upon thousands of them), we look on any of these or related subjects.



    Report abuse

  • @ 47,
    Bonnie,
    Any article that quotes chapter and verse from the bible can immediately be ignored!
    The sheer ignorance and hypocrisy of any author on these web-sites is frightening. Maybe one day we’ll be able to gather the religious and credulous and put them on arks and launch them into space! (not original I know, but a good solution non-the-less).



    Report abuse

  • 49
    Pinball1970 says:

    @45 bobby 1942

    “At this early stage there was not a mutational build-up to the cascade of genetic defects we inherit today such that we are advised to procreate early”

    I suggest you read some Nick Lane Bobby.

    Also Genome by Matt Ridley s another good book and less heavy going.

    Whatever you have been told about genes, mutation rates and biology in general is wrong.



    Report abuse

  • ‘One of the core features of the planetary sciences and Earth’s geology, is the time scale which Young Earth Creationists deny, ‘

    Many. like myself, who know nothing about genetics, but who believe that there is evidence for a spiritual dimension, have been enthused by Sanford’s extrapolations which He claims leads from his scientific findings.
    The important question to ask here is whether his experimental research is confirmed in any way by the thoughts of his ‘peers’ and it is:

    A S Kondrashov. 1995. Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: Why have we not died 100 times over? J. theor. Biol. 175:583-594.

    A. Eyre-Walker and P. Keighley.1999. high genomic deleterious rates in Hominids. Nature 397: 344-347.
    ”… deleterious mutation rates appear to be so high in humans and our close relatives that it is doubtful that such species could survive…”

    Loewe, L. 2006. Quantifying the genomic decay paradox due to Muller’s ratchet in human mitochondrial DNA. Genet. Res. Camb 87:133-159.
    ”A surprisingly large range of biologically realistic parameter combinations should have led to extinction of the evolutionary line leading to humans within 20 million years…”

    Kondrashov’s puzzled question is asked again and again in different forms by such as Crow, Higgins & Lynch, Hoyle, etc.’

    I have yet to see any answers at all to this question, convincing or otherwise.

    There is also Perry Marshall’s persuasive assertion in ‘Evolution.2.’ that DNA is identical to an extremely sophisticated computer programme necessitating a programmer. Marshall is a theistic evolutionist and acclaimed computer programmer, etc.



    Report abuse

  • bonnie2 #47
    Jul 14, 2016 at 6:56 am

    No wonder it’s an uphill battle, so to speak

    Yep! All the wrong questions about “strawman science” and stock answers from ignoramus’s circular thinking, with a few scraps of scientific terminology from mavericks whose “faith” confounds their scientific thinking, and blocks their understanding of basic mechanisms.
    They then copy their nonsense from each other. and quote each other’s books.
    Negative proof fallacies are also a favourite!
    (Ignore 20,000 pieces of solid evidence – “look we’ve found something unexplained or a dubious study!)
    (I think) Science can’t prove this complex phenomena (to uneducated me), so everything defaults to “God-did-it-by-magic”!

    YECs repeatedly prove that those who can’t do basic high-school science, can easily be conned into accepting disinformation about PhD level studies! –
    Maths? calculations? measurements? understanding of the laws of physics? observations? technical investigation equipment? – No need for any of these: – YECs just make something up which sounds plausible to the uneducated and contradict rock-solid science, while throwing in a few strawman claims about what scientists are deemed say!

    The cascade of “wrong” about complex subjects, would require year-long education courses (or more) to correct!



    Report abuse

  • ‘Whatever you have been told about genes, mutation rates and biology in general is wrong.’

    Have you read Sanford’s ‘Genetic Entropy, and the Mystery of the Genome?



    Report abuse

  • 53
    Pinball1970 says:

    @45 you should read John Sanford’s ‘Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome.

    Is this guy who championed intelligent design and thinks the earth is 10,000 years old?

    Lead with that sort information before citing references, then we can dismiss them without wasting time googling



    Report abuse

  • 55
    Pinball1970 says:

    @50 bobby 1942

    yes there are a lot of quirks, paradoxes, contradictions, unknowns and non intuitive areas in science.

    None of these areas point towards a creator or offer evidence for intelligent design.

    Every single university and scientific organization worth its salt has made a comment regarding intelligent design and evolution.

    They tend to read like this, “intelligent design cannot be regarded as science and the theory of evolution is only accepted explanation for speciation of life on earth.”



    Report abuse

  • 56
    Pinball1970 says:

    @bobby1942 Many. like myself, who know nothing about genetics, but who believe that there is evidence for a spiritual dimension, have been enthused by Sanford’s extrapolations which He claims leads from his scientific findings.

    If you don’t know anything about this subject then try “The Greatest Show on earth” Richard Dawkins and “Why evolution is true” Jerry Coyne



    Report abuse

  • ‘. It’s not exactly unique to the Judeo-Christian myth, after all.’

    ?? I know of no other myth which mentions the appearance of a rainbow, and an original Earth watered from an underground source? Which myth do you have in mind?



    Report abuse

  • ‘If you don’t know anything about this subject ..’

    Actually I know enough to understand basic genetics, and I did anthropology at uni years ago – when I was an agnostic and default:) evolutionist.



    Report abuse

  • Bobby #50
    Jul 14, 2016 at 7:37 am

    ‘One of the core features of the planetary sciences and Earth’s geology, is the time scale which Young Earth Creationists deny, ‘

    Many. like myself, who know nothing about genetics, but who believe that there is evidence for a spiritual dimension,

    This has nothing to do with the mountains of evidence about the age of the Solar System and age of the Earth.
    Nobody has ever produced evidence of an external “spiritual dimension”, although neuroscientists and psychologists have evidence of spiritual thinking.

    Many. like myself, who know nothing about genetics, but who believe that there is evidence for a spiritual dimension, have been enthused by Sanford’s extrapolations which He claims leads from his scientific findings.

    Only those who know nothing about genetics are impressed by Sanford’s mental contortions. Those who understand genetics know he is just picking scraps of information, missing key factors, and failing to do the probability calculations. His findings do not use the methodology of science, contain basic errors, and therefore are not scientific conclusions.

    The important question to ask here is whether his experimental research is confirmed in any way by the thoughts of his ‘peers’ and it is:

    No peer-reviewed science journal has published or endorsed his work. He has written a book about his fantasy interpretations of genetics and quoted bits of other people’s studies out of context to prop up confused claims.

    is whether his experimental research is confirmed in any way by the thoughts of his ‘peers’ and it is:

    It is not! It is a typical pseudo-science false claim. Numerous modern genetic studies contradict his claims, and they ARE published in reputable journals.

    I dealt with the issue of Sanford’s confusion in an earlier discussion.

    https://www.richarddawkins.net/2016/04/evolution-in-action-detected-in-darwins-finches/#li-comment-202671

    The same stock misinterpreted quotes, quote mined bits of studies, and long refuted claims, were produced there. They only impress those who lack a basic understanding of the evolutionary mechanisms of mutation and natural selection.
    You need to study some basic textbooks rather than these concocted mental contortions to lever faith-beliefs into complex scientific issues.

    Clearly as someone who “knows nothing about genetics”, you are going to have difficulty understanding mechanisms, without doing a basic course on the subject.
    Throwing references to the misleading writings of pseudo-scientists at biologists who know what real scientific investigations and peer-reviews look like, on a science site, is not likely to impress anyone.



    Report abuse

  • 60
    Pinball1970 says:

    @bobby1942 Actually I know enough to understand basic genetics, and I did anthropology at uni years ago – when I was an agnostic and default:) evolutionist.

    Evolutionist? As is every scientist worth his salt.

    The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and there is no debate on this within the serious scientific community regarding the validity of the theory.

    All your comments regarding science are in fact nothing to do with science, they are to do with the existence of a god or gods, I am not sure which one you have in mind, it does not matter.

    The early bible stories are made up stolen rehashed myths from other civilizations tribes and peoples.

    The Noah story is taken from other stories that predate the bible, the Sumerian story has already been mentioned.

    Moses, Abraham, Samson and other patriarchs are taken from Egyptian, Philistine, Hittite stories, characters and gods to name a few sources.

    No serious biblical scholar thinks the old testament is based on factual events.



    Report abuse

  • Bobby #57
    Jul 14, 2016 at 8:13 am

    ‘It’s not exactly unique to the Judeo-Christian myth, after all.’

    ?? I know of no other myth which mentions the appearance of a rainbow,

    Lack of wider study is a feature of creationist thinking.

    Which myth do you have in mind?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbows_in_mythology

    In Norse religion, a burning rainbow bridge

    In Navajo tradition, the rainbow is the path of the holy spirits

    The Maori tell a tale of Hina,

    In Greek mythology, Iris is the personification of the rainbow

    the rainbow maiden, appears in Hawaiian legends

    The rainbow is depicted as an archer's bow in Hindu mythology.

    Sumerian mythology

    In Australian Aboriginal mythology,
    the rainbow snake is the Creator

    and an original Earth watered from an underground source?

    “the fountains of the great deep”

    We know about geysers and volcanos erupting water, and tsunamis, but to suggest that such eruptions produce a big enough volume of water to cover the Earth’s high mountain ranges for many days and then just disappear, is laughable!



    Report abuse

  • ‘Lead with that sort information before citing references, then we can dismiss them without wasting time googling’

    Those who post here seem to have quite a lot of time on their hands to waste; like myself occasionally. I am prepared to read articles with which I assume I will disagree. I blogged at length against the Koran for quite a while before I thought it only fair that I read it through; what a marathon – repetitive and boring in the extreme. I am at present halfway through Christopher Hitchens ‘God Is Not Great’

    John Sanford was originally an atheistic evolutionist whose research and studies eventually led to his becoming a fundamentalist Christian.

    He is described in Wikipedia as a prolific inventor with more than 32 issued patents. At Cornell Sanford and colleagues developed the “Biolistic Particle Delivery System” or so-called “gene gun”.
    He is the co-inventor of the Pathogen-derived Resistance (PDR) process and the co-inventor of the genetic vaccination process. He was given the “Distinguished Inventor Award” by the Central New York Patent Law Association in 1990 and 1995. He has founded two biotechnology companies, Sanford Scientific and Biolistics.
    In 1998 he retired on the proceeds from the sale of his biotech companies, and continued at Cornell as a courtesy associate professor.

    Academic career
    Sanford graduated in 1976 from the University of Minnesota with a BSc in horticulture. He went to the University of Wisconsin–Madison where he received an MSc in 1978 and a PhD in 1980 in plant breeding/plant genetics. Between 1980 and 1986 Sanford was an assistant professor of Horticultural Sciences at Cornell University, and from 1986 to 1998 he was an associate professor of Horticultural Science. Although retiring in 1998, Sanford continues at Cornell as a courtesy associate professor. He held an honorary Adjunct Associate Professor of Botany at Duke University. Sanford has published over 70 scientific publications in peer reviewed journals.



    Report abuse

  • ‘https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbows_in_mythology

    In Norse religion, a burning rainbow bridge’

    This totally fails as an answer to my (redacted) question. And hold the cheek:)

    All such myths are inferior copies, and the logic/meaning of the original has been missed/lost by those who adopted them. Here there is no mention of an Earth watered from an underground source. Also consider the copied accounts of the dimensions of the ark; which is very specific and functional in its construction measurements; still regarded apparently as perfect.



    Report abuse

  • Bobby #62
    Jul 14, 2016 at 8:53 am

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Sanford

    Sanford and colleagues developed the quantitative forward genetic modeling program Mendel’s Accountant, publishing several papers on it and genetic entropy in non peer review.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]

    As was pointed out earlier @#59, this could not pass peer-review by expert scientists, because of its flawed methods and conclusions.
    Some of the flaws were explained on the linked discussion I quoted.

    Based on this research, Sanford holds that the human genome is deteriorating, and therefore could not have evolved through a process of mutation and selection as specified by the modern evolutionary synthesis.

    The modern evolutionary synthesis is the expert consensus backed by thousands of evidenced studies supported virtually all modern biologists!
    Sanford has produced nothing which convinces modern geneticists or biologists in his non-peer-reviewed papers.

    Intelligent design and creationism
    Formerly an atheist[15] from the mid-1980s, Sanford has looked into theistic evolution (1985–late 1990s), Old Earth creationism (late 1990s), and Young Earth creationism (2000–present). According to his own words, he did not fully reject Darwinian evolution until the year 2000.[citation needed] An advocate of intelligent design, Sanford testified in 2005 in the Kansas evolution hearings on behalf of intelligent design, during which he denied the principle of common descent and “humbly offered… that we were created by a special creation, by God”.

    And of course lost the argument!

    He stated that he believed the age of the Earth was “less than 100,000” years.

    Which is a basic a school level fail in the physics of radiometric dating, geology, astronomy, and palaeontology!

    It seems he went senile and lost his critical scientific capabilities, but still tries to use his past reputation as a plant scientist as a badge of authority for flawed claims and whimsical notions.



    Report abuse

  • Bobby #64
    Jul 14, 2016 at 9:21 am

    ‘https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbows_in_mythology

    All such myths are inferior copies, and the logic/meaning of the original has been missed/lost by those who adopted them.

    It’s quite a clever trick to copy Christian myths in earlier myths which predated them!

    Also consider the copied accounts of the dimensions of the ark; which is very specific and functional in its construction measurements; still regarded apparently as perfect.

    So perfect that modern engineers are pretty well agreed that a wooden ship of those dimensions would fall apart, and that Ken Ham is using steel brackets and bolts to hold his “copy” together on its concrete foundations while using cranes to put it together! – That’s even before we look at bronze age tools! –
    Bronze axes and maybe copper saws!
    http://classroom.synonym.com/tools-weapons-created-during-bronze-age-23362.html



    Report abuse

  • ‘Some of the flaws were explained on the linked discussion I quoted.’

    I often cannot be bothered to follow extended links if I can get it straight from the horse’s mouth.

    So you totally refute the notion that our ancestors, say 50 generations back, carried a lighter burden of inherited genetic mutations that our generation, and that each succeeding generation will generally be further encumbered by an increase in genetic entropy?

    For that, it seems to me, appears to be the major annoying thesis advanced by Sanford?



    Report abuse

  • Bobby #66
    Jul 14, 2016 at 9:31 am

    ‘and an original Earth watered from an underground source? ‘

    I think it was described as a kind of rising mist.

    Mmmm! Fumarole – Geology

    https://www.britannica.com/science/fumarole
    Fumarole, vent in the Earth’s surface from which steam and volcanic gases are emitted. The major source of the water vapour emitted by fumaroles is groundwater heated by bodies of magma lying relatively close to the surface. Carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and hydrogen sulfide are usually emitted directly from the magma. Fumaroles are often present on active volcanoes during periods of relative quiet between eruptions.

    Fumaroles are closely related to hot springs and geysers. In areas where the water table rises near the surface, fumaroles can become hot springs.

    I once had steam from one melt a hole in the bottom of my lunch bag when I put it down on an active volcano!

    A bit dangerous close up! –
    but hardly going to immerse the planet in water though!



    Report abuse

  • Bobby #68
    Jul 14, 2016 at 9:51 am

    Some of the flaws were explained on the linked discussion I quoted.’

    I often cannot be bothered to follow extended links if I can get it straight from the horse’s mouth.

    So you would expect other people to re-write comments because you can’t be bothered to click on a link?

    So you totally refute the notion that our ancestors, say 50 generations back, carried a lighter burden of inherited genetic mutations that our generation, and that each succeeding generation will generally be further encumbered by an increase in genetic entropy?

    Individuals who carry expressed damaging genetic mutations usually die out or fail to reproduce.
    Those without them or with beneficial ones, pass them on to future generations. That’s how natural selection works! The species continues, providing its level of reproduction equals, or is greater than, its losses.

    For that, it seems to me, appears to be the major annoying thesis advanced by Sanford?

    Sanford seems to think that all the damaging mutations are retained to build up in the species.
    That is not how natural selection works!
    There is a population balance between rates of mutation and losses of individuals by natural selection because of genetic weaknesses.
    Beneficial genes are passed on, mutations on neutral genes do nothing for most of the time but provide potential diversity for the future, expressed damaging mutations are weeded out by the individuals carrying them failing to compete, reproduce, or survive.

    In many non-human species tens, hundreds, or thousands, of offspring are produced and most do not survive! – Selection in action!

    Of course anyone at the present time, who gets the age of the Earth wrong, demonstrates a very basic level of incompetence in seeking scientific information, so it is unlikely that their searches in other areas will be any more reliable!



    Report abuse

  • Coincidentally, into my postbox just now came a DVD titled’ The Mystery Of Our Declining Genes, subtitled ‘startling data for recent creation – in out DNA.’ I will refrain from invoking a supernatural agency:)



    Report abuse

  • ‘That is not how natural selection works!’

    I think he argues that natural selection cannot work at a molecular? level. It is an implement of gross discrimination – a bit like using a hammer to fix a computer. I will look up exactly what he says.



    Report abuse

  • Bobby, you will no more win an argument using YEC based “science” on a science and reason website than any of the regulars here would win an argument, arguing with actual peer reviewed science (i.e., science that works and is eventually used in medicine, engineering and multiple other disciplines that make your life much more comfortable) on a YEC website. But I applaud your stamina, which I predict will last at least one more day [fingers crossed]. We see your kind here from time to time and there are members like Alan, Phil and others who kindly, and very patiently try their best to offer enough tidbits to perhaps one day add up enough elements to create a mental epiphany. Remember, we’re not arguing dogma here. Use your reason and work it out. We know you can if you really try. And no, I am not being patronizing; merely hopeful.



    Report abuse

  • Bobby, you are trying to redefine natural selection.
    Natural selection is NOT at the molecular level.
    You totally misunderstand the meaning of an already established phrase. Or do you not understand the word “natural”?
    And there is no “discrimination” in science.



    Report abuse

  • Alan:
    “In many non-human species tens, hundreds, or thousands, of offspring are produced and most do not survive! – Selection in action!”

    One good example is the artificial breeding of goldfish. Millions are born and sold but every aquarium fan know about a third will die within a couple of weeks because of genetic defects.



    Report abuse

  • Bobby: “Only recently have we been able to come to some understanding of tides, the water cycle, and the causes of eclipses, etc.”

    “Only recently” Really? How recently? Link?



    Report abuse

  • Bobby #75
    Jul 14, 2016 at 10:48 am

    ‘That is not how natural selection works!’

    I think he argues that natural selection cannot work at a molecular? level.

    All biochemistry “works at molecular level”! This is just drivel to confuse the uneducated.

    It is an implement of gross discrimination –

    It is indeed! . . and one defective or misplaced molecule in a chromosome can (but not necessarily) be fatal.

    a bit like using a hammer to fix a computer.

    More like using a skip to remove a dysfunctional computer with a burnt out microprocessor chip.
    Evolution and natural selection do not “fix” defective individuals.
    Those are dumped, and the living space used by new copies of better adapted ones replacing them. It’s a sort of quality control.

    Killing a whole organism to remove a fatal gene which has been actively expressed in its functioning, is as you say, gross discrimination!

    I will look up exactly what he says.

    I shouldn’t bother!
    You are unlikely to learn any science from it! – and if you can’t be bothered to look at the earlier linked discussions on this site, which dealt with his claims, you can’t be very interested in critically examining them!

    More economically in humans, uncompetitive and defective sperm are weeded out by the competitive selection process of “first to fertilise the egg”, and eggs with genes causing defective development spontaneously abort removing those from the future gene pool!



    Report abuse

  • “Many. like myself, who know nothing about genetics, ”
    “You should read John Sanford’s ‘Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome”
    “So you totally refute the notion that our ancestors, say 50 generations back, carried a lighter burden of inherited genetic mutations that our generation, and that each succeeding generation will generally be further encumbered by an increase in genetic entropy?”
    “Actually I know enough to understand basic genetics, and I did anthropology at uni years ago ”

    Bobby, do you think you are being truthful? Do you think these statements are ignored by the readers here?



    Report abuse

  • Bobby #23
    Jul 13, 2016 at 2:34 pm

    Thy would have had no developed scientific understanding of the causes of these phenomena and life would generally have been a daily struggle to survive as hunter/gatherers, etc. Only recently have we been able to come to some understanding of tides, the water cycle, and the causes of eclipses, etc.

    Certainly the bronze-age herdsmen of the bible had little or no understanding, but the Egyptians, the Greeks and the Romans had a good understanding of water management (irrigation aqueducts) and astronomy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism
    They probably did not know much about tides, as the tides in the Mediterranean and the Red Sea, are very small.



    Report abuse

  • Alan: “More economically in humans, uncompetitive and defective sperm are weeded out by the competitive selection process of “first to fertilise the egg”, and eggs with genes causing defective development spontaneously abort removing those from the future gene pool!”

    Alan, that’s “discrimination” and I won’t have any of it!



    Report abuse

  • Bobby: “Also consider the copied accounts of the dimensions of the ark; which is very specific and functional in its construction measurements; still regarded apparently as perfect.”

    Consider this, where did the vast amount of wood come from, seasoned and cut? How was it delivered to the site?
    Who considers it “perfect”?
    Are you aware there are two accounts of the dimensions and the descriptions of the “ark”
    And when “copied accounts” are used, that may be good enough for you but not for me.



    Report abuse

  • ‘The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and there is no debate on this within the serious scientific community regarding the validity of the theory.’ #60

    I am afraid I am not persuaded yet, but I try to keep an open mind. I like Spetner’s NREH evidence for a built-in evolutionary ability which he illustrates with regard to finches, daisies, cichlids, etc, but that occurs over a few decades at most.

    Anyway here is my gist of my problem. I will try to illustrate it by looking at the diversity which fascinated Darwin in his pigeon breeding experiments. If we begin with the feral pigeon or rock dove we find than by selective breeding we can produce an immense number of varieties; of colour, ability, etc. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pigeon_breeds All these varieties are in the feral pigeon. All these derivative breeds, however spectacular or useful to the breeder, are essentially inferior to the feral rock dove, and only by recombination can the breeds, if not extinct, produce the original rock dove; nor can we improve on the complexity of the original bird; though natural selection might favour some of them in a changed environment. Pat Pratt, a well-known pigeon-breeder, who appeared with Dawkins on TV many years ago remarked that variants on release bred back to the feral kind.
    The same applies to dog breeding. Beginning with, for example, purebred poodles, one could never restore the original wolf progenitor. It is essentially all downhill.

    I am sure you remember the reported occasion when Dawkins was asked to give an example of an observable(ie. in real time) increase in complexity. He was completely thrown; asking, after a long pause, that the microphone be switched off for a time while he thought of a reply. …. Eventually his reply was to point to a creature in the fossil record.
    And yet with regard to fossils, the late Dr Colin Patterson, who was at the time the senior paleontologist (fossil expert) at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History wrote a book for the British Museum simply called ‘Evolution’. Creationist Luther Sunderland wrote to Dr Patterson asking why he had not shown a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. Patterson then wrote back with the following amazing confession which was reproduced, in its entirety, in Sunderland’s book Darwin’s Enigma:

    ‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’

    He went on to say:
    ‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of palaeontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.’



    Report abuse

  • Bobby, if you are going to cite and read scientific articles, you need to read ALL of them……….Anyone can cite a number of people who will dispute any scientific finding but you are not providing proof of anything.



    Report abuse

  • @ Steven007 76

    Use your reason and work it out. We know you can if you really try.

    I don’t know if one can. And the assumption of the presence of reason is actually wishful thinking. Reason is powerless against the will, Steven. Haven’t you, like all of us, had the singular displeasure of listening to a debate between a creationist and someone like Dawkins? Haven’t you yet concluded that certain people are impervious, impermeable, impenetrable, water-tight? Reason can appeal to reason only. When one’s intellect is in the service of one’s will (passion, emotion, etc.) one is not amenable to reasoned arguments. That is why I think we need to be realistic and acknowledge that a few cogent and even irrefutable points will have no effect, will be rebutted.

    The transition from unconscious, will-driven unreason to reason will happen collectively over the course of many generations, if at all.

    When the will is in the service of one’s intellect then you get reason (objectivity).

    This was one of Schopenhauer’s great formulations, that is, the antithesis and relations between will and reason (intellect).

    Kierkegaard put it well too when he said that certain people [in spite of evidence] WILL not understand.

    I appreciate your optimism and empathy, and your desire to reach this fellow, however.

    Best,

    D

    (I’m 5′ 11″)



    Report abuse

  • Bobby #89
    Jul 14, 2016 at 5:04 pm

    ‘The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and there is no debate on this within the serious scientific community regarding the validity of the theory.’ #60

    I am afraid I am not persuaded yet, but I try to keep an open mind.

    The consensus within the thousands of expert geneticists and biologists, is not really influenced by whether you (who knows nothing about genetics) is persuaded or not, just as astronomers are not influenced by whether Flat-Earthists are persuaded by images from space probes or not!

    I like Spetner’s NREH evidence for a built-in evolutionary ability which he illustrates with regard to finches, daisies, cichlids, etc, but that occurs over a few decades at most.

    So he says, and gets it wrong, but that is because YECs can’t do dating!
    Evolution is a continuous on-going process which can span decades, centuries, millennia or more.

    The validity of scientific studies does not depend on whether you or anyone else “likes them or not”.
    That is the difference between scientific reasoning built on repeatable, testable, evidence, and the faith-thinking process of choosing what you want to believe according to how it feels!

    and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. …

    Actually they are simply easy to laugh at when they say, “There are no transitional fossils”. – because no reputable palaeontologists will say that.
    It is simply a statement of personal ignorance.

    There may be no transitional fossils for a particular evolutionary line, because the conditions for forming fossils are rare, and rocks containing fossils are constantly weathering away, but there are certainly enough transitional fossils to outline the main lineages.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

    Its just that people who don’t bother to study make up denials because that’s what they like to believe. Some of them also lie to other people about it, or misquote scientists!

    I am sure you remember the reported occasion when Dawkins was asked to give an example of an observable(ie. in real time) increase in complexity.

    Actually I don’t, but I do remember when some creationist on this site asked me that question, and I produced an example within a matter of seconds! (Polyploidy + further mutations)

    These sorts of “science or scientists cannot answer claims” from people too ignorant to know the basics, are farcical.
    Those questions are fed to the gullible who have no idea what they mean, by the deluded YEC believers on pseudo-science sites.

    Science is about how things work in the real world, and how they can be repeatedly tested to show consistent results, demonstrating that that is how they work.
    Fanciful people agreeing amongst themselves that they don’t work, makes not one iota of difference to the practicalities of how things actually function.
    If simply means that they have agreed among themselves to choose to believe the wrong answer! – admittedly there is money to be made selling books of fairy-tales to the trusting gullible “believers”, but that is a different issue.

    Creationist Luther Sunderland wrote to Dr Patterson – He went on to say:
    ‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of palaeontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. …

    This sounds like either quote mining or another liar for Jesus!

    Shall we look at what Stephen J Gould ACTUALLY says about evolution and creationism?

    http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
    Evolution as Fact and Theory – by Stephen Jay Gould

    You really should study some real science, instead of parroting this pseudo-science junk without any understanding of the subject!



    Report abuse

  • @58

    I did anthropology at uni years ago – when I was an agnostic and default:) evolutionist.

    @89

    I am afraid I am not persuaded yet, but I try to keep an open mind

    No, you do not keep an open mind and you are in fact lying to us. The giveaway is your use of the word “evolutionist”. No-one outside of the YEC crowd and other nutcases uses that word in regular conversation. (If anyone doubts this do a quick google search. Apart from actual definitions of the word the only other hits are sites like ‘charismanews’ and ‘raptureready.com’ – yes, that is a real site apparently).

    Here’s the thing. Evolution is settled science – it’s not open for debate. Calling someone an “evolutionist” is like calling them a “gravitationalist” for believing in the theory of gravity. It’s silly.

    You may reply to this but I won’t answer – my post is directed not at you but at the others who keep trying to debate you. Don’t feed the trolls people.



    Report abuse

  • After reading Alan’s link on Gould, I am assuming you are not being truthful with us.
    I really don’t care if you think you can pull one like this on the caliber of people on this site but ,,,,,,,no.
    You are quoting someone who quoted Gould? That’s no way to finding the truth.

    First you stated you don’t know “anything” about genetics, then you do.
    I would like to debate you in front of a logical panel and see if this logic stands.
    You are not talking to idiots.



    Report abuse

  • @dan #91

    At last, finally, your abiding interest in 19th century philosophers pays off, makes sense, to me: Aha, I got it. Some folks WILL not be persuaded by REASON. Well done. I still admire Alan & Co for trying.

    Peace



    Report abuse

  • Bobby:

    “Only recently have we been able to come to some understanding of
    tides, the water cycle, and the causes of eclipses, etc.”

    And how much of that understanding was due to the church? Think “Galileo”…



    Report abuse

  • @ 31 and any others mentioning Noah gathering “two of each”… that’s only the “unclean” animals. Read the Book (Genesis):

    7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

    7:3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female;
    to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

    This means the problem of accommodation of large numbers of animals is much greater than generally claimed… though perhaps better for genetic diversity!



    Report abuse

  • OHooligan 96 (and Phil)

    Thanks for bringing a smile to my face during these harrowing times.

    (I agree with you about things getting worse, and expressed that agreement on the Cameron thread. Phil, where are our better angels? How long must we wait? Is this an ideology Pinker is espousing or something supported by evidence?)



    Report abuse

  • Dan

    Phil, where are our better angels?

    Most visible in our kids, not our peers. Most visible in Denmark not Mississipi. In your grumpy despair not some Trumpy psychopath.

    Apart from Pinker and Turchin my oft recommended Wilkinson and Pickett. The Spirit Level, the recipe for better angels.

    Hitchens aphorism does the best service. You can’t talk a man out of a position he was not talked into. Over imitation creates the bones of our culture and the right early education creates women and men more negotiable. You don’t debate the intellectually and emotionally damaged for themselves. You debate them for the young onlookers.



    Report abuse

  • Phil, obviously we have beaten this dead horse (the ark) until it’s hamburger. And the faithful keep coming for more.
    I agree this serves a purpose as a demonstration how illogical religion is.
    I am looking for an answer to their behavior. I’m aware this is brain chemistry we may be dealing with, (genetic diversity) and some will not change their minds even if a meteor strikes them dead.
    I think we should use the Ark fable to illustrate how stupid the stories are. Most intelligent christians will acknowledge the Ark is just a story. Its not them I have a beef with.



    Report abuse

  • 107
    Pinball1970 says:

    @#89bobby1942

    If you are a Christian Bobby then I am afraid you are being dishonest and I do not think you have much of an interest in science.

    You have made your mind up about jesus being god and now you are looking for ways of validating the bible that’s it.

    My advice is if you are interested in science then read the 99% established science and ignore the 1% alchemy science.

    All serious scientific establishments accept evolution and old earth and they spend their time doing real new science not trying to defend established theory.

    There are some questions yet to be answered regarding life on earth and the universe but where all the different species on the planet came from is not one of them.

    As an aside I am interested in your anthropology degree, presumably you have studied societal animals and mans evolution story?

    Dubois, Dart, the Leakys, Johanson, White, Stringer?

    You don’t buy any of that?



    Report abuse

  • Bobby #66
    Jul 14, 2016 at 9:31 am

    I think it was described as a kind of rising mist.

    A bit like the average YEC’s understanding of the historical origins, and the authorship of the Bible!

    Just out of interest, do you know of the god “El” or which authors of books of the New Testament are known to have actually written those texts?



    Report abuse

  • Of course everyone forgets that all the diseases would also have to be carried by the few humans on the Ark as well or they would have died out with the extinction of mankind. You can imagine the scene “Okay son your Mother and I have taken Chlamydia, smallpox, herpes and the plague. Can you and you wife handle the syphilis, gonorrhea, your daughter can have bacterial meningitis, and we can roll a dice to see who gets the public lice…” and so on.



    Report abuse

  • alf 1200

    I am looking for an answer to their behavior. I’m aware this is brain chemistry we may be dealing with, (genetic diversity)

    In this instance, though the neural mechanisms are known, and I’ve talked about them much I don’t believe the account for impermeable brains is any other than cultural attributes and attitudes to bringing up children. We don’t see a random seeding of irrationality of one type or another but more or less uniform and distinct geographical blocks of stupid. Like measles.

    See Benjamin Abelows article here.

    https://www.richarddawkins.net/2016/07/childhood-trauma-and-the-origins-of-religious-myth/

    Its over-long for its content and is quite partial, but it outlines some of the cultural pressures on early mind formation. Far more important is early education and the very reliable copying (over-imitation) it confers, the very basis of all culture. Our neotenous (premature unwired) brains are hugely dependent on early guidance and instruction for our very survival. This early wiring decides how we come to parse the world through our later experiences. It becomes us almost as surely as a genetic disposition. It also allows cultures to adapt in a generation to new threats, but is also a liability allowing psychopath parasites, to achieve extraordinary levels of compliance in populations.

    The only viable long term solution is to treat people fairly (to reduce their unvoiced fears) and fairly educate their kids. Schools must step up to the plate and offer reason from the earliest when misguided parents unwittingly offer mind fritz..

    They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
    They don’t mean to but they do.
    They give you problems that they had,
    And add some others just for you.



    Report abuse

  • Bobby#89

    All these derivative breeds, however spectacular or useful to the breeder, are essentially inferior to the feral rock dove, and only by recombination can the breeds, if not extinct, produce the original rock dove; nor can we improve on the complexity of the original bird;

    This is because in nature they are being selected for survival, it is very rare that our selective breeding results in adaptations that would survive in the wild. This is because we are often choosing for things that benefit us and not the animal in a natural context. We can reduce the natural genetic diversity by too much in breeding and many show dogs are now seriously inbred, many would most certainly fail to revert back to wolves, a pug for example would be very unlikely to be able to hunt and would be very likely to be eaten before breeding. What selective breeding shows is the enormous power of selection, however nature itself acts as a brake on wild, quick excursions from the norm until conditions change which favour a bigger beak or longer legs.

    As for Dawkins being flummoxed, I’d be skeptical as you can find numerous examples of evidence for evolution in our lives in his books. Even if he did have a brain fart or something it doesn’t matter one jot to me, I’m a fan of Richards but I was convinced of evolution before I read his work (it just made my understanding much greater) because of the enormous amount of evidence. Not many here respect arguments from authority, so you’re barking up the wrong tree, the religious are in the habit of using arguments from authority not fans of science and reason.

    If you honestly have an open mind on this you’ll read some of the real science on this and not the dishonest sludge that comes from the creationist community. As a high school teacher I have been confronted with most of the usual creationist arguments and have even read at the behest of students challenging me a number of books published by people they claimed had qualifications in this field only to find out their dentists for example. Claims that there are no documented intermediates or any way between bombardier beetles that eject super hot caustic liquid out their arses and those that don’t only to do a 5 minute google search turning up 12 species ranging from unpleasant tasting to explosive arses proving not that these evolved from each-other although all in that group share common ancestors, but that there are various stages in evidence now. Every claim was pitifully easy for me a science teacher but not a highly qualified scientist in this field to find numerous faults in logic and frankly an awful lot of dishonest quote mining. You will need to the read the actual science before you can make any valid decision on this matter, if all you have read is creationist clap trap then saying your not convinced is pleading from a stance of willful ignorance, you should instead be suggesting you don’t know much about it and have some questions.

    Regards



    Report abuse

  • Reckless Monkey #112
    Jul 15, 2016 at 4:32 am

    Every claim was pitifully easy for me a science teacher but not a highly qualified scientist in this field to find numerous faults in logic and frankly an awful lot of dishonest quote mining.

    That is how the straw Dawkins and the straw Gould are maintained in creationist minds!
    The followers don’t actually read the science books by these authors – Just the quote mines, Liars for Jesus, the flea books, and pseudo science drivel which claims to “refute” various regularly taught examples of evolutionary evidence!
    That way – like quoting verses from the Bible, followers can trot out pseudo-authoritative spoon-fed creationist answers, without any understanding whatever, so there is no chance of them actually understanding any of the complex science or mathematics involved in the time and space available for discussion.

    As for the farcical “scientists couldn’t answer” claims, be careful!
    If you are hesitant because you are taken aback by the stupidity of the question, you are likely to be quoted as being “stuck for an answer”! 🙂



    Report abuse

  • 115
    Pinball1970 says:

    @111 phil-rimmer

    I am immediately distrustful of anyone that quotes Philip Larkin to make a point but on that little piece I agree with you.

    There is another post on here about children experience religion early on and permeating the rest of their lives, stuff we knew but the post goes into a lot of detail.

    The image of the kids is horrible, “Childhood trauma and origins of religious myth” is the name of the piece.

    Bobby1942 has been told the bible is true therefore ANYTHING that appears to contradict it must be false.

    Either they got to him young or he is an extremely gullible adult and is really not at all keen on the idea of dying and staying dead forever.

    Christians are keen on recruiting ex alcoholics, ex cons and drug addicts as they fall into the “my life is worthless therefore let’s make a new one.” Category.

    It keeps the numbers up.



    Report abuse

  • Pin

    I wrote a big long piece about the Abelow, recommending the compilation where he is published.

    J. R. Feierman (Ed.), The biology of religious behavior: The evolutionary origins of faith and religion

    I promptly lost it just before posting.

    I’ll put something back this weekend.

    A poem stands only on its own merits…like a joke.



    Report abuse

  • 117
    Pinball1970 says:

    @116
    I think I mentioned I am heathen when it comes to literature and that includes poetry.

    I read book of Larkin’s stuff once, my friend was given it for his birthday, I thought it sounded like someone was just talking about stuff.

    “That’s the beauty of it,” He said.

    I don’t get it.



    Report abuse

  • @dan #91

    Hi Dan. I was being, somewhat uncharacteristically, hopefully optimistic. I am usually a bit rougher on the god heads and have occasionally been reined in by the Mods for sarcasm that leaned a bit more toward the sardonic. I mock well. So I tried the soft approach. Kind of like instead of torturing someone to get information, which will yield any information to get you to stop, becoming their friend and earning their trust to hopefully elicit more useful information. Poor analogy I admit, but it’s the first one that came to mind. But let me say that I tend to agree with you here. In spite of your insertion of philosophy into the conversation [sarcasm].

    -S
    (6’2”)



    Report abuse

  • If you want to see how the professional archaeologists research and build an ark replica, have a look at this 5 minute video.

    The whole thing is worth a look, but if you want to simply see a reduced scale replica ark in the water, just look at the last minute of the video. It was a bit leaky as they could not get the right sort of pitch to waterproof it, but it looks like a reasonable try.
    The museum is not convinced that an original ark ever existed other than as a story, but it was clearly designed by people who knew how to build (smaller) boats.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbfr-9US31k
    Was the ark round? The new Babylonian text that reshaped Noah’s Ark
    Published on 20 Aug 2015

    It all started with a fairly normal event for a museum: a member of the public bringing in an old family heirloom. However the heirloom – a cuneiform tablet from around 1750 BC – proved to be one in a million.
    Dr Irving Finkel, Deputy Keeper of Middle East at the British Museum, proceeded to decipher this tablet. In doing so, he discovered the earliest account of the ancient Babylonian ‘Story of the Flood’ – an account closely related to the biblical account of Noah. The sixty-line passage not only provided the materials and measurements required to build the ark, it also suggested that the vessel was round.

    This film is a small part of the journey Irving Finkel took from deciphering the text to building a replica ark with a team of archaeological boat builders.

    This is archaeological science, not some ham-fisted job, so of course Hammy poo-poos it at AIG!



    Report abuse

  • I don’t know if this was said because I am joining the discussion so late (and don’t have the time right now to read all the comments) but….

    Has anyone mentioned the huge huge paradox here?
    Nye visited an ark he thinks should not exist?

    The people who built the ark would simply declare that it doesn’t. Despite being able to actively experience it. Things do not exist if they say they don’t and things do exist if they say they do, regardless or actual reality.



    Report abuse

  • Pin

    That hurt a little bit

    !! Real and sincere apologies.

    I meant that maybe, like my claim about having a religious aesthetic inculcated by early indoctrination I may have had an equally fatuous poetic aesthetic foisted upon me.

    The point about cultural aesthetics like art, like religion, is that they are in a sense man made and exist at root because they trigger rewards. Truly mental masturbation. So, either you were left unindoctrinated or I am the wanker.



    Report abuse

  • 126
    Pinball1970 says:

    @125 No problem!
    I thought my Brexit comments were once again tainting my important contributions to this site! (joke)
    On that, a very quick aside, my son called me and “idiot” and that I was talking “bollocks” regarding the whole situation when we met up last weekend, something to do with EU research funding.
    I am slowly acquiring knowledge on the whole EU thing.
    If we have another referendum I may be in a position to vote this time.



    Report abuse

  • Pin

    If we have another referendum I may be in a position to vote this time.

    FWIW.

    Every meeting I have had since Breaksit in the tech industries starts with collective wailing and gnashing of teeth. To a woman and man despair over the long term prospects of their main market and thoughts of relocation and anger at quotations for components down from 60 day to 24 hours, with little prospect of improvement, but a certainty of cost rises.

    Great England will need to be punished severely pour encourager les autres EU members and prevent the largest progressive single market falling to pieces. This latter would be a grave eco catastrophe.

    The Pain! The Pain! Dammit, why couldn’t I have been indoctrinated into masochism like religious kids….?



    Report abuse

  • 128
    bonnie2 says:

    The only w*r in our midst is KH-AIG per Ark Park and Creation Museum:

    “Yes, our motivation is to do the King’s business until he comes”.



    Report abuse

  • Pinball1970 #126
    Jul 16, 2016 at 5:39 am

    I thought my Brexit comments were once again tainting my important contributions to this site! (joke)

    To suspend judgement due to lack of information is rational.
    Unfortunately we have to take into account that the government decision is likely to be made on the basis of weight of numbers from the irrational media-fed “know-nothings” who ARE going to vote, so the rational have their hands forced, and need to also feed this into the decision making process!



    Report abuse

  • @Agrajag

    “…public lice…”

    ? I see what your autocorrect did there!

    Yes, I spotted it after I did it but outside of the edit time. As an interesting side note some species of pubic lice are becoming endangered species due to the amount of waxing, man-scaping, the Brazilian and general levels of deforestation so to speak. This must further more imply that Noah and his kin must have been particularly well endowed in the pubic growth to ensure that they supported the different species which one assumes must have been hopping their way towards the mid east for some time from pudenda to pudenda for some years to make their way to Noah and his family. How Noah a chaste man managed to get infected with all these guys remains an open question though. I don’t know exactly how many different species of pubic lice there are but I image they need some range one per cm squared or something. So perhaps they sported some additional merkins woven for the purpose Noah did have 950 years to make a prodigious collection if he had chosen to. 😉



    Report abuse

  • Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I have been somewhat taken up by local political chaos, and the failed coup in Turkey. The cleric Gullen, in asylum in California?, claims it was a fix by Erdogan. Very interesting. A sign of the times?

    86

    Who considers it “perfect”?

    Noah’s Ark—A Flawless Floater

    by Kyle Butt, M.Div.
    http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=562

    In Genesis 6:15, God instructed Noah to build an ark that was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. This is a ratio of 30 to 5 to 3 (length to breadth to height). Until about 1858, the ark was the largest floating ship ever created. In terms that we understand better, the ark was about 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high. In 1844, a man named Isambard K. Brunnel built his giant ship, the Great Britain. He used almost the exact ratio of the ark—30:5:3. As it turns out, these dimensions are the perfect ratio for a huge boat built for seaworthiness and not for speed. Obviously the ark was not built for speed, since it had nowhere to go! What is more, shipbuilders during World War II used approximately the same ratio to build a ship known as the S.S. Jeremiah O’Brien (one of a group of ships known as the Liberty Ships, which were referred to as “the ugly ducklings”)—a barge-like boat built to carry tremendous amounts of cargo, just like the ark. How did Noah know the perfect seagoing ratio to use in building the ark? Brunnel and others like him had many generations of shipbuilding knowledge to use, but Noah’s literally was the first of its kind. Where did he get such information?

    ‘Are you aware there are two accounts of the dimensions and the descriptions of the “ark” ‘

    No. I was not aware of that. How do they differ?



    Report abuse

  • Bobby #131
    Jul 17, 2016 at 7:47 am

    Who considers it “perfect”?

    Noah’s Ark—A Flawless Floater – by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

    It is really no surprise that some preacher with a divinity degree accepts the biblical story, but you have made no attempt to answer the issues raised by engineers about a wooden structure with the fittings of those times, simply falling apart in the open sea due to stresses @#67 or about the limitations of bronze-age tools.
    “The story says so”, is not evidence of anything except the ability to read stories.
    Bronze age peoples built boats, so it should be no surprise that some of them understood the proportions of the dimensions.

    You do not seem to respond to debate information and questions, but just keep quoting apologetics writers and bible texts, apparently with no understanding of their sources or showing an ability to separate speculative opinions from physical evidence.

    @#109 I asked you to demonstrate an understanding of the historical sources of the Bible: –
    Just out of interest, do you know of the god “El” or which “authors” of books of the New Testament are known to have actually written those texts? I also commented on this topic @#63.

    Can you please answer those questions?



    Report abuse

  • i am interested in poetry and lit. as mankind’s expression of elation and despair; and how to counter it. Surely that is a legitimate quest? Can we find a good delusion; a ‘good meme’?

    Incidentally, where have the poems I left gone.

    @#109 I asked you to demonstrate an understanding of the historical sources of the Bible: –
    Just out of interest, do you know of the god “El” or which “authors” of books of the New Testament are known to have actually written those texts? I also commented on this topic @#63.

    i believe that the original Genesis account was transmitted for many generations; and was picked up and printed in mutilated copies by surrounding nations before i was written down in a coherent rendition by those with whom it originated? i my be wrong, but that hesis preserves the logical sense.



    Report abuse

  • Bobby #133
    Jul 17, 2016 at 8:41 am

    i believe that the original Genesis account was transmitted for many generations; and was picked up and printed in mutilated copies by surrounding nations before it was written down in a coherent rendition by those with whom it originated?

    But I did not ask you about the Genesis account, (although I think your version of events would struggle with dating issues.) !
    I asked about the god “El” and the authorship of the New Testament.

    @#109 I asked you to demonstrate an understanding of the historical sources of the Bible: –
    Just out of interest, do you know of the god “El” or which “authors” of books of the New Testament are known to have actually written those texts? I also commented on this topic @#63.




    Report abuse

  • Bobby #131
    Jul 17, 2016 at 7:47 am

    He used almost the exact ratio of the ark—30:5:3. As it turns out, these dimensions are the perfect ratio for a huge boat built for seaworthiness and not for speed.

    Utter nonsense as even a cursory Google can tell anyone. The length/beam ratio of ships and boats varies massively and you make an argument for any ratio from 2:1 up to over 10:1 as being “boat shaped” depending on which particular inane point you were trying to prove. There is no “perfect ratio” and Wikipedia suggests a common formula for the ideal beam width of a mono hull vessel when dimensions are in feet is Length^2/3 +1 which means the longer the vessel the higher that ratio becomes.

    That would suggest a 450 foot (300 cubit) long vessel should be 60 feet wide (40 cubits) and not 50 cubits (75 feet). But hey, when you’ve got your God Goggles firmly in place over your eyes how amazing it must seem that an imaginary ark builder built an imaginary ark that was approximately boat shaped. Surely only God can have told him given that no one else had ever built a boat before!



    Report abuse

  • 112

    ‘As for Dawkins being flummoxed, I’d be skeptical as you can find numerous examples of evidence for evolution in our lives in his books.’

    Well, he certainly was.
    See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g
    Richard Dawkins stumped by creationists’ question (RAW …
    http://www.youtube.com
    And for a true timeline of events on the actual day of filming, see here (VERY INTERESTING READING): http://www.tccsa.tc/video/timeline.pdf and for further …

    I was not particularly concerned by Dawkins inability to answer the question from laboratory-based studies since most such evidence offered there is merely piddling around in a Petrie dish. What really astonished me was the mindset displayed. Consider his confusion when he suddenly had to handle what was for him an original thought. It is, to say the least, amazing that such thought had never occurred to a scientist who had written extensively, and lectured, on evolution. It also reflects on the mindset of his students that never during a tutorial, or otherwise, was he asked for such evidence. Otherwise he would have had a ready-made answer. The word which comes to mind is that which is glibly attributed by the opponents of religious education to such an unquestioning exchange; brainwashing.



    Report abuse

  • Bobby #137

    Richard Dawkins has a whole essay devoted to this in his book, A Devil’s Chaplain. It’s called The “Information Challenge”.

    I can highly recommend the book as a whole: it’s an excellent introduction to an evidence-based perspective on the world and it’s very readable.

    But since I suspect you’re not about to do that, here’s a link to an online version of the relevant essay, which explains the background to the interview you refer to here, and why he reacted as he did; and then goes on to answer in some detail the question that creationists like to claim science can’t in fact answer.

    http://www.skeptics.com.au/resources/articles/the-information-challenge/



    Report abuse

  • It’s amazing how when the Bobby types come in here they only employ a single strategy. Just keep copying and pasting gibberish from the god botherers in chief who infest the internet, not even the most cursory attempt to justify, analyse or understand the errors, just spew it out and let others refute it. “Oh maybe this, perhaps that, could it be this?”

    It strikes me that a good analogy is of someone who walks into another person’s house uninvited, vomits all over the floor and then claims that every chunk of carrot is a pearl. No justification of course, let the poor houseowner rake through every bit of the sticky mess, refute that any pearls are to be found and then he just vomits again and claims that this time there are really pearls in there somewhere. Well it takes a lot more time and effort to check the vomit for pearls than it does to spew it out.



    Report abuse

  • John Sanford’s spectacular mistake of Genetic Entropy (information including genetic is only ever lost…because entropy) is something he recently came to understand but, not surprisingly, wheedled his way out of accepting by redefining the term….scientific entropy, engineering entropy, biological entropy in his book now all different to suit his antique and selective needs.

    His spectacular mistake was to claim information is at the mercy of entropy without reading the physicists small print. Entropy only need increase in a closed system and the earth, bathed in a flux of high energy, is not a closed system. Sunlight continues to power the organisational processes due to natural selection. In this situation invoking entropy is plain wrong.

    I would also point out his arguments of mutation rate as deleterious of themselves are still wrong but are now directly countered by the work of Andreas Wagner’s Zurich team and the demonstration that the evolutionary solution space for useful new proteins, say, is a millionfold larger than once thought AND that their useful contiguous meshing across that solution space provides safe evolutionary pathways for pleiotropic genes . Mutations are far less likely to be catastrophic than once thought, and neutral changes and positives far more likely.

    From the time of Schroedinger’s 1945 (?) paper on the thermodynamics of life, genetic biologists have needed to have a good grasp of physics too.



    Report abuse

  • 143
    bonnie2 says:

    @ #141 con’t

    Kentucky Baptist preacher sermonized about ‘creationism’ this morning (tv).

    Basically boiled down to this –
    “despite the really, really big universe god created, Jesus loves us, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.”



    Report abuse

  • Arkrid, I would like to know if the regulars here go to fundamental sites to troll?
    I personally have never been to a religious site to “express” my knowledge to the fundies.



    Report abuse

  • alf1200 #144
    Jul 17, 2016 at 1:48 pm

    Arkrid, I would like to know if the regulars here go to fundamental sites to troll?
    I personally have never been to a religious site to “express” my knowledge to the fundies.

    Not me. I can’t imagine anything more pointless than trying to enlighten the intractibly hard of thinking.



    Report abuse

  • alf1200

    I think we need to “explore the facts” of the story of the Ark, and if Trump wins we will need a real “Noah’s Ark” to take us all to safety.

    (That was a very funny remark you made on the Pence thread about the phrase “exploring facts.” I laughed my ass off.)



    Report abuse

  • alf1200 #146
    Jul 17, 2016 at 2:28 pm

    “original Genesis account transmitted orally for generations”

    Ah! The old game of Chinese Whispers!
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers

    Chinese whispers (or telephone game in the United States[1]) is a game played around the world,[2] in which one person whispers a message to another, which is passed through a line of people until the last player announces the message to the entire group. Errors typically accumulate in the retellings, so the statement announced by the last player differs significantly, and often amusingly, from the one uttered by the first.

    The game is often played by children as a party game or on the playground. It is often invoked as a metaphor for cumulative error, especially the inaccuracies as rumours or gossip spread,[1] or, more generally, for the unreliability of human recollection or even oral traditions.



    Report abuse

  • Alan4discussion #135
    Jul 17, 2016 at 9:09 am

    But I did not ask you about the Genesis account, (although I think your version of events would struggle with dating issues.) !
    I asked about the god “El” and the authorship of the New Testament.

    I seems that Bobby is unable, or reluctant to answer this historical question. I’ll deal with the first half of it:-

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh#Iron_Age_I_.28c.1200.E2.80.931000_BCE.29:_El.2C_Yahweh.2C_and_the_origins_of_Israel

    The milieu from which Israelite religion emerged was accordingly Canaanite.[22]
    El, “the kind, the compassionate,” “the creator of creatures,” was the chief of the Canaanite gods,[23] and he, not Yahweh, was the original “God of Israel”—the word “Isra el ” is based on the name El rather than Yahweh.[24]
    He lived in a tent on a mountain from whose base originated all the fresh waters of the world, with the goddess Asherah as his consort. [23][25]
    This pair made up the top tier of the Canaanite pantheon;[23] the second tier was made up of their children, the “seventy sons of Athirat” (another name of Asherah).[26]
    Prominent in this group was Baal, who had his home on Mount Zaphon; over time Baal became the dominant Canaanite deity, so that El became the executive power and Baal the military power in the cosmos.[27]
    Baal’s sphere was the thunderstorm with its life-giving rains, so that he was also a fertility god, although not quite the fertility god.[28]
    Below the seventy second-tier gods was a third tier made up of comparatively minor craftsman and trader deities, with a fourth and final tier of divine messengers and the like.[26]
    Yahweh, the southern warrior-god, joined the pantheon headed by El and in time he and El were identified, with El’s name becoming a generic term for “god”.[25]

    El and his sons made up the Assembly of the Gods, each member of which had a human nation under his care, and a textual variant of Deuteronomy 32:8–9 describes the sons of El, including Yahweh, each receiving his own people:

    El, Yahweh, Jehovah, The Father, Holy Spirit. Allah!



    Report abuse

  • Alan #149

    Sounds more like an ancient soap opera in a “world” (small part of) where El was quite powerful, and an elder, who was in charge of the fresh water. Bet they had mobile phones and a 4×4 parked outside the tent. The ‘god of gods’ being the owner of the largest company with Yaweh as his main rival, soon to become top dog (god). The ‘El” brand giving way. A huge two story high sky scraper cave with his name on it. All other ‘lesser gods’ working for him. Meanwhile, Sue Ellen having affairs behind his back and giving birth whilst Bobby takes a shower…….wait??

    If we translate the old writings of ‘god’ as ‘boss’ it works 😉 Maybe early translators simply got it wrong?



    Report abuse

  • Bobby #58
    Jul 14, 2016 at 8:20 am

    I did anthropology at uni years ago –

    The anthropology of the Canaanite culture with the gods El, Asherah, Baal, Yahweh, and Jehovah, relates to the OT Bible in which ways?

    when I was an agnostic and default:) evolutionist.

    I think that means: “heard of it, but never studied it, thought about it, or understood it”!



    Report abuse

  • “I did anthropology at uni years ago –”

    I “did anthropology”? I didn’t know you could “do” anthropology. I thought you studied anthropology.
    Did he finish anthropology?



    Report abuse

  • ‘I seems that Bobby is unable, or reluctant to answer this historical question.’ #149

    I also majored on indolence so I am reluctant to cut and paste and comment, only to have my posts blocked; as has already happened twice in this exchange.



    Report abuse

  • Bobby #153
    Jul 19, 2016 at 8:44 am

    @#149 – ‘It seems that Bobby is unable, or reluctant to answer this historical question.’

    I also majored on indolence so I am reluctant to cut and paste and comment, only to have my posts blocked; as has already happened twice in this exchange.

    Only preaching, abuse, trolling, and pasting made-up assertions from YEC sites, is blocked here.
    Posts are not blocked because of a particular viewpoint.
    However some theists fail to notice, that quoting the bible as evidence of the accuracy of the Bible is a fallacious circular argument.

    https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/07/14/proof-of-mr-tickle/

    For confirmation, you need independent historical sources.
    (artefacts, inscriptions, documents etc. – such as the cuneiform tablet I quoted describing the circular ark.).

    If you make a reasoned explanation, point out logical or factual errors, or link to reputable academic papers or articles, it will not be blocked.



    Report abuse

  • I am reluctant to cut and paste and comment, only to have my posts blocked; as has already happened twice in this exchange.

    Don’t worry, Bobby. We’ll support you if you think you have something useful to say. I have never known the mods to suppress any new information only offensiveness or repetitious proselytising or sustained off topic subject matter on a still active thread.

    Oops…Alan.



    Report abuse

  • To anyone who’s interested, we certainly frown on sustained appeals to the bible or creationist websites in discussions, so we will continue to monitor the situation, but so far we have not removed any of Bobby’s comments.

    The mods



    Report abuse

  • Bobby #153
    Jul 19, 2016 at 8:44 am

    ‘I seems that Bobby is unable, or reluctant to answer this historical question.’ #149

    I also majored on indolence so I am reluctant to cut and paste and comment, only to have my posts blocked; as has already happened twice in this exchange.

    Perhaps you should look back over the discussion, to see if the comments were merely automatically delayed awaiting moderation of the links, and then give us the benefit of your understanding of the anthropology involved in these historical issues, by answering various questions?



    Report abuse

  • Others have been visiting the Ark-Park and writing reports on its features!

    http://www.kentucky.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/tom-eblen/article90005457.html

    Ark park is impressive woodcraft, but its ‘facts’ don’t hold water

    Williamstown – Curiosity finally got the best of me. I had to drive up I-75 and see Noah’s Ark.

    I found the ark to be an impressive piece of woodcraft, which made me feel better about paying $40 to see it. (It cost an additional $10 to park in the 4,000-space parking lot, which was only a fraction full.)

    The Ark Encounter gift shop includes a book by
    Answers in Genesis founder Ken Ham about his 2014 debate
    with TV “science guy” Bill Nye.
    Each man thinks they won the highly publicized debate.
    (Tom Eblen)

    +++++++++++++

    Unfortunately, the ark’s top deck, which should have great views of the Grant County countryside, isn’t finished yet. Neither is the zip line. I skipped the petting zoo.

    As I walked the ark’s three decks and long connecting ramps, the space was filled with dramatic music reminiscent of Hollywood Bible epics of the 1950s. I saw dozens of wooden cages, some with fake animals, and scores of clay jars and burlap bags showing how supplies might have been stored.

    Answers in Genesis also insists that the story of Noah’s Ark is true precisely as Genesis described it. That seems to require the assumption that Noah and his family lived among dinosaurs, like the Flintstones, and took some of them on the ark.

    The Ark Encounter often strains logic. Yes, a family of ancients with primitive tools and limited skills could have built this colossal boat, gathered two of every kind of creature on board and kept them afloat and alive for a year. And if Genesis says Noah was 600 years old when he did all of this, then, by God, he was!

    But I didn’t come to Ark Encounter as an atheist. I came as a mainstream Christian, and two things bothered me: Answers in Genesis’ claim that its pseudo-science is “true” Christianity, and some critics’ assumption that all Christians are anti-science rubes.

    Answers in Genesis’ young-earth creationism is the product of a strain of evangelical Christianity only about a century old that now seems to thrive on authoritarianism, conservative politics and feelings of persecution.

    Neither the Roman Catholic Church nor most mainstream Protestant denominations see a fundamental conflict between evolution and faith. Most Jews see evolution as compatible with Judaism, which is based on the Old Testament.

    Theologians believe the Bible was divinely inspired, but many acknowledge that it was written, edited, translated and interpreted by disparate men over thousands of years amid huge cultural shifts and before much was known about science. They don’t claim that every word in modern translations is literal fact.

    Answers in Genesis has built an impressive ark, and those who believe its theology are welcome to it. For me, though, this pseudo-science doesn’t hold water.



    Report abuse

  • 158. ‘Answers in Genesis’ young-earth creationism is the product of a strain of evangelical Christianity only about a century old’

    That comment is just utter uninformed rubbish. He needs to read the New Testament; and he/she will find that Jesus the Christ, believed in a literal deluge which swept everyone away. The early Church Fathers believed likewise, also that they were living in the last days. It was only gradually that some introduced the kind of interpretations which proliferate today. It is similar to the kind of assertion, propagated by such as the former PM Cameron, that Islam is a religion of peace. The New testament and the Koran need to be read and interpreted in the spirit in which they were written; the former by the Holy Spirit.



    Report abuse

  • Bobby, do you know what significance the second chromosome has?
    What are vestigial limbs?
    Where did the wood from the ark come from?
    Where did you “do” anthropology?



    Report abuse

  • Bobby #137
    Jul 17, 2016 at 10:01 am

    #112 – ‘As for “Dawkins being flummoxed”, I’d be skeptical as you can find numerous examples of evidence for evolution in our lives in his books.’

    I was not particularly concerned by Dawkins inability to answer the question from laboratory-based studies since most such evidence offered there is merely piddling around in a Petrie dish.

    That is a woeful attempt at describing the evolving Ecoli experiments which are an example of relatively fast speciation on observable human time-scales.
    Most evolution of slower reproducing organisms, takes more than a human lifetime for enough significant changes to show up.

    What really astonished me was the mindset displayed. Consider his confusion when he suddenly had to handle what was for him an original thought. It is, to say the least, amazing that such thought had never occurred to a scientist who had written extensively, and lectured, on evolution.

    This is laughable!
    Having to pause and think about which example or study to quote from, on the evidence of 8.7 million different forms of evolving life, is not “being flummoxed”, although it may appear so to those who have no idea about ANY evolutionary mechanisms of ANY species of life.

    It also reflects on the mindset of his students that never during a tutorial, or otherwise, was he asked for such evidence.

    Given that evolution is the central feature of biology, and the international rules of nomenclature, governing the naming systems classifying ALL micro-organisms, plants, fungi, and animals, is based on the evolutionary branching of related species, the assertion that students “have never asked for the evidence” which they have been discussing in classes, lectures, tutorials, and seminars for the last 150 years+ , comically illustrates the “faith-thinking mindset” which tries to make up its own “facts” as it goes along, to prop up lame assertions, in total ignorance of what is actually happening in the real world. !
    It also illustrates the psychological projection of that form of irrational “faith-thinking” on to those who challenge it with evidence and logic!

    This comment however, is probably going to places where fundamentalists in denial, will not go and will not look.



    Report abuse

  • Bobby #159
    Jul 20, 2016 at 7:09 pm

    #158. ‘Answers in Genesis’ young-earth creationism is the product of a strain of evangelical Christianity only about a century old’

    That comment is just utter uninformed rubbish.

    It could be mistaken and a bit approximate, although it does seem to be around the time when YEC evangelism adopted this view, while mainstream Christianity accepted scientific evidence, and moved over to “Old Earth Creationism”!

    However it is beyond dispute that the YEC claims of Bishop Ussher are less than 500 years old.

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/James_Ussher
    James Ussher (4 January 1581 – 21 March 1656) was the Anglican Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland from 1625 to 1656.

    He is most famous for calculating what was believed, at the time, to be the exact first day of creation based on a detailed examination of the Bible and of older chronologies and calendars.[2] The date which he arrived at – the night preceding October 23, 4004 BCE – is still used by many young earth creationists today.

    The main distinction between Ussher and other significantly different (i.e. in the hundreds of years) biblical chronologies depends on which Old Testament version is used. As with most Protestant bibles today, Ussher relied on the Masoretic text[wp]. However, the Eastern Orthodox and older Catholic bibles as well as ancient Christians prior to Jerome[wp] tend(ed) to use the Septuagint which moves the date of Creation back to around 5000-5500 BC, but places the Flood much later (around 1850 BC). A third option, using the Samaritan Pentateuch[wp], while locating Creation (in 4064 BC) almost simultaneously to the Masoretic text, moves the Flood back to around 2800 BC (or about 450 years prior to Masoretic calculations). A few, more modern (and fringe) biblical chronologies have moved Creation back significantly, such as Harold Camping’s 11,013 BC, or two 19th century calculations[wp] of, respectively, 12,500 BC and 20,000 BC. Go biblical inerrancy!

    If you had looked at my link @#109, about versions of “THE BIBLE” and responded, some of this would have been evident.

    He needs to read the New Testament; and he/she will find that Jesus the Christ, believed in a literal deluge which swept everyone away.

    If you responded to my question @#109 and #135, about the authorship of “THE NEW TESTAMENT BIBLE”, you might be better informed about claims as to “What Jesus said”! – Given that there are NO eye witness accounts and nothing written within decades or centuries, of anything such a person said or did! All that is there is the writings of Paul (who only met Jesus in his “visions”) and the stories from some Christian sects chosen by Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria in the 4th. century Roman empire.

    The New testament and the Koran need to be read and interpreted in the spirit in which they were written;

    Ah! The theistic art of reinterpreting words, so they can mean all things to all men according to their preconceptions and the current cultural beliefs of the sect or day!



    Report abuse

  • Bobby #159
    Jul 20, 2016 at 7:09 pm

    Still only unevidenced assertions and denials?

    @#149 – ‘It seems that Bobby is unable, or reluctant to answer this historical question.’

    It seems Bobby is still unable, or reluctant, to answer or debate these historical questions about origins of the stories quoted.



    Report abuse

  • 136.

    ‘Utter nonsense as even a cursory Google can tell anyone. The length/beam ratio of ships and boats varies massively and you make an argument for any ratio from 2:1 up to over 10:1 as being “boat shaped” depending on which particular inane point you were trying to prove.’

    Look, Noah was not competing for the America’s Cup. You need to reread, in a becalmed state, what I actually wrote: ‘In 1844, a man named Isambard K. Brunnel built his giant ship, the Great Britain. He used almost the exact ratio of the ark—30:5:3. As it turns out, these dimensions are the perfect ratio for a huge boat built for seaworthiness and not for speed. Obviously the ark was not built for speed, since it had nowhere to go! What is more, shipbuilders during World War II used approximately the same ratio to build a ship known as the S.S. Jeremiah O’Brien (one of a group of ships known as the Liberty Ships, which were referred to as “the ugly ducklings”)—a barge-like boat built to carry tremendous amounts of cargo, just like the ark.’



    Report abuse

  • I’m confused. I know the 5 second rule is true – if you pick food up off the floor within 5 seconds it’s still safe to eat. I’m just not sure about the repeating drivel rule. If you type out drivel a second time does that make it definitely true or do you have to stamp your foot as well while yelling “it’s twoo I tell you, all twoo”? No doubt someone in here knows.



    Report abuse

  • Bobby #165
    Jul 21, 2016 at 12:13 pm

    Look, Noah was not competing for the America’s Cup. You need to reread, in a becalmed state, what I actually wrote: ‘In 1844, a man named Isambard K. Brunnel built his giant ship, the Great Britain.

    Brunnel built his giant ship, the “Great Britain” from iron not wood!

    He used almost the exact ratio of the ark—30:5:3. As it turns out, these dimensions are the perfect ratio for a huge boat built for seaworthiness and not for speed.

    MMmm! Perfect???

    After repairs in New York, she {The Gt. Britain} set out for Liverpool with only 28 passengers, and lost four propeller blades during the crossing. By this time, another design flaw had become evident. The ship rolled heavily, especially in calm weather without the steadying influence of sail, causing great discomfort to passengers.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Great_Britain#Adoption_of_iron_hull

    The chief advantage of the iron hull was its much greater structural strength. The practical limit on the length of a wooden-hulled ship is about 300 feet, after which hogging—the flexing of the hull as waves pass beneath it—becomes too great. Iron hulls are far less subject to hogging, so that the potential size of an iron-hulled ship is much greater

    Your claim, totally fails to address the issue that a wooden ship of that size, using the fixings available at those historical dates, would simply fall apart at sea!
    Ham is using steel fixings and steel bolts on his concrete mounted land-locked attempt.



    Report abuse

  • Alan, you have the patience of a saint.(sorry)

    The ark, Jonas and the whale, Moses and the splitting of the river, on and on are in my opinion the tales of ignorant people told to their children. This could have started out as a group of stories to tell children to terrorize them into submission.

    I have not the patience to point out the obvious to the oblivious.



    Report abuse

  • “He used almost the exact ratio of the ark—30:5:3. As it turns out, these dimensions are the perfect ratio for a huge boat built for seaworthiness and not for speed.”

    So, Bobby, it doesn’t matter what kind of material it was built out of?
    Iron is the same as wood?”



    Report abuse

  • bonnie2 #143
    Jul 17, 2016 at 1:01 pm

    @ #141 con’t

    Kentucky Baptist preacher sermonized about ‘creationism’ this morning (tv).

    Basically boiled down to this –
    “despite the really, really big universe god created, Jesus loves us, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.”

    I wonder if he had any concept at all – as we were discussing over here – about just how big?

    https://www.richarddawkins.net/2016/07/this-new-map-of-the-universe-charts-out-1-2-million-galaxies/



    Report abuse

  • alf1200 #168
    Jul 21, 2016 at 1:07 pm

    Alan, you have the patience of a saint.(sorry)

    True dat!

    My own tolerance levels for stupidity are notoriously low however and I think I invested enough time in fuckwits when I debated the YEC fundie friend I used to know 20 or so years back. 18 months of doing that in the pub from time to time taught me all I need to know about the futility of using facts and reason to counter blind faith.

    Nonetheless, I have learned quite a bit about wooden ships, their maximum size and length/beam ratios during the course of this current silliness 🙂



    Report abuse

  • alf1200 #168
    Jul 21, 2016 at 1:07 pm

    Alan, you have the patience of a saint.(sorry)

    I know enough science, to know that nature does “adequate”, not “perfect”! –

    Perfection claims are always flawed!



    Report abuse

  • @#164 – It seems Bobby is still unable, or reluctant, to answer or debate these historical questions about origins of the stories quoted.

    Alan4discussion #149

    the original “God of Israel”—the word “Isra el ” is based on the name El rather than Yahweh.[24]
    He lived in a tent on a mountain from whose base originated all the fresh waters of the world, with the goddess Asherah as his consort. [23][25]
    This pair made up the top tier of the Canaanite pantheon;[23] the second tier was made up of their children, the “seventy sons of Athirat” (another name of Asherah).[26]

    Yahweh, the southern warrior-god, joined the pantheon headed by El and in time he and El were identified, with El’s name becoming a generic term for “god”.

    That kind of fades the Christian myth of an “only begotten son” born in Bethlehem, at best into a rather small minority of one of seventy-one “sons of god”!

    ( I wonder why Christian apologists avoid looking at this historical question??)



    Report abuse

  • “Nonetheless, I have learned quite a bit about wooden ships, their maximum size and length/beam ratios during the course of this current silliness ?”

    Absolutely. I have learned more from reading the responses. But then again, I’m not an engineer but I trust engineers or scientists or educators. So I don’t really get into engineering discussions. But I don’t need to study whales to disbelieve the guy in the whale story.



    Report abuse

  • Olgun #150
    Jul 17, 2016 at 5:52 pm

    If we translate the old writings of ‘god’ as ‘boss’ it works ? Maybe early translators simply got it wrong?

    Or maybe the later “translators” just edited the earlier version, when it was discovered to contradict their current dogma and denial of earlier polytheism!

    https://triangulations.wordpress.com/2010/05/09/deuteronomy-328-9/

    Deuteronomy 32:8-9

    Texts: Hebrew –> English and Hebrew (ancient- Dead Sea Scrolls) –> Hebrew (Masoretic)
    Manipulation: translating dissimilar terms to the same meaning.
    Purpose: to cover up polytheism of the Old Testament Jews.
    Background: Reading only English translations, one can never see the Polytheism of the Old Testament.
    The ancient Canaanites (of which the Israelites were originally one tribe) were polytheistic.
    Their gods included El, Bal, Yahweh and more. (for details, see “The Evolution of God” by Robert Wright

    A further translation difference in this passage can be seen int the phrase “sons of God” (El’s 70 children) which is translated variously as:

    Accurate

    “sons of God”: NASB , REB (Revised English Bible)
    (namely, El’s 70 sons)

    “he fixed the boundaries of the peoples
    according to the number of the gods;”: RSV & NRSV

    “under the care of divine guardians“: The Message

    “according to the number of the heavenly assembly“: Net Bible

    Avalos tells us that the Dead Sea Scrolls revealed that the oldest Hebrew version of Deuteronomy 32:8 states “sons of El” or “sons of Elohim” and that later editors, to hide the polytheism, translated into the Masoretic Hebrew Text and changed “gods” to “sons of Israel”.

    My Conclusion: This is a good example of an early scribal manipulation which is only one of many, many examples how the texts were probably changed over the centuries in order to try and show a more homogeneous Bible. Hiding early Israel’s polytheism was important to these ancient scribes.

    It is quite interesting, when fundamentalists tell atheists or religious scholars, to “read THE BIBLE”, to confirm YEC notions which have been promoted on YEC websites or in the books of YEC authors, but which are unrelated to biblical history or even in some cases unrelated to original biblical texts!

    The process of faith-based story editing is on-going!



    Report abuse

  • alf1200 #175
    Jul 21, 2016 at 4:34 pm

    Absolutely. I have learned more from reading the responses. But then again, I’m not an engineer but I trust engineers or scientists or educators. So I don’t really get into engineering discussions.

    You really don’t need to be an engineer, to see that Ham needs steel bolts and plates to hold the joints together, nor do you need to be an engineer to see the the dozens of pillars which are essential to hold this boat shaped shed in shape on its concrete foundations!

    http://www.snopes.com/noahs-ark-park-flooded/

    The article is a spoof! The photos are real!



    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.