Activity


  • 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 […]

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • Its not a boat until its in the water. Otherwise it just looks like a boat.

    • Vicki replied 3 years ago

      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.

    • 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.

    • @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!

    • 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!

    • 9, Harry Potter is as real as Jesus Christ! I’d bet that fact wouldn’t go down well with Ken ham and his Xtian fundaMENTALISTS!

    • 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.

    • 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”!

    • And I assume the $40 per person will be given to the poor as God would have wanted? Ha. The rich get richer while the poor get poorer.

    • That building is a boat as much as this restaurant in Baltimore is.

      http://s3-media3.fl.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/_FTevyl8TvWAxJ0s7BZxaw/o.jpg

      At least in Captain James’s boat my $40 gets me some delicious steamed crabs.

    • mark replied 3 years ago

      I never seem to be continue the articles on any of the sites listed. Advice?

      • 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

    • Mark, next to the source button will show the whole article.

    • eejit replied 3 years ago

      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.

    • Bobby replied 3 years ago

      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??

    • Bobby replied 3 years ago

      ‘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.

    • 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.

    • Bobby replied 3 years ago

      ‘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.

    • 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!

    • Kevin replied 3 years ago

      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!

    • Bobby replied 3 years ago

      ‘..so they included them in the story they made up ‘
      Right:) A brilliant logical sequence!

    • Bobby replied 3 years ago

      ‘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.

    • Marco replied 3 years ago

      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.

    • 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.

    • ”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.

    • 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?’

      Because it is impossible?

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

    • Also, isn’t there a serious genetic diversity problem if there was only two of every animal? A one to one predator to prey ratio seems problematic as well.

    • OHooligan #37

      One of the more credible shaggy god stories.

    • Bobby replied 3 years ago

      ‘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?

    • Bobby replied 3 years ago

      ‘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.

    • Bobby replied 3 years ago

      ‘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?

    • Bobby replied 3 years ago

      ‘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?

    • 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.

    • @ 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).

    • Bobby replied 3 years ago

      ‘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.

    • 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!

    • Bobby replied 3 years ago

      ‘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?

    • It couldn’t be made up!

      Sorry; I didn’t quite get that right, did I.

      It could only be made up!

      That’s better.

      What a racket religion is! Talk about the blind leading the blind.

    • Bobby replied 3 years ago

      ‘. 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?

    • Bobby replied 3 years ago

      ‘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.

    • Bobby replied 3 years ago

      ‘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.

    • Bobby replied 3 years ago

      ‘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.

    • Bobby replied 3 years ago

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

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

    • Bobby replied 3 years ago

      ‘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?

    • Bobby

      Sanford has been trashed here a couple of times.

      Here is one such occasion…

      By Jessica ContreraBill 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 […] [Read more]– Dan Dredger (@dan-rdfrs) Jul 12, 2016

    • 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!

    • It’s not a boat if it doesn’t float. Why is this thing not doing the most fundamental thing it is supposed to do. Float? It’s obviously waiting for the water to come to it…

    • I’m just wondering how many homeless and starving people could be sheltered and fed with $100,000,000.

    • Bobby replied 3 years ago

      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:)

    • Bobby replied 3 years ago

      ‘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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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?

    • 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!

    • “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?

    • will it float?

    • Quarecuss #77: will it float?

      Answer: Yes, wood will float. Will it stay together? No.
      But it will make a nice fire and BBQ. Anyone for a nice dino steak?

    • 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!

    • 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.

    • “Give me a child until seven, I will give you the man.”

    • Bobby replied 3 years ago

      ‘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.’

    • 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.

    • Dan replied 3 years ago

      @ 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″)

    • @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.

    • 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.

    • John.wb. I am now very sure not all humans evolved…………..

    • @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

    • @ 28…

      Down by the waterline it looks like that there gopher wood is RUSTING!

      🙂

    • 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”…

    • Agrajag, Don’t forget Bruno. He still doesn’t like campfires………….

    • @ 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!

    • Alf (#99), PLEASE… no incendiary remarks!

      😉

    • Agrajag, sorry, I didn’t mean to burn anyone,,,,,,I mean uh,,,,,bye.

    • Dan replied 3 years ago

      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?)

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • BTW Phil, shouldn’t that be “psychoTrumpy”?

    • Pinball, I know what he will say.(I’m psychic).

      “Carbon dating has been shown to be false”………….Here it comes in four, ,,,,three,,,,,,two,,,,,,,,,

    • 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?

    • 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.

    • 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.

      By Jessica ContreraBill 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 […] [Read more]– Dan Dredger (@dan-rdfrs) Jul 12, 2016

      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.

    • 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

    • 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”! 🙂

    • @ Reckless Money…

      “…public lice…”

      😉 I see what your autocorrect did there!

    • 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.

    • Pin

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

      Upbringing has a lot to answer for…for one of us.

    • @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”)

    • Dan replied 3 years ago

      Phil

      You can’t talk a man out of a position he was not talked into. -Hitchens

      See my comment number 91.

    • 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.

    • Oh, and Dan…. I recently read a quote that fits…

      You cannot wake up a man who is pretending to be asleep.

    • 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.

    • 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….?

    • 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!

    • @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. 😉

    • Bobby replied 3 years ago

      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?

    • Bobby replied 3 years ago

      111

      Another brilliant poem by Larkin is Audabe; one of my favourites, as is Hardy’s ‘Afterwards’.

      I also like this one by Housman:

      When the bells
      justle in the tower
      the hollow night
      amid,

      Then on my tongue
      the taste is sour
      Of all I ever did.

    • 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?

    • Bobby replied 3 years ago

      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.

    • Bobby replied 3 years ago

      Apologies. My last post was a bit garbled as I was under editing pressure.
      It should read’ .. transmitted orally for many generations;’

    • 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.

    • 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!

    • Marco replied 3 years ago

      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.

      The Information Challenge

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • “original Genesis account transmitted orally for generations”

      That would be also described as “the worst way to transmit information”.

      .

    • Dan replied 3 years ago

      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.)

    • 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”!

    • “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?

    • Bobby replied 3 years ago

      ‘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.

    • 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.
      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, or link to reputable academic papers or articles, it will not be blocked.

    • 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.

    • 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

    • 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?

    • 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.

    • 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?

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.’

    • 160. ‘Bobby, do you know what significance the second chromosome has?’

      Don’t you mean: Bobby, do you know what significance the second chromosome is claimed to have?

      To that I can answer – Yes!

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • Arkrid, I think the five second rule is actually the five post rule. If you post it more than five times you have to throw it away…………

    • “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?”

    • 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 🙂

    • 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!

    • @#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??)

    • “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.

    • Ken has created his own Golden Calf.