Timing is everything, and this article is perfectly timed, considering the death of Falwell. To show how crazy some of the Evangelists out there are, and the impact they are slowly having on America, this paper comes forward.
Dinosaurs on the Ark: the Creation Museum
By STEPHEN T. ASMA
"How many sheep," I carefully asked, "would a dinosaur need to eat per day while living on the ark?"
I had done my homework in order to interview Ken A. Ham, director of the new Creation Museum, in Kentucky. But in order to be up to date with "ark science," I had to go back to the 1660s. Here, particularly in John Wilkins's An Essay Towards a Real Character and a Philosophical Language (1668), I learned that "atheistical scoffers" had been rolling their eyes of late at the notion that so many animals could fit on so small a boat (300 by 50 by 30 cubits = 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high, Genesis 6:15). Bishop Wilkins, who acted as the first secretary of the Royal Society, set about demonstrating once and for all that the ark could indeed hold the menagerie. Creating elaborate charts based on scriptural descriptions of Noah's craft and cargo, Wilkins established that the middle floor of the three-floor ark was just under 15 feet tall and held foodstuffs for all the passengers, including 1,600 sheep for carnivore consumption. So naturally when I learned that the diorama in Ham's new exhibit would show visitors how the dinosaurs lived on the ark (something Wilkins couldn't have predicted), it seemed reasonable to ask how many sheep they'd be digging into.
MOD EDIT: Complete article removed, please link to articles (even though the article requires registration )
Lanny, are you forgetting your form guidelines again?
Creationism, sadly, is what it is. It's almost tiresome to debate it anymore. People have shown a clear determination to be ignorant.
Ah yes, the old "if you believe in creation you are ignorant" argument. Well done.
It's ignorant to think that we have all the answers. That's what is ignorant.
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
To me this issue is this generation's the world is flat arguement.
I still haven't heard how the ark was able to collect ~10 million + types of life forms
I didn't say a word abou the ark story, so don't quote my post please.
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
To me this issue is this generation's the world is flat arguement.
I still haven't heard how the ark was able to collect ~10 million + types of life forms
Who cares? Seriously, that is one of those "The Bible is the world's greatest repository of irrefutable facts" arguments.(I wonder who we've heard this from recently?). So what if it was entirely impractical. If you want to pick it apart do it from a literary standpoint, analyse the text and what it might mean metaphorically and/or spiritually to you.
Any idiot can say "two of all types of animal? Thats Unpossible!"
Locke.
EDIT: I'm sorry, I dont mean to call you an idiot I mean only to provide another point of view to your argument.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
Last edited by Locke; 05-16-2007 at 09:21 PM.
Reason: Edit
If you want to pick it apart do it from a literary standpoint, analyse the text and what it might mean metaphorically and/or spiritually to you.
Thanks for the suggestion, but I'll pick it apart however I want. And if I choose to question the undeniable absurdity of this ark story on the basis of plain old logistics, I'll do it.
Thanks for the suggestion, but I'll pick it apart however I want. And if I choose to question the undeniable absurdity of this ark story on the basis of plain old logistics, I'll do it.
so, and playing devils advocate, why do people give individuals that don't believe in evolution and question it as an absurity such a hard time.
right now its a battle of belief systems those that believe in a religious creationist slant and those that believe that science is the true way.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Who cares? Seriously, that is one of those "The Bible is the world's greatest repository of irrefutable facts" arguments.(I wonder who we've heard this from recently?). So what if it was entirely impractical. If you want to pick it apart do it from a literary standpoint, analyse the text and what it might mean metaphorically and/or spiritually to you.
Any idiot can say "two of all types of animal? Thats Unpossible!"
Locke.
EDIT: I'm sorry, I dont mean to call you an idiot I mean only to provide another point of view to your argument.
No offence but any idiot can ... stop thinking and simply take what people say metaphorically.
My point is that generations ago (not too many) people who thought literally tried to prove emperically that the earth was round. People didn't listen and the scientists or anyone who cared about facts wereostrisized or in extreme cases killed. The mentality seeming to be, we don't want to hear the truth, we have a need to worship and take thing 'metaphorically'. Now we all laugh at the concept that the earth is round.
One day we will all laugh at the concept of creation. When science and religion butt heads, my nickle is on the science.
I didn't say a word abou the ark story, so don't quote my post please.
Relax dude, by saying that guy was ignorant you are infering that creation theory is plausable. In order for it to be plausable someone needs to explain the logistics of the all the species and the ark.
I tend to agree that extreme statements like all things are like ... or here is the right answer, but in this case in order to entertain that evolution isn't true, I think I need to hear how that ark worked ... don't you?
so, and playing devils advocate, why do people give individuals that don't believe in evolution and question it as an absurity such a hard time.
I don't know, I guess for the same reason we'd give someone who believes in the tooth fairy a hard time? Well that's not entirely true. I wouldn't give someone who believes in the tooth fairy a hard time, because I'd feel sorry for them.
If the ToothFairyists were influencing elections in the United States, were taken seriously by lawmakers, bulding 30 million dollar "museums" and shouting loudly for ToothFairyism to be taught in public schools and generally making a big old fuss about the nonsense they believe, then I'd give them a hard time and scoff at their beliefs.
Relax dude, by saying that guy was ignorant you are infering that creation theory is plausable. In order for it to be plausable someone needs to explain the logistics of the all the species and the ark.
I tend to agree that extreme statements like all things are like ... or here is the right answer, but in this case in order to entertain that evolution isn't true, I think I need to hear how that ark worked ... don't you?
What does creation theory have to do with the ark?
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
Unfortunately it's not just America... its happening here too.
I dont see why the reglious nuts dont just admit that evolution happened, but that God directed it. Would solve a lot of trouble. The bible isnt very specific on how life was created so it would totally fit.
Unfortunately it's not just America... its happening here too.
I dont see why the reglious nuts dont just admit that evolution happened, but that God directed it. Would solve a lot of trouble. The bible isnt very specific on how life was created so it would totally fit.
I thought the bible was very specific about how life was created. Ever heard of Adam and Eve?
Ignorance shouldn't be scoffed at and given a hard time. Willful ignorance however is a different story.
There are people who still believe in a flat earth. Should they be allowed their beliefs with no questioning? I'm not saying they should be denied the right to believe, but neither should their beliefs be beyond criticism. Any belief, faith, concept, etc should be able to be held up to the light of scrutiny, but sometimes we give faith or belief a free ticket. So I don't have a problem with scoffing at flat eathers if they've been given ample opportunities to see reality.
It's useless to argue creation/evolution with someone that believes in young earth creation, because if you dig a bit the belief is typically based on the presumption that the Bible is literal and inerrant. So if you take one thing as being by definition true (creation 6000 years ago because the Bible says so), then anything that contradicts it MUST be false, no matter how good it looks or how much scientific proof there is.
So while it can be interesting debating the particulars of one aspect of science or another, no one will ever be convinced of it if they have already decided what the "truth" is.
To the original topic, uneducated people are easier to control than educated ones. The final few chapters of Sagan's Demon Haunted World are good reading and speak to this.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
I'm really disappointed the whole article could not remain posted. It really is mind numbing to think that there are people that use basic scientific methods to make these massive leaps of faith, but completely ignore the obvious flaws and logic that is staring them in the face. That was really the premise of the article to me, and not the whole goofy creationist/evolution angle. The whole logic issue, and the ignorance of the obvious, is what makes me shake my head and believe tat America is on a slippery slope. It is hard for Canadians to understand, but the dominant view in the United States is creationism, as absurb as it may be.
Interestingly enough, Discovery Channel did an examination of the ark story and proved that the boat the size and construction of the one in the bible story would not have even survived a day before it fell apart from its own weight and internal stress. That was without a load of the animals, which again was proven to have been an impossibility, even with just the mammals. It's a great story and all, but that's all it is, a story.
If I was one who believed in religion, the size of the ark wouldn't matter to me.
If god is/was powerful enough to create the universe and all life, I'm sure she could find a way to squish a bunch of animals onto a boat.
Picking apart religion based on facts serves no purpose when religion is not based on facts to begin with.
so, and playing devils advocate, why do people give individuals that don't believe in evolution and question it as an absurity such a hard time.
Well, i cant speak for everyone, but i do it because i tend to look at evidence, then examine it, and draw a conclusion based on that. if people simply refuse to acknowledge the evidence, i have no use for their input. to not believe in evolution as even a possibility, especially when so much evidence suggests it exists, is what is truly absurd. the fact you can trace evolution goes a long way towards proving it, too (yes, i know using the word "prooving" in this thread could set people off...sorry).
we've all had conversations with people who refuse to accept facts, and its a frustrating pain in the ass.
__________________
Everyone knows scientists insist on using complex terminology to make it harder for True Christians to refute their claims.
Deoxyribonucleic Acid, for example... sounds impressive, right? But have you ever seen what happens if you put something in acid? It dissolves! If we had all this acid in our cells, we'd all dissolve! So much for the Theory of Evolution, Check MATE!
Last edited by tanguay'sstillgood; 05-16-2007 at 11:38 PM.
What does creation theory have to do with the ark?
The original post is about defending the story of the ark, so the ark is relevant to this discussion.
"Creation", like the words "aloha" and "dude", is pretty tough to define. It means different things to different people. If the ark, to you, is irrelevant to the creation story, you must have a different version of creation than someone who argues that the ark and all them animals actually happened.
I thought the bible was very specific about how life was created. Ever heard of Adam and Eve?
Not exactly. In order to get to that point it just says the Earth was created in seven "days". THe term days does not necessarily mean one rotation of the Earth though. It just means seven periods of equal time. No more specifics other than man was created in Gods image are really given. Adam and Eve is not part of the creation, since creation had already happened by that point.
The dumbing down of America continues...
)
