Ark Park Still in Kentucky Budget

Not a lot of mystery here, of course. The uneducated may not contribute much and the state may struggle as a result, but who among us would deny any citizen the right to vote just because they belong to an uneducated labor force? And what governor has ever been elected, who displeases his voters? If Beshear eliminated this interchange from the budget, would a more conservative opponent do more for education?

If the Ark Park is ever built (and it looks unlikely right now), he can hope Kentucky's take from that park will exceed the discounted cost of the interchange over its lifespan. And the more cuts to education, the more probable that becomes. Meanwhile, I know of a great place to locate a new Cracker Barrel.

H. L. Mencken has at least one appropriate quote for this situation.

Indeed, but did you have a specific one in mind?

Just Bob said: Indeed, but did you have a specific one in mind?

Laws are no longer made by a rational process of public discussion; they are made by a process of blackmail and intimidation, and they are executed in the same manner.

The Discovery Institute has been absolutely indispensable to the success of the ID movement. Without it, most of us would have ended up as road kill. Bill Dembski in a recent interview

Without regard to the ridiculous ark park, the interchange provides (ironically) low education jobs at the expense of education. These jobs are short term, and their impact on the economy is transient. Investing in education is a long term commitment to build a more highly educated workforce and boost the future of the state's economy.

The ark park itself doubles down on the education front, providing low wage, low education jobs as well and creating an atmosphere conducive to pseudo-science and alienating any high tech / science firms that might want to locate there. Who wants to build in a state where education is not a priority and where government panders to morons.

Indiana is not far behind in this battle of whose state can be the most ignorant:

http://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/creating-controversy-misguided-indiana-creationism-bill-advances-in-state

A pen pal has just informed me that The State of State Science Standards awarded Kentucky a grade of D for 2012. Kentucky did not do so hot in 2005 either: D. Indiana, incidentally, was awarded an A in 2005 and an A-- in 2012, despite the disquieting information in Mr. K's link.

(1) The interchange will provide many jobs, and like most states, Kentucky needs more jobs.

(2) The interchange will make travel easier on tourists, and like most states, Kentucky needs more tourism dollars.

(3) The Ark Park (see the project at ArkEncounter.com), will provide large amounts of said tourism dollars, which will help Kentucky's economy (and most states need the same help).

(4) The Ark Park will be an effective means of helping large numbers of people from many states, both old and young, to seriously think about major spiritual issues affecting their own lives, leading to positive changes and personal transformation.

(5) Therefore the Ark Park is clearlly a win-win situation for everybody. Gov. Brashear is doing the right thing for his state. Nothing to complain about.

****

Meanwhile, the Ark Park can be a source of fruitful, interesting rational thought (for those who like to think), even right now.

For example, here's a simple but not-so-simple Ark Park question. Try it out:

Which is ultimately better: To spend X amount of money to build the Ark Park which explores the themes of Noah's Ark, the Flood, and personal salvation, or to spend the same X amount of money on the poor?

See what you come up with. To help out, here's a small article from AIG which explores and explains the issue:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/09/23/feedback-why-build-an-ark

FL

Here's a better answer, sillypants: Spend same X amount of money on real education. Weird, I know.

Pretty lame taunting, even for you, FL.

FL said: The Ark Park will be an effective means of helping large numbers of people from many states, both old and young, to seriously think about major spiritual issues affecting their own lives, leading to positive changes and personal transformation.

FL said: (5) Therefore the Ark Park is clearlly a win-win situation for everybody. Gov. Brashear is doing the right thing for his state. Nothing to complain about.

Which is ultimately better: To spend X amount of money to build the Ark Park which explores the themes of Noah's Ark, the Flood, and personal salvation, or to spend the same X amount of money on the poor?

Wolfhound said: Here's a better answer, sillypants: Spend same X amount of money on real education. Weird, I know. Pretty lame taunting, even for you, FL.

FL said: (1) The interchange will provide many jobs, and like most states, Kentucky needs more jobs.

(4) The Ark Park will be an effective means of helping large numbers of people from many states, both old and young, to seriously think about major spiritual issues affecting their own lives, leading to positive changes and personal transformation.

FL said: (1) The interchange will provide many jobs, and like most states, Kentucky needs more jobs.

(2) The interchange will make travel easier on tourists, and like most states, Kentucky needs more tourism dollars.

(3) The Ark Park (see the project at ArkEncounter.com), will provide large amounts of said tourism dollars, which will help Kentucky's economy (and most states need the same help).

(4) The Ark Park will be an effective means of helping large numbers of people from many states, both old and young, to seriously think about major spiritual issues affecting their own lives, leading to positive changes and personal transformation.

(5) Therefore the Ark Park is clearlly a win-win situation for everybody. Gov. Brashear is doing the right thing for his state. Nothing to complain about.

FL said: (4) The Ark Park will be an effective means of helping large numbers of people from many states, both old and young, to seriously think about major spiritual issues affecting their own lives, leading to positive changes and personal transformation. FL

QUESTION:

I would really appreciate an answer from anyone who is familiar with local Kentucky politics, e.g. a local resident.

I grew up in a rural area, albeit in Canada (I'm a dual citizen) not a southern one. At some point, people where I grew up, even the right wingers (and there are plenty), would begin to get very annoyed at something like this. I'm personally in favor of using infrastructure improvement to create temporary jobs during a recession - that part is a good idea. But building roads to nowhere (instead of improving roads that already exist or building roads that are needed) would irritate people where I grew up. So would government favoritism for some private boondoggle that never gets built. Cuts to local schools are always unpopular with everybody. This is the type of thing that would tend to cause a politician to lose office.

Is it different in Kentucky? Is all of this considered beyond criticism, simply because the magic words "Noah's Ark" are involved?

apokryltaros said:

Which is ultimately better: To spend X amount of money to build the Ark Park which explores the themes of Noah's Ark, the Flood, and personal salvation, or to spend the same X amount of money on the poor?

How exactly does building an amusement park glorifying genocide and stupidity help feed and cloth and put a roof over the heads of the poor? By putting those that pass Ham's religious litmus tests to work as minimum-wage day-laborers building and staffing it?

FL said: Which is ultimately better: To spend X amount of money to build the Ark Park which explores the themes of Noah's Ark, the Flood, and personal salvation, or to spend the same X amount of money on the poor? FL

FL said: (1) The interchange will provide many jobs, and like most states, Kentucky needs more jobs. (2) The interchange will make travel easier on tourists, and like most states, Kentucky needs more tourism dollars. (3) The Ark Park (see the project at ArkEncounter.com), will provide large amounts of said tourism dollars, which will help Kentucky's economy (and most states need the same help). (4) The Ark Park will be an effective means of helping large numbers of people from many states, both old and young, to seriously think about major spiritual issues affecting their own lives, leading to positive changes and personal transformation. (5) Therefore the Ark Park is clearlly a win-win situation for everybody. Gov. Brashear is doing the right thing for his state. Nothing to complain about. **** Meanwhile, the Ark Park can be a source of fruitful, interesting rational thought (for those who like to think), even right now. For example, here's a simple but not-so-simple Ark Park question. Try it out: Which is ultimately better: To spend X amount of money to build the Ark Park which explores the themes of Noah's Ark, the Flood, and personal salvation, or to spend the same X amount of money on the poor? See what you come up with. To help out, here's a small article from AIG which explores and explains the issue: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/09/23/feedback-why-build-an-ark FL

Is it different in Kentucky? Is all of this considered beyond criticism, simply because the magic words “Noah’s Ark” are involved?

FL said: Meanwhile, the Ark Park can be a source of fruitful, interesting rational thought (for those who like to think), even right now.

Let’s play Creationist. Now let’s assume that all of humanity, and all of mammal-kind, reptile-kind, bird-kind, amphibian-kind, etc., were sequestered on a Really Big Boat while all of their relations were drowned. After this terrible event the survivors got off the Really Big Boat onto dry land and went forth and multiplied, repopulating Planet Earth. Now here’s a question that needs answering - Since Creationists (and I mean Young-Earth Creationists) insist that ALL mutations are detrimental or else they REMOVE information from the genome, then how is it that immediately after the Really Big Flood there was hyper-accelerated mutation, all of them of a beneficial nature and making all the divers species from each of their kinds on the Big Boat? How is it that so few human beings produced such an immense genetic diversity in such a short time? (Hint - they didn’t have the requisite diversity in their genes - hyper-accelerated mutation is required.) We know the average rate of mutations, of various kinds, today. Some are beneficial, some are neutral, some are detrimental, and we haven’t had enough time to classify each and every one. But nothing has ever been observed like the hyper-evolution required to repopulate the Planet after the Really Big Flood. It ain’t possible. Unless you want to evoke divine hyper-evolution for a very short time, then ABSOLUTELY no evolution thereafter. Doesn’t that seem like ‘special pleading’? Miracles piled upon miracles ad infinitum. Why didn’t the Really Big Someone in the Sky just kill all the bad people with one fell swoop? Why go to all this trouble? It doesn’t make sense. It don’t hold water. It’s a dog that won’t hunt. Simply put, it’s wrong. So a really big world-wide flood can’t be part of ‘creation science’. Not unless you ignore reality. Ain’t playin’ creationist fun?

FL said: (1) The interchange will provide many jobs, and like most states, Kentucky needs more jobs.

FL said: Meanwhile, the Ark Park can be a source of fruitful, interesting rational thought (for those who like to think), even right now. FL

If the Ark Park is to have various "lands", like Disneyland does (Frontierland, Tomorrowland, etc.), then I think it needs a "Live like Noah Land", where creationists would get to experience, in a small way, daily life in Noah's time.

As they enter, they would be stripped of ALL modern amenities: cell phones, iPods, eyeglasses, cameras, hearing aids, dentures, hairpieces, etc. Ideally, they should be literally stripped, and issued some sort of coarse, homespun woolen tunics or something, that are NEVER WASHED with soap or detergent. In this biblically-inspired venue, there could be no electricity whatever. No lighting, AC, fans, sound system, lighting, or anything. Plumbing? What plumbing? A slit trench to be squatted over. Toilet paper? Don't make me laugh! Food service: untreated water dipped straight from the "crick" (downstream from the slit trench); fresh, hot goat, killed on the spot, carcasses hung in the open air (Would you like flies with that?); maybe some warm beer, brewed from an ancient Sumerian recipe; milk, fresh and warm from the goat; Sumerian-style bread, with plenty of milling grit, rodent feces, insect parts, etc. After lunch, let the faithful work for a couple of hours outdoors, shaping a beam or plank for the Ark, using only period-appropriate tools, and none of that socialist, government-mandated safety crap, like hardhats, gloves, steel-toed boots, kneepads, back braces, etc.

A semi-authentic "Ark experience" like that might give them a whole new perspective on Noah's life and times. And maybe some of the kiddies would be disabused of their notions of cute storybook Arks with all the fun animals.

Just Bob said: A semi-authentic "Ark experience" like that might give them a whole new perspective on Noah's life and times. And maybe some of the kiddies would be disabused of their notions of cute storybook Arks with all the fun animals.

Just Bob said: ... Food service: untreated water dipped straight from the "crick" (downstream from the slit trench); fresh, hot goat, killed on the spot, carcasses hung in the open air (Would you like flies with that?); maybe some warm beer, brewed from an ancient Sumerian recipe; milk, fresh and warm from the goat; Sumerian-style bread, with plenty of milling grit, rodent feces, insect parts, etc. ...

As they enter, they would be stripped of ALL modern amenities: cell phones, iPods, eyeglasses, cameras, hearing aids, dentures, hairpieces, etc. Ideally, they should be literally stripped, and issued some sort of coarse, homespun woolen tunics or something, that are NEVER WASHED with soap or detergent. In this biblically-inspired venue, there could be no electricity whatever. No lighting, AC, fans, sound system, lighting, or anything. Plumbing? What plumbing? A slit trench to be squatted over. Toilet paper? Don’t make me laugh! Food service: untreated water dipped straight from the “crick” (downstream from the slit trench); fresh, hot goat, killed on the spot, carcasses hung in the open air (Would you like flies with that?); maybe some warm beer, brewed from an ancient Sumerian recipe; milk, fresh and warm from the goat; Sumerian-style bread, with plenty of milling grit, rodent feces, insect parts, etc. After lunch, let the faithful work for a couple of hours outdoors, shaping a beam or plank for the Ark, using only period-appropriate tools, and none of that socialist, government-mandated safety crap, like hardhats, gloves, steel-toed boots, kneepads, back braces, etc.

Flint said:

Is it different in Kentucky? Is all of this considered beyond criticism, simply because the magic words “Noah’s Ark” are involved?

The brief answer is yes. The argument always runs, if the ark park brings one person to Jesus and saves his soul, no amount of money is too great to achieve this. Conversely, not building the interchange is ANTI-GOD, and Kentucky will be punished. No expenditure, policy or program is so stupid or wasteful that a majority won't support it if it can be connected with Jesus and the Bible. Clearly, slashing education while subsidizing error and ignorance is being done to attract votes. And that's because it DOES attract votes. Praise Jesus!

harold said:

Flint said:

Is it different in Kentucky? Is all of this considered beyond criticism, simply because the magic words “Noah’s Ark” are involved?

The brief answer is yes. The argument always runs, if the ark park brings one person to Jesus and saves his soul, no amount of money is too great to achieve this. Conversely, not building the interchange is ANTI-GOD, and Kentucky will be punished. No expenditure, policy or program is so stupid or wasteful that a majority won't support it if it can be connected with Jesus and the Bible. Clearly, slashing education while subsidizing error and ignorance is being done to attract votes. And that's because it DOES attract votes. Praise Jesus!

Let me rephrase my question - I understand that this is the mentality of some people everywhere, but why, in Kentucky, is it not opposed by more people? For example, I lived in New Mexico for a couple of years. That's a small population state that, while admittedly ethnically more diverse, is just as poor and full of social pathology as Kentucky. In fact they do worse than Kentucky on a number of quality of life indicators. (If anyone's stereotypes are challenged by this, please note that only a small fraction of the state lives in the rich mountainous Santa Fe/Los Alamos/Taos area in the north - the rest of the state is poor, and Albuquerque is the cultural capital of the rest of the state.) New Mexico is also more Catholic than most states, but Kentucky has plenty of Catholics. There is absolutely no shortage of creationists in NM. But I'm positive that a policy that combined cuts to local schools, worthless road projects, and public funding of a boondoggle, even if an ostensibly "religious" boondoggle, would generate a lot of public irritation, even in some of the more impoverished, conservative, rural parts of New Mexico.

DavidK said: Indiana is not far behind in this battle of whose state can be the most ignorant: http://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/creating-controversy-misguided-indiana-creationism-bill-advances-in-state

Which is ultimately better: To spend X amount of money to build the Ark Park which explores the themes of Noah’s Ark, the Flood, and personal salvation, or to spend the same X amount of money on the poor?

“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

Karen S. said:

Which is ultimately better: To spend X amount of money to build the Ark Park which explores the themes of Noah’s Ark, the Flood, and personal salvation, or to spend the same X amount of money on the poor?

FL, let's ask Jesus that question. Remember the famous story of the last judgment in Matthew 25? The righteous are commended. Why?

“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

Seems like the righteous took care of the poor. I see nothing about building an ark park.

apokryltaros said: In other words, it is highly unlikely that the poor of Kentucky will benefit from this theme park at all, and it is equally unlikely that the children of Kentucky will benefit from this theme park at all, either.

Karen S. said:

Which is ultimately better: To spend X amount of money to build the Ark Park which explores the themes of Noah’s Ark, the Flood, and personal salvation, or to spend the same X amount of money on the poor?

FL, let's ask Jesus that question. Remember the famous story of the last judgment in Matthew 25? The righteous are commended. Why?

“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

Seems like the righteous took care of the poor. I see nothing about building an ark park.

But I’m positive that a policy that combined cuts to local schools, worthless road projects, and public funding of a boondoggle, even if an ostensibly “religious” boondoggle, would generate a lot of public irritation, even in some of the more impoverished, conservative, rural parts of New Mexico.

Political pandering seems to be an innate characteristic of anyone who runs for political office.

Whether it results in getting the public to pay for a football stadium, pay full price for any tickets they buy while all the profits go to the private “corporations” who got their “boy” into office, or whether it gets a sectarian theme park drawing in full-paying rubes and hooking taxpayers into involuntarily supporting its construction, the game is always the same.

Democracy is not really democracy; and representative government is not really representative government. That applies only to those who have money and political influence. It takes a really serious crisis for the general public to rise up and demand fairness, justice, and following the law.

The general rule seems to be that the pushiest pigs at the trough will get it all.

Mike Elzinga said: Political pandering seems to be an innate characteristic of anyone who runs for political office. Whether it results in getting the public to pay for a football stadium, pay full price for any tickets they buy while all the profits go to the private “corporations” who got their “boy” into office, or whether it gets a sectarian theme park drawing in full-paying rubes and hooking taxpayers into involuntarily supporting its construction, the game is always the same. Democracy is not really democracy; and representative government is not really representative government. That applies only to those who have money and political influence. It takes a really serious crisis for the general public to rise up and demand fairness, justice, and following the law. The general rule seems to be that the pushiest pigs at the trough will get it all.

Flint said: And yeah, it's the worst possible system except for everything else that's been tried.

You can safely bet that Ken Ham and his entourage will be making money off of the park money though the state likely will not reap any benefits.

I have come to the conclusion that “The poor will always be with you” is the key to Ken Ham’s money-grubbing.

FL gave a link to that nauseating, self-serving article at AiG which pretty much attempts to use bible quotes to justify AiG’s greedy motives.

Karen S. said:

FL gave a link to that nauseating, self-serving article at AiG which pretty much attempts to use bible quotes to justify AiG’s greedy motives.

I just looked at it. It is nauseating and self-serving. But since they see it as a part of the Great Commission, I'm wondering why don't they make an Ark that floats and can go on a cruise around the world? They seem to lack the faith to do anything except suck tourist dollars into their organization.

mplavcan said: Ham is overstepping. I smell a financial disaster coming on of they carry through with this thing.

Oops. The “complications” discussed are here.

Follow the money.

Chances are, a lot of well connected state officials, politicians, or their buddies have bought or control land where this interchange is supposed to be built.

By now, even if the Ark Park never gets built, someone will still benefit.

Que bono? Who benefits?

I don't know how corrupt or not politics are in Kentucky, but in some states this would be a certainty.

Karen S. said: ...I'm wondering why don't they make an Ark that floats...

I’m wondering why don’t they make an Ark that floats…

harold said: Sail it out to the high seas and stay on it for 40 consecutive 24 hour periods.

de-funding schools while still funding roads isn't pandering so much as "spin" - the interchange is a "jobs project" while cutting cutting education is "living within our means" or "cutting government bloat" or whatever republican small government soundbite is popular with the group being addressed. Pandering would be if the Governer's message re the $11M to 1 group was as a "jobs program" and to a differnt group as as "jeebus program"

this is just TYPICAL POLITICS AS USUAL - 'small government republicans' do not like public education and the politically connected profit from government projects

as mentioned (I think by Colbert) "The poor have lousy lobbyists"

They don't make an Ark that floats, because it can't be done. Any all-wooden ship built to the specifications of the Ark would hardly last a day on a smallish lake, let alone a mighty ocean with no lee or shelter anywhere.

Planking has seams, right? The longer the hull, the more it has to flex - hogging and sagging, torsion, bending. The more the hull flexes, the more the seams gape. The longer the seams, the more they leak. The more end-to-end joins, the more they leak. As that hull flexed in a seaway, the seams would open like birdcages. Water would come in faster than any bailing system could keep pace. But that's not all.

No tree that ever grew on planet Earth could provide a keel for a monster like that. So the keel would have to be jointed. Joints work apart. That's why wooden ships have keels in one piece. There are also no trees that could grow the organ timber - the ribs formed from naturally shaped pieces. They have to be natural, because that's the only way to get them strong enough.

So a wooden hull of a ship that size would not only leak like a sieve, it would be far too weakly fastened to face an ordinary swell.

Look, early nineteenth century wooden shipbuilding reached the highest skill levels, technical sophistication, standards of tools and instruments and so on, ever known, and the shipwrights who built ships like the Santisima Trinidad had first call on the finest timbers of the old and the new world. But nobody built anything that approached the size of the Ark until iron frames, steel fastenings and steam pumps made it feasible - and even then, anything more than about half the Ark's size was very dicey.

The Ark itself is just another layer of impossibility in an impossible fable.

In fact, why not the full experience? How about something like up to 120 days completely enclosed in the ark with thousands of animals and all that manure, urine, vomit, and methane? Oh; and those dinosaurs, gotta have those dinosaurs. A couple of T. Rexes is a must. To make it more realistic, place the ark on a huge hydraulically driven platform and toss it, heave it, and roll it around for over 40 days with all those animals in there. No doors, no ventilation, no place to eject the manure, urine, vomit, and everything else you want to get rid of in the most violent storm imaginable. And, by the way, the violence of that storm and water is more than thousands of nuclear bombs going off in every square mile of the Earth’s surface for that entire period. What fun!

2 Peter 3:3-9
"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

John S. said: 2 Peter 3:3-9 "Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

John S.,

Speaking only for myself, I wasn't commenting on the actual meaning of the ark story (that we live in a moral universe, and God judges the immoral, etc.). I'm okay with the meaning. I'm saying that a literal, historical ark is out of the question. Otherwise AiG would be building a floating ark and we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we?

Karen S. said: AiG would be building a floating ark and we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we?

Or maybe John S. would like to take on the project. Or fund one. Surely his blessings will be multiplied seven times over. I’d suggest starting with just a half-size one, as a proof-of-concept, then rigorously calculating the engineering complications of doubling it.

Karen S. said:

Or maybe John S. would like to take on the project. Or fund one. Surely his blessings will be multiplied seven times over. I’d suggest starting with just a half-size one, as a proof-of-concept, then rigorously calculating the engineering complications of doubling it.

Good idea, Just Bob. And all John S. would need is faith the size of 1/2 of a mustard seed. Will he suggest it to AiG?

FL said: (1) The interchange will provide many jobs, and like most states, Kentucky needs more jobs. (2) The interchange will make travel easier on tourists, and like most states, Kentucky needs more tourism dollars. (3) The Ark Park (see the project at ArkEncounter.com), will provide large amounts of said tourism dollars, which will help Kentucky's economy (and most states need the same help). FL

Just Bob said:

Karen S. said:

Or maybe John S. would like to take on the project. Or fund one. Surely his blessings will be multiplied seven times over. I’d suggest starting with just a half-size one, as a proof-of-concept, then rigorously calculating the engineering complications of doubling it.

Good idea, Just Bob. And all John S. would need is faith the size of 1/2 of a mustard seed. Will he suggest it to AiG?

Hell, building an Ark ain't nothin' compared to moving a mountain, which anyone with faith can do. Although I have yet to see a live demonstration.

Dave Luckett said: The Ark itself is just another layer of impossibility in an impossible fable.

I have a strong suspicion that the kinds of rubes who fall for this crap have never been on the open ocean; and they certainly have never been in a typhoon.

W. H. Heydt said: I have faith in the efficacy of earth moving equipment... Mountains not only get moved (or removed) using it, but they can get strip-mined as well. --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

What about saws? Good steel saws and sharp axes would be invaluable for building new homes and barns.

Karen S. said: Speaking of Tools, AiG has a post called Tool Time with Noah. It discusses all the tools that Noah would have brought on his voyage. (He had plenty of room!) My favorite line is this:

What about saws? Good steel saws and sharp axes would be invaluable for building new homes and barns.

Was ANYBODY making steel at that time? I would bet that if anybody was, he was in China.

Just Bob said: Was ANYBODY making steel at that time? I would bet that if anybody was, he was in China.

Mike Elzinga said:

Flint said: And yeah, it's the worst possible system except for everything else that's been tried.

That cliché may or may not be true. Time will tell. But if there is one thing the “physics simpletons” know, it is that no form of government will get away with violating any laws of physics.

The human population is up against it on the most dramatically global scale in human history. Provincial stupidity isn’t going to come close to dealing with it.

Mike Elzinga said:

Just Bob said: Was ANYBODY making steel at that time? I would bet that if anybody was, he was in China.

Probably not. Here is a brief history of steel.

Flint said: This is probably true, but you might be well advised not to contribute to this problem. You only trumpet an understanding of politics no deeper than FL's knowledge of evolution with your bleating. As you might suggest to FL, READ A BOOK. At least get started.

harold said: Overall, the right type of steel unequivocally makes better swords and armor than any type of bronze, and any form of iron is cheaper than bronze, almost anywhere on earth, but it's not always as straightforward as one would think.

Mike Elzinga said:

harold said: Overall, the right type of steel unequivocally makes better swords and armor than any type of bronze, and any form of iron is cheaper than bronze, almost anywhere on earth, but it's not always as straightforward as one would think.

Indeed. Much of the ancient metalwork on up through the 17th century was hit-and-miss. There were craftsmen who were legends in their time, and who had “recipes” for producing fairly reliable weapons and other works of metal. But much of it was “magic” in the way people thought about it and in the way they kept secrets. People knew a successful batch of steel and a good sword by the way it “sang.” How a sword or other piece of metal “sings” is a very reliable indicator of its microscopic structure, which was, of course not known back then. All the details that went into toughness as opposed to brittleness, how one achieved hardness and the ability to hold an edge; all that had to be learned by recipe over many years. So the absurdity of a deity who would wipe out all the craftsmen who put so much of their lives into developing the techniques for making the steel for the tools that Noah supposedly took with him on the ark makes the story that much more ridiculous.

phhht said: "Bessemer," sa patronen, släppte sig. ("Bessemer," said the squire, and farted.) -- Swedish saying

Bottom line then: AIG is completely clueless and, as usual, just making shit up.

"What about saws? Good steel saws and sharp axes would be invaluable for building new homes and barns."

But then what's a 3000 year error in the history of metallurgy in the whole made up fairy tale world of (their interpretation of) Genesis?

Just Bob said: Bottom line then: AIG is completely clueless and, as usual, just making shit up.

But your ruminations about politics are much like the interviews with famous actresses about physics.

Just Bob said: Was ANYBODY making steel at that time? I would bet that if anybody was, he was in China.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

Just Bob said: Was ANYBODY making steel at that time? I would bet that if anybody was, he was in China.

All the more reason for Noah to bring them along! (Think like a creationist) Glen Davidson

It's not worth your while bringing tools on the ark, for how can you farm in flood-ravaged saline muck? The pollinators will have starved even if you can get any crops to grow. Have fun building houses with urine-soaked,rotted, moldy planks from the ark (with exactly 2 barnacles attached). All of the animals will be sick or dying by the time they leave the ark. And so it goes. When you try to make the tale of Noah's Ark something it is not, you get in trouble and dig yourself in deeper with each desperate lie told to save it. Noah's Ark is not that important in mainstream churches; in fundie churches it seems to be absolutely central to the faith. And now with the Ark Park it has become an industry.

Karen S. said: And now with the Ark Park it has become an industry.

When you try to make the tale of Noah’s Ark something it is not, you get in trouble and dig yourself in deeper with each desperate lie told to save it.

Just Bob said:

harold said: Sail it out to the high seas and stay on it for 40 consecutive 24 hour periods.

Make that at least 10 months! There are confusing numbers of months and days given in Genesis for how long they were imprisoned in the Ark, but 10 months is the minimum. Peee-yewww!

Dave Luckett said: They don't make an Ark that floats, because it can't be done. Any all-wooden ship built to the specifications of the Ark would hardly last a day on a smallish lake, let alone a mighty ocean with no lee or shelter anywhere. ... So a wooden hull of a ship that size would not only leak like a sieve, it would be far too weakly fastened to face an ordinary swell. The Ark itself is just another layer of impossibility in an impossible fable.

Mike Elzinga said:

Dave Luckett said: The Ark itself is just another layer of impossibility in an impossible fable.

If this thing had to ride over top of a wave as little as 10 cubits high, it would break in half. Imagine that thing out in the middle of the ocean in a typhoon with 50 foot waves slapping it around. The cross section also shows that this thing has no adequate keel depth and no ballast. It would roll like a log in the few seconds it took to completely break apart. I have a strong suspicion that the kinds of rubes who fall for this crap have never been on the open ocean; and they certainly have never been in a typhoon. They haven’t been on the Great Lakes either. The Great Lakes are capable of ripping a steel ore boat to pieces, as happened to the Edmund Fitzgerald.

The documentary "Victory at Sea" (which really should be sub-titled "how the US Navy won World War II") has some excellent footage of ships at sea in storms, including a shot of a waves breaking over the flight deck of an aircraft carrier in a typhoon. The US lost destroyers in typhoons by said ships being rolled over. And all that is with modern (relatively speaking) steel ships, not incompetently designed or built wooden boats.

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

Robin said:

Just Bob said:

harold said: Sail it out to the high seas and stay on it for 40 consecutive 24 hour periods.

Make that at least 10 months! There are confusing numbers of months and days given in Genesis for how long they were imprisoned in the Ark, but 10 months is the minimum. Peee-yewww!

Feh...I'd be impressed if it a) stayed afloat and b)they stayed on it for 10 hours in the open seas during a storm.

I’m wondering why don’t they make an Ark that floats…

Because that would be an extremely difficult, actually more or less impossible, task. Note that the mainly very problematic ships on this list were built at the peak of modern wooden ship-building technology, using tools and materials massively more advanced than those available in the middle east 4000 years ago, and that none of them had to carry a vast cargo of live animals… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o[…]wooden_ships Creationists, prove me wrong. Build a wooden ark according to Biblical specifications. No need to load it with pairs of animals; an equivalent mass of human creationists would be perfectly acceptable for a model system. Sail it out to the high seas and stay on it for 40 consecutive 24 hour periods.

harold said: You may have misinterpreted our satirical comments. ... I got the claimed forty days and nights of rain mixed up with the claimed amount of time the ark supposedly spent floating. Bob's reply humorously corrected that. Neither of us intended to imply any belief that creationists could build an "ark" that would be able to do any of this.

All of these "Ark impossibilities" God just took care of with additional miracles (non-stinky, non-eating, non-shitting, hibernating baby dinosaurs--yeah).

So with all this Miracle Power available, why was a Flood and Ark needed to correct matters? And why did it all fail as an effort to improve humanity? And didn't God KNOW it was going to fail?

Creationism makes my head hurt.

Just Bob said: All of these "Ark impossibilities" God just took care of with additional miracles...

Just Bob said: All of these "Ark impossibilities" God just took care of with additional miracles (non-stinky, non-eating, non-shitting, hibernating baby dinosaurs--yeah). So with all this Miracle Power available, why was a Flood and Ark needed to correct matters? And why did it all fail as an effort to improve humanity? And didn't God KNOW it was going to fail? Creationism makes my head hurt.

Mike Elzinga said: One would think that if a deity wanted to wipe out all of humankind with the exception of one family; and wanted to wipe out all creatures except a selected two of every “kind” that the deity would simply have transported all the “bad” things off the planet and left the rest of the planet alone. Why wipe out the entire planet and then leave a bunch of seasick animals and a family of humans to return to the mess?

Why did God need Noah’s help to build a boat and save the animals? If He could poof the entire universe into existence in six days, couldn't He just poof up a steel-hulled boat, maybe with gyro-controlled stabilizer fins? Heck, if the mere humans at Aker Finnyards can build them, why not the Lord of the Universe?

Mike Elzinga said: One would think that if a deity wanted to wipe out all of humankind with the exception of one family; and wanted to wipe out all creatures except a selected two of every “kind” that the deity would simply have transported all the “bad” things off the planet and left the rest of the planet alone.

John_S said: That's always been my question: if God was disgusted with humanity, couldn’t He have just poofed them out of existence or turn them into pillars of salt?

Robin said: The whole premise makes no sense and makes God look like a malevolent human 7 year old.

What's really holding back the construction of this Ark? It could actually be floatable and liveable for long periods of time if all the anti-business rules and regulations, the EPA regulations, OSHA, the Dept of Education, and anything else the Democrats have thrown in the way to impede its progress. It should be a totally tax free venture, maybe even some federal aid to a religious institution for a public service project?

Now, back in Noah's day there were only 10 regulations, so people could build Arks, wage war, killl whomever God told them to kill, pray in their meetings, etc., and religion and science were one and the same, so no pesky scientists to raise issues. No one had to worry about facts and evidence; they just continually imagined hearing voices in their dreams. The only threat they faced were those pesky dinosaurs still roaming wild in the bush.

Ah; damned those pesky regulations. Can’t provide the full shake-and-bake experience.

But the dinosaurs should be no problem. We have television documentaries showing Fred Flintstone operating a harnessed dinosaur crane; and that is just what Noah would have used.

DavidK said: What's really holding back the construction of this Ark? It could actually be floatable and liveable for long periods of time if all the anti-business rules and regulations, the EPA regulations, OSHA, the Dept of Education, and anything else the Democrats have thrown in the way to impede its progress.

And Karen S., you and Mike get the Liquid-Through-Nose-For-Vivid-Visual-Imagery awards. I SO want to see the patrons after their experience in your ride! LOL!

So for the Ark to have actually worked, it would have needed some miracle type help from an Ark Angel?

Henry J said: So for the Ark to have actually worked, it would have needed some miracle type help from an Ark Angel?

DavidK said: Now, back in Noah's day there were only 10 regulations...

Just Bob said:

DavidK said: Now, back in Noah's day there were only 10 regulations...

Which 10 would those be? The ones delivered to Moses were 1000 years later...and there were way more than 10. They included the "clean animal" bit, which somehow got retrofitted into the Noah legend as a major anachronism.

Perhaps in the pre-flood ecosystem the differences between the two classes of animals were so obvious as to require no Divine Guidance. The massive increase in biodiversity resulting from hyper-evolution during the millennium after the flood made clarification essential.

Dave Lovell said:

Just Bob said:

DavidK said: Now, back in Noah's day there were only 10 regulations...

Which 10 would those be? The ones delivered to Moses were 1000 years later...and there were way more than 10. They included the "clean animal" bit, which somehow got retrofitted into the Noah legend as a major anachronism.

Perhaps in the pre-flood ecosystem the differences between the two classes of animals were so obvious as to require no Divine Guidance. The massive increase in biodiversity resulting from hyper-evolution during the millennium after the flood made clarification essential.

Karen S. said: Ah yes, it's true: fundies have latched onto the idea that in the pre-flood days things were oh-so-different! Life-spans were longer, their technology was superior, everything was different, blah blah blah! And then the great flood comes along...and causes the ice age!!! (YECs only have one ice age, you see).

Dave Lovell said: Perhaps in the pre-flood ecosystem the differences between the two classes of animals were so obvious as to require no Divine Guidance.

Just Bob said: They included the "clean animal" bit, which somehow got retrofitted into the Noah legend as a major anachronism.

apokryltaros said:

Karen S. said: Ah yes, it's true: fundies have latched onto the idea that in the pre-flood days things were oh-so-different! Life-spans were longer, their technology was superior, everything was different, blah blah blah! And then the great flood comes along...and causes the ice age!!! (YECs only have one ice age, you see).

Caused by giant falling fragments of magic ice from the ice water vapor canopy?

I forgot to mention that the great flood moved the continents! (no kidding)

I'd like to know how the walruses, seals, penguins, etc climbed down Mount Ararat and got home. Where did they stop for lunch? Talk about March of the Penguins!

Mike Elzinga said: "We have television documentaries showing Fred Flintstone operating a harnessed dinosaur crane; and that is just what Noah would have used."

apokryltaros said:

Karen S. said: Ah yes, it's true: fundies have latched onto the idea that in the pre-flood days things were oh-so-different! Life-spans were longer, their technology was superior, everything was different, blah blah blah! And then the great flood comes along...and causes the ice age!!! (YECs only have one ice age, you see).

Caused by giant falling fragments of magic ice from the ice water vapor canopy?

prongs said:

Mike Elzinga said: "We have television documentaries showing Fred Flintstone operating a harnessed dinosaur crane; and that is just what Noah would have used."

And we have the Biblical evidence to prove it! See this: http://creation.com/rod-walsh-2011-tour-to-eastern-usa for those Fred Flintstone cranes used to construct Noah's Giant Rectangular House That Can't Float I mean ARK.

Then don’t miss this unique opportunity to hear Rod as he draws from his ten year feasibility study to explain exactly how plausible the biblical Ark was! Demonstrating with a scale model Ark, Rod communicates in clear, descriptive terms how it may have been built and how Noah and his family survived the year-long voyage.

Wow; ten years of study and that is what he comes up with. Flat bottom, no keel, no ballast and a nearly square cross section that rolls like a log.

You know what would be really, really ironic?

If they actually built the Ark Park, and then there was a flood in Kentucky and the "Ark" was destroyed in it.

(Of course, they'd have to be non-weasel enough to build the park instead of just collecting the money and making excuses not to build the park, which arguably would qualify as a miracle.)

You know what would be really, really ironic? If they actually built the Ark Park, and then there was a flood in Kentucky and the “Ark” was destroyed in it.

Karen S. said:

You know what would be really, really ironic? If they actually built the Ark Park, and then there was a flood in Kentucky and the “Ark” was destroyed in it.

Nature imitates Ark!

harold said: You know what would be really, really ironic? If they actually built the Ark Park, and then there was a flood in Kentucky and the "Ark" was destroyed in it.

I wonder if they'll acknowledge the Raelian version of the ark narrative ... teach the controversy, right?

Enjoy the wonders of God’s Creation as you uncover what natural selection can and cannot do. In this special exhibit, examine an aquarium that resembles a real cave. This cave aquarium features live blind cavefish, showing how natural selection allows organisms to possess characteristics most favorable for a given environment—but it is not an example of evolution in the molecules-to-man sense. You’ll also uncover the truth about antibiotic resistant bacteria.

Then don’t miss this unique opportunity to hear Rod as he draws from his ten year feasibility study to explain exactly how plausible the biblical Ark was! Demonstrating with a scale model Ark...

stevaroni said: Ever notice how Noah and his three sons were able to build an entire ark from scratch, with blunt copper tools, in a relatively expeditious timeframe, but somehow modern "researchers", with access to ready-made lumberyards and steel nails by the gross never manage to build anything bigger than five-foot models. Or maybe, if they're really determined to create a tourist attraction, a big wooden box on top of modern steel barges. Of course, given that it would be a couple orders of magnitude easier for any moderately well funded organization to build a big wooden boat in 2012 that it would have been for Noah, I suppose that says a lot about their faith.

Huibers said he hopes the project will renew interest in Christianity in the Netherlands , where church going has fallen dramatically in the past 50 years.

There is an interesting little exercise that one can do to illustrate the issues in scaling.

Pick up a drinking straw in the middle.

Now go out and find a length of PVC piping that has a diameter and length and thickness that is, say, 1000 times that of the drinking straw; i.e., scale up all dimensions by 1000. Pick it up in the middle.

Better, find a small piece of one-eighth inch copper tubing say about three feet long.

Now go find a piece of 2 inch copper tubing 48 feet long. Try picking them up from the middle and see what happens.

It gets even more interesting when attempting to scale up a wooden structure from a scale model.

prongs said: And we have the Biblical evidence to prove it! See this: http://creation.com/rod-walsh-2011-tour-to-eastern-usa for those Fred Flintstone cranes used to construct Noah's Giant Rectangular House That Can't Float I mean ARK.

That’s an example of a dishonest rhetorical stunt called “moving the goalposts”. There is no evidence whatsoever of any limitations to what natural selection can do.

They really were an advanced civilization back before The Flood, weren’t they.

The mere fact that they sit on land or on steel barges or concrete foundations is a testament to the fact that the builders already knew that these things aren’t seaworthy.

dalehusband said: While you guys were slamming the Noah's flood myth, I looked at this: http://creationmuseum.org/whats-here/exhibits/

Enjoy the wonders of God’s Creation as you uncover what natural selection can and cannot do. In this special exhibit, examine an aquarium that resembles a real cave. This cave aquarium features live blind cavefish, showing how natural selection allows organisms to possess characteristics most favorable for a given environment—but it is not an example of evolution in the molecules-to-man sense. You’ll also uncover the truth about antibiotic resistant bacteria.

That's an example of a dishonest rhetorical stunt called "moving the goalposts". There is no evidence whatsoever of any limitations to what natural selection can do. Finally, see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mPPnN1c0jk Their God caused evolution in some ways, but not in others? LOL!

Karen S. said:

The mere fact that they sit on land or on steel barges or concrete foundations is a testament to the fact that the builders already knew that these things aren’t seaworthy.

Does anyone remember the Kon-Tiki? Thor Heyerdahl's hypothesis was wrong, but at least he had the courage to actually set sail across the Pacific ocean. The book was great.

Mike Elzinga said: Now go find a piece of 2 inch copper tubing 48 feet long. Try picking them up from the middle and see what happens.

Paul Burnett said: I remember as a kid seeing a comic book featuring Superman picking up an ocean liner and flying away with it, and wondering why there wasn't a Superman-sized hole through the boat, or at least a very bent boat.

prongs said:

Paul Burnett said: I remember as a kid seeing a comic book featuring Superman picking up an ocean liner and flying away with it, and wondering why there wasn't a Superman-sized hole through the boat, or at least a very bent boat.

As an older child you could see something was wrong. I had the same perception. Teaching kindergarteners in Sunday School the story of Noah's Ark is entertaining, providing traditional quaint kindergartener answers to why the world is the way it is, like telling them storks bring babies. Creationists are kindergartners that never grew up. They quote "Suffer the little children to come unto me" in defense of their child-like understanding instead of "When I became a man I put aside childish things."

Mike Elzinga said: I’ll have to look for the thread where we had some fun with this before; but I think somebody on that thread linked to that picture and we had a good laugh.

Dave Lovell said:

Mike Elzinga said: I’ll have to look for the thread where we had some fun with this before; but I think somebody on that thread linked to that picture and we had a good laugh.

I think it will be somewhere in one of these archives. http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/12/kentucky-jumps.html#comments http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/12/ark-encounter-w.html

Dave Lovell said:

Dave Lovell said:

Mike Elzinga said: I’ll have to look for the thread where we had some fun with this before; but I think somebody on that thread linked to that picture and we had a good laugh.

I think it will be somewhere in one of these archives. http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/12/kentucky-jumps.html#comments http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/12/ark-encounter-w.html

Specifically probably from this post onwards? http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/12/kentucky-jumps.html#comment-241222 Linking to: www.worldwideflood.com . Teeming with hard technical data!

Karen S. said: Does anyone remember the Kon-Tiki? Thor Heyerdahl's hypothesis was wrong, but at least he had the courage to actually set sail across the Pacific ocean.

In looking at the story of the Noachian Flood and comparing it with the Epic of Gilgamesh and other stories of massive disasters, they all read like the imaginations of humans. There is nothing in any of these stories that humans could not have encountered in some local natural disaster such as the breakage of a natural dam between a large body of water and a low-lying area of land. Subduction of land during plate tectonic activity has certainly occurred in human history.

And given the fact that the supposed deity created an entire universe out of nothing, why would such a deity use such primitive methods in attempting to correct what it mucked up in the first place? Such a deity could straighten out what it bollixed up and do it in a way that no human would ever know; just erase all human memories of any screw-ups on the part of the deity.

Thus the deity could leave no embarrassing evidence that some creature in its creation could then report as a deity that was not pleased with what it created and had to smash it all to pieces. Not only smash it all to pieces, but then watch as the creatures returned to the same behavior. In other words, the deity could prevent humans from remembering and reporting that the deity is just plain incompetent at growing a universe by never getting anything right.

At the very least, some interpreters may have misunderstood the motivations of the gods. WHY would they have put everyone to so much inconvenience, using magic so massively, knowing everything would revert to just the way it had been within a short time (so short that in the entire rest of the world, they blinked and missed the whole event!) Maybe it wasn't necessary to try (and fail) to teach a moral lesson. Maybe they were just yanking our chain out of amusement or boredom. Maybe they were resolving a wager among themselves. Maybe someone poked the rain button by accident while drunk, and they had to do some damage control. Maybe the recollections of the Noahs WERE subsequently, uh, re-educated by the responsible gods as a CYA in case their parents noticed.

Offhand, I can't see why any of these possibilities is less likely than the Official Story.

Flint said: At the very least, some interpreters may have misunderstood the motivations of the gods. WHY would they have put everyone to so much inconvenience, using magic so massively, knowing everything would revert to just the way it had been within a short time ...?

Flint said: At the very least, some interpreters may have misunderstood the motivations of the gods. WHY would they have put everyone to so much inconvenience, using magic so massively, knowing everything would revert to just the way it had been within a short time (so short that in the entire rest of the world, they blinked and missed the whole event!) Maybe it wasn't necessary to try (and fail) to teach a moral lesson. Maybe they were just yanking our chain out of amusement or boredom. Maybe they were resolving a wager among themselves. Maybe someone poked the rain button by accident while drunk, and they had to do some damage control. Maybe the recollections of the Noahs WERE subsequently, uh, re-educated by the responsible gods as a CYA in case their parents noticed. Offhand, I can't see why any of these possibilities is less likely than the Official Story.

After all, how long does it take 4 men with soft copper tools to build an 8000 ton ark?

Flint said: You're trying to take all the magic out of the story, and straining at the resulting inconsistencies. You must write 100 times on the blackboard "with magic, anything is possible."

Flint said: "with magic, anything is possible."

What I see in these stories are the devious reinterpretations of ancient superstitions by powerful rulers.

If I am remembering my ancient history correctly, many of these tales evolved at the time that humans were coming together in large societies and starting to live in cities. How does one organize and control the behaviors of so many people crowded together in one place? How does one focus their activities on common goals of building those cities, coordinating food and resource distribution, getting rid of waste, and fighting enemies?

It is well known that Greek and Roman leaders deliberately concocted gods and religions for the purpose of controlling large numbers of people in the servant and slave classes. With plenty of superstitions and fear of the unknown to play on, it is only a short step to make it personal for each individual. Then a religious authority figure gets everybody’s attention simply by “bringing down the wrath of the gods” on anyone who steps out of line.

Yes, I've seen this claim quite commonly. Humans evolved (ity says here) in small groups not generally larger than 100 or so individuals - and of course in the process, evolved value systems appropriate to tribes of that size. So what humans did NOT evolve was any innate feel for the sheer logistics of much larger groups, where many if not most of the members were strangers to one another, where much more rigid divisions of labor were required, yet the beneficiaries of one's labor were far less clear-cut. Where local economies shifted gears from sharing and barter to abstract money systems. Lines of responsibility were unclear, feedback on one's behavior much delayed, often not occurring at all, often misdirected.

And so religion was invented to serve multiple purposes - to provide a commonality of shared values, to allow for coordination among larger groups (especially military groups), to permit outsiders to be more efficiently demonized, to provide Ultimate Authority, to bind larger groups together more strongly, etc. etc. Certainly it's possible (as we see often enough right here) that SOME people will take even preposterous or symbolic threats (like global floods and reward/punishment-oriented afterlives) seriously.

I suspect a general orientation toward what we consider religion was always part of our psychological makeup, and it wasn't so much invented and imposed, as it was carefully harnessed and directed as needed. As we see the various primary candidates doing as we speak.

Well, the Chaldean astronomers, it is clear, worked out how to predict lunar and solar eclipses about 2300 BCE, from systematic and accurate observation of the rising, setting and apex points of the moon and sun. That implies that they realised that it was the Earth's shadow falling on the moon in lunar eclipses. By about 600 BCE, they apparently knew that the Earth was a sphere, from the fact that the curvature of the Earth's shadow when partially covering the moon is always the same, no matter what the height of the moon in the sky during the eclipse.

The point about this is that this knowledge was never disseminated. It remained secret, carefully hoarded by a priestly class, because it was worth a lot of beer and girls. It gave a precise prediction of when the gods were going to start getting really angry, and what, exactly, it would take to unpiss them off - like making the right donations and offerings. And the ceremonies always worked!

Theologians have it tough these days.

Flint said: You're trying to take all the magic out of the story, and straining at the resulting inconsistencies. You must write 100 times on the blackboard "with magic, anything is possible."

I've also noticed that creationists generally are extremely reluctant to invoke miracles except where absolutely necessary for strictly theololgical purposes. I've never quite understood why, but I've suspected (as you do) that excessive invocation of miracles kind of saps the tales of meaning and immediacy, and makes them look more like comic book superheroes and such.

The result is virulent allergy to the Big Picture. Instead, creationists take on reality one pixel at a time, stretching for some layman-plausible explanation why THIS pixel might have actually happened. The result is that many pixels get ignored, and the rationalizations justifying the rest are mutually inconsistent. I've always marveled that someone can genuinely believe that the Flud had this effect right here, a truly massive effect indeed, yet didn't leave any trace of said effect anywhere else. They simply can't see what doesn't fit. And given that remarkable ability, I guess miracles can be minimized.

Flint said: I suspect a general orientation toward what we consider religion was always part of our psychological makeup, and it wasn't so much invented and imposed, as it was carefully harnessed and directed as needed. As we see the various primary candidates doing as we speak.

Do you think these two groups are experiencing reduced gene flow between them?

Flint said: Do you think these two groups are experiencing reduced gene flow between them?

stevaroni said: ... how long does it take 4 men with soft copper tools to build an 8000 ton ark? ... the great wooden ships built during the heyday of sail took a good year to construct. In a yard employing hundreds, if not thousands of craftsmen. Who had all done this before. With effective tools and support structures like drydocks and cranes. And they could do it full time. They had a larger society that allowed them to not waste boat-building time farming or defending their flock from wolves. And they had timber, not trees, to work with. Somebody already cut the trees down and dug the ore up and turned them into planks and nails and shiny brass fittings before they even got on-site. And it still took hundreds of thousands of man-hours to build boats much smaller than the ark.

Dang, I waited through 152 comments, and none of the resident trolls showed up to defend the idea that "Oh yes it is possible to build an Ark just as described in Genesis, and have it perform as specified!"

Wonder why.

Just Bob said: Dang, I waited through 152 comments, and none of the resident trolls showed up to defend the idea that "Oh yes it is possible to build an Ark just as described in Genesis, and have it perform as specified!" Wonder why.

Just Bob said: Wonder why.

Dang, I waited through 152 comments, and none of the resident trolls showed up to defend the idea that “Oh yes it is possible to build an Ark just as described in Genesis, and have it perform as specified!”