Kentucky Jumps the Ark

The Ark Encounter will include a full-scale Ark, built according to the biblical dimensions and constructed with materials and methods as close as possible to those of Noah’s time.

Where are they going to get the gopherwood?

I wanna see them bring in every species of termite from all over the world; two by two by two by ...

Tex said: From the link:

The Ark Encounter will include a full-scale Ark, built according to the biblical dimensions and constructed with materials and methods as close as possible to those of Noah’s time.

Really? They are going to have a single 600-year-old man build the Ark single handedly? I would gladly pay any admission price to watch that.

Elements of the Ark account are found in the history of many cultures throughout the world.

Seems to me that if Answers in Genesis is soliciting money from the public or the public sector to build a "replica" of Noah's Ark there is a case to take them to the courts for soliciting money under false pretences.

This is no "replica" by any definition of the term; it's an attempt to build something out of a kiddies' Sunday School colouring book representation.

Ian Plimer in Australia did something along these lines when the nutters tried to raise money from the public to fund an expedition to find Noah's Ark.

I would love to see John Woodmorappe in court as an "expert witness" , complete with his Tourette's Syndrome, defending his "skills" as a naval architect.

It would make the defendants at the Dover trial sound sane.

Terenzio the Troll claims "Now, that is factually accurate. The letter “A” (from “Ark”), for instance, recurs simply too many times in “Edda” and “Beowulf” for the fact to be dismissed as a coincidence."

Where? Have you actually ever read Beowulf?

Roger Stanyard said: Seems to me that if Answers in Genesis is soliciting money from the public or the public sector to build a "replica" of Noah's Ark there is a case to take them to the courts for soliciting money under false pretences. This is no "replica" by any definition of the term; it's an attempt to build something out of a kiddies' Sunday School colouring book representation. Ian Plimer in Australia did something along these lines when the nutters tried to raise money from the public to fund an expedition to find Noah's Ark. I would love to see John Woodmorappe in court as an "expert witness" , complete with his Tourette's Syndrome, defending his "skills" as a naval architect. It would make the defendants at the Dover trial sound sane.

Pitch! Don't forget all that pitch!

Kentucky: Now 25% more stupid than Arkansas!

Roger Stanyard said: Terenzio the Troll claims "Now, that is factually accurate. The letter “A” (from “Ark”), for instance, recurs simply too many times in “Edda” and “Beowulf” for the fact to be dismissed as a coincidence." Where? Have you actually ever read Beowulf?

If they are going to build a full size replica they can use half of it for research purposes. Stick a minimum of 15,000 animals the average size of a sheep in one half and all the food that you can cram in and see if 8 people can survive with the animals for a year. The number Woodmoraph came up with was 30,000 animals to account for all the kinds, and I figure make the full number of humans share the work load of caring for that zoo as long as Ham is one of the volunteers. They can even make it simple in the food and animal department by using 15,000 sheep so they only would need one type of feeding and watering system and food for only one species. They could glass off that half and visitors could observe their progress until the Human society shut the fiasco down. The project probably wouldn't last more than the first 40 days because the Bible says that they shut the door and window (singular as for only one window in the whole ark, they had to keep out the raging flood)for the 40 days of the flood. That should pretty much end the experiment within a few days (likely within the first 24 hours of the window being shut. So the volunteers wouldn't expect to have to be exhibits for a year or have to deal with tons of liquid waste and fecal matter.

Wolfhound said: Kentucky: Now 25% more stupid than Arkansas!

Pitch! Don’t forget all that pitch!

Ron Okimoto said: If they are going to build a full size replica they can use half of it for research purposes. Stick a minimum of 15,000 animals the average size of a sheep in one half and all the food that you can cram in and see if 8 people can survive with the animals for a year.

Any way you slice it, this is one of the best PT post titles ever.
I want to know where the Babylonians are to protest the co-option of their flood story by those uppity Isrealites. Teach the Gilgamesh Controversy!

the state is giving the creationists a tax incentive to bring jobs to the cash strapped region.

Well this is obviously a clear violation of the establishment clause. I'm sure the lawsuits will be starting any time now. If not, then I'm sure that every religion in the country will be applying for tax credits to build their favorite myth museum. Now let's see, how about tax credits to build a giant globe balanced on the back of a turtle. In fact, how about a stack of turtles - all the way down. That should stimulate the economy.

Naw, sticking all those animals (say the entire community of animals in th Louisville KY zoo) would be totally inhumane and cruel to the animals.

I suggest we get an equivalent number of fundies and stuff them in the ark. I'll even give them the benefit of the doubt and allow them all the MREs they can fit in there. Then we seal it up for a year or two and see what happens.

Note, that WE all know exactly what will happen and so do they which means they don't really believe their bible any more than an atheist does. I think every commentary and discussion of this theme park should include the question, would you be willing to lock yourself in this structure with 7 other humans for a year? If not, why?

DS said: Well this is obviously a clear violation of the establishment clause. I'm sure the lawsuits will be starting any time now. If not, then I'm sure that every religion in the country will be applying for tax credits to build their favorite myth museum. Now let's see, how about tax credits to build a giant globe balanced on the back of a turtle. In fact, how about a stack of turtles - all the way down. That should stimulate the economy.

Ron Okimoto said: The number Woodmoraph came up with was 30,000 animals to account for all the kinds, and I figure make the full number of humans share the work load of caring for that zoo as long as Ham is one of the volunteers.

Mike in Ontario, NY said: Any way you slice it, this is one of the best PT post titles ever. I want to know where the Babylonians are to protest the co-option of their flood story by those uppity Isrealites. Teach the Gilgamesh Controversy!

I'm torn,
on one hand I am apposed to the government assisting AiG w/ anything in any form

on the gripping hand - the tax incentives are against future sales tax - so this park is a for profit enterprise - and the potential for Schadenfreude is immense - AiG will be spending something like $150M on this - WHEN it fails that will have been money they didn't spend on other potentially more dangerous endeavors.

Wolfhound said: Kentucky: Now 25% more stupid than Arkansas!

Bein' as it its in Kentuck', I kin say there'll be one of them tornaders along directly to chew that puppy up and spit her out. That'll learn the old boys a thang or three.

I'd like to see a replica of the flood, not just the ark...especially if it were only a local flood :)

Seriously, though, I've always wondered why ICR types haven't done more in vitro flood research, e.g., putting a bunch of bones and dirt in a big whirlpool and seeing how things sort out and how long it takes for fossils to form.

Who gets to play Uti-Napishtim?

jkc said: Seriously, though, I've always wondered why ICR types haven't done more in vitro flood research, e.g., putting a bunch of bones and dirt in a big whirlpool and seeing how things sort out and how long it takes for fossils to form.

If this is going to be an exact replica, shouldn’t it also smell like the original? I wonder how many tourists would then want to go through it.

And what about the hermaphrodites? Will there be two, or one of each?

[Bankrupt European looks at USA, smiles smugly]

Old Hambo is deluded enough that he can say anything that flits into his snake's-nest brain with absolute conviction, even if it's the opposite of what he just said.

We all know, even Hambo, that he will be unable to build a "wooden ark using materials and methods" etc, etc. He's already got an engineering firm on the job, so we all know that the replica ark will have to be built to code, and not the Bible Code.

Steel supports, lighting, ADA compliant, fire retardant material and all that stuff.

For amusement, though, it would be nice to hear from some real structural engineers about building a craft of the dimensions stated and what the challenges would be. How would it hold together on land, much less bobbing in the sea?

On the bright side (think dim bulb bright) Hambo has already raised $115,000 in two days according to the Ark Encounter website.

Dave Wisker said: Who gets to play Uti-Napishtim?

I heard at the press conference that there would be dinosaurs on the Ark. We know the size of the Ark as described in Bible; lets compare volumes of all living land animals (and add in one for extinct or just dinos) and squish them into ark. Oh yeah, I forgot it was outside the laws of physics like the Tardis....

Doc Bill said: On the bright side (think dim bulb bright) Hambo has already raised $115,000 in two days according to the Ark Encounter website.

Mike Elzinga said: And what about the hermaphrodites? Will there be two, or one of each?

Seriously, though, I’ve always wondered why ICR types haven’t done more in vitro flood research, e.g., putting a bunch of bones and dirt in a big whirlpool and seeing how things sort out and how long it takes for fossils to form.

eric said:

jkc said: Seriously, though, I've always wondered why ICR types haven't done more in vitro flood research, e.g., putting a bunch of bones and dirt in a big whirlpool and seeing how things sort out and how long it takes for fossils to form.

You can't seriously wonder. The reason they don't is because they know such experiments would not yield the results they want. (snipped)Most YECers would rather just ignore the whole idea of testing.

What about the organisms with a life span shorter than 40 days and 40 nights? And they'll include all 200,000 species of beetle, I trust.

They never talk about species, they talk about "kinds" as in "This dog is kinda a dingo, so all canines are covered", or "This horse is kinda a river horse, so hippos are covered"...

Apologies if this has been answered in this thread, but:

Has anyone asked the governor point blank if he thinks that the evidence favors a young Earth? I know that it's fashionable to assume that anyone who enables YECs "is" a YEC, but many OECs, including some that accept common descent are sympathetic to YECs (e.g. AiG folk).

To be clear, I won't think any better of him if he turns out to be an OEC. If anything, I have less respect for "big tenters" than I have for those who are just "possessed" by Morton's Demon.

Exactly. Where are the YEC science labs working on radioisotope dating, for example? There was a big chance to demonstrate the earth was a few thousand years old. They should have been all over that one.

— Daniel J. Andrews

Jolo3509 said: They never talk about species, they talk about "kinds" as in "This dog is kinda a dingo, so all canines are covered", or "This horse is kinda a river horse, so hippos are covered"...

What a depressing development.

Just what the mainly honest people of a depressed region need - a sleazy venture that simultaneously stereotypes and misleads them.

Karen S. said:

Pitch! Don’t forget all that pitch!

And pooper-scoopers!

Are you forgetting the ICR R.A.T.E Project (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth), which recently revolutionized nuclear physics?

Daniel J. Andrews said:

Exactly. Where are the YEC science labs working on radioisotope dating, for example? There was a big chance to demonstrate the earth was a few thousand years old. They should have been all over that one.

eric said:

jkc said: Seriously, though, I've always wondered why ICR types haven't done more in vitro flood research, e.g., putting a bunch of bones and dirt in a big whirlpool and seeing how things sort out and how long it takes for fossils to form.

You can't seriously wonder. The reason they don't is because they know such experiments would not yield the results they want.

You’re right, that wasn’t a terribly serious query. But hope springs eternal…

— jkc

harold said: What a depressing development. Just what the mainly honest people of a depressed region need - a sleazy venture that simultaneously stereotypes and misleads them.

People freak out in this country whenever somebody wants to build a mosque or anything resembling a mosque, such as the proposed Islamic community center in New York. I suspect that many of the people who oppose building mosques with private funds would support building a government-subsidized ark.

Kentucky is not without redeeming features, however. For instance, at the University, Martin Gaskell applied, but was rejected, for a position at the University of Kentucky as director of the University's new astronomical observatory. Though highly qualified, he was not hired after the search committee discovered links on Gaskell's personal website to lecture notes reflecting his creationist views.

Of course, this triggered a Title VII lawsuit. The University, however, argues that it did not consider his religion, but only his public comments about evolution which could impair his ability to serve effectively as Observatory Director. For example, one faculty member was concerned that hiring Gaskell for a position involving public outreach could create unwanted publicity, particularly since the University is only 70 miles away from a controversial creationism museum.

From Religion Clause

Its been done already: http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2008/07/replica-almost-of-noahs-ark.html

Kentuckians aren't stupid. I live in KY and have written over 500 articles on Genesis based on anthropological and linguistic research. That's why I can't support the Crearton Museum (Young Earth) or this Noah's Ark venture which will be built upon assumptions, not evidence. http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2007/12/finding-noahs-ark-lets-look-in-right.html

Kentuckians aren’t stupid

No, just the ones who think Genesis is nonfiction.

— ben

raven: Those jobs, at least the direct ones in the theme park, are almost certainly going to go only to fundie xians.

AIG Statement of Faith: 1. Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation. 2. The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation. 3. The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time. 4. The 'gap' theory has no basis in Scripture. 5. The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of Biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into 'secular' and 'religious', is rejected. 6. By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

What a fantastic idea.

henry said: What a fantastic idea.

I’m really not seeing how this theme park is much different from a church. Not seeing how the government can legally step in with tax breaks and other incentives, that separation of church and state principle. Besides which, if the Arkland theme park is a viable commercial concept, they should be able to build it without government subsidies.

Given the way Ham thinks, one should not be surprised if he is gaming the system. There is a reason for all that projection coming from his pulpit onto secular society and other denominations.

I’ve done a little more reading, and that is almost certainly the case. Ham is a typical fundie hater and he hates other xians and of course, nonXians.

— raven

Frank J said: According to AiG's "statement of faith" even William Jennings Bryan, the (old Earth) creationist hero of the Scopes trial, would be "expelled."

You guys are missing the big point here.

The Biblical literalists have been telling us for years how they want to start a real research program - well here's their golden opportunity to get some real data.

Now that the door is finally open the door to some actual creationism research, in their own facility, and away from the interfering mitts of the so-called mainstream "scientists", I'm absolutely certain that research proposals are bombarding the ICR headquarters as we speak.

Now that they have a replica ark, they can actually fill it up with thousands of animals and investigate exactly how 8 people with iron-age technology could actually make it all work.

I've often wondered how Noah and crew managed to feed their menagerie, now this can be investigated with some hard data.

I'm especially interested in how they're going to feed all the critters with specialized diets. Oh, of course I don't imagine the big cats can really eat milk and honey, The training would take forever. I can make allowances and let them swap out cow's milk for an equivalent caloric value in hamburger.

No, what I'm particularly interested in is the method they discover by which they keep things like the pandas and koalas alive, seeing as they have limited space onboard for bamboo and eucalyptus plants.

(On the other hand, it should be a regular party for the termites, dung beetles and flies!)

Finally! This is an opportunity to do some real science, and demonstrate once and for all how 8 small humans could have possibly mucked out the ark every day!

They...are going to do that, right?

Jim Kirkland said: I heard at the press conference that there would be dinosaurs on the Ark. We know the size of the Ark as described in Bible; lets compare volumes of all living land animals (and add in one for extinct or just dinos) and squish them into ark. Oh yeah, I forgot it was outside the laws of physics like the Tardis....

Now that the door is finally open the door to some actual creationism research, in their own facility, and away from the interfering mitts of the so-called mainstream “scientists”, I’m absolutely certain that research proposals are bombarding the ICR headquarters as we speak.

Karen S. said:

Now that the door is finally open the door to some actual creationism research, in their own facility, and away from the interfering mitts of the so-called mainstream “scientists”, I’m absolutely certain that research proposals are bombarding the ICR headquarters as we speak.

I would like to see them show their faith, the very same faith they demand in others, by demonstrating the seaworthiness of the ark. Will it float? Ham can be the skipper for the maiden voyage. Just how far are they from a large lake?

I have a great idea for a t-shirt to sell in the gift shop. "I went to ARKLAND, and all I got was a lower IQ!"

I have a great idea for a t-shirt to sell in the gift shop. “I went to ARKLAND, and all I got was a lower IQ!”

Unless the Ark was immune to the laws of physics much of its payload would have been located below the water line. That in turn would mean that even working 24/7 the crew would not have been able to get rid of the animal waste products, hauling them high enough to be dumped overboard.

Why are there no arkists here to defend the authenticity of the myth?

Isn't there a clue in the fact that Genesis begins like a fairytale: "In the beginning"; isn't that just "Once upon a time"?

I'm guessing Kentucky is not providing equal funding for Mohammed's cave exhibit.

Just looking at the artist’s drawings of the ark is weird.

No sails, rudder far too small for the size of the boat. No means of propulsion. Non-utilitarian frills at the bow and stern of the boat. Where are the mechanics for operating that rudder?

With the air vents way up at the top, all the carbon dioxide and methane settles to the bottom killing everybody below. Did they use pterodactyls for fans? How do you get the carbon dioxide and methane out while also bringing in oxygen through the same vents?

One has to wonder about the inconsistency of literal readings of scripture and the free interpretation of how the internal structures of the ark were built for handling all the food and waste of everything it was purported to carry while at the same time providing enough strength to support the entire structure against all the bending and twisting it would receive.

This is Ham’s response to economic hard times. Interesting set of priorities.

Just looking at the artist’s drawings of the ark is weird.

Even sillier is the picture on the arkencounter.com site. Just look at the work crew and the cranes. Who are those guys?

Apparently guys who were willing to be left behind. I count 22 silhouettes. None of which appear female, or in a management role. That means that at least 20 didn’t make it onto the big boat. They probably altruistically volunteered to stay behind to help close and seal the giant gangplank, then deal with the thousands of Noah’s neighbors who didn’t have such a magnanimous attitude toward drowning.

Karen S. said: At least Noah didn't have to worry about making payroll.

Mike Elzinga said:

Karen S. said: At least Noah didn't have to worry about making payroll.

Kinda makes one wonder how Ham intends to dodge making payroll.

Kinda makes one wonder how Ham intends to dodge making payroll.

Karen S. said:

Kinda makes one wonder how Ham intends to dodge making payroll.

Not to worry. He has duped many suckers into paying him big bucks.

Karen S. said:

I have a great idea for a t-shirt to sell in the gift shop. “I went to ARKLAND, and all I got was a lower IQ!”

Excellent!

Michael Roberts said:

Dave Wisker said: Who gets to play Uti-Napishtim?

Dunno but Sarah Palin to play Noah's wife

Mike Elzinga said: Just looking at the artist’s drawings of the ark is weird. No sails, rudder far too small for the size of the boat. No means of propulsion. Non-utilitarian frills at the bow and stern of the boat. Where are the mechanics for operating that rudder? With the air vents way up at the top, all the carbon dioxide and methane settles to the bottom killing everybody below. Did they use pterodactyls for fans? How do you get the carbon dioxide and methane out while also bringing in oxygen through the same vents? One has to wonder about the inconsistency of literal readings of scripture and the free interpretation of how the internal structures of the ark were built for handling all the food and waste of everything it was purported to carry while at the same time providing enough strength to support the entire structure against all the bending and twisting it would receive. This is Ham’s response to economic hard times. Interesting set of priorities.

henry said: The purpose of the ark was to survive the global flood. It didn't need sails and a rudder.

henry said:

Michael Roberts said:

Dave Wisker said: Who gets to play Uti-Napishtim?

Dunno but Sarah Palin to play Noah's wife

President Palin has a nice ring to it.

Kinda makes one wonder how Ham intends to dodge making payroll.

raven said:

Kinda makes one wonder how Ham intends to dodge making payroll.

He has that one covered. The park will be owned by a for profit company. It will be run by a nonprofit company. They can use a lot of volunteer labor. And discriminate on the basis of religion. I suppose this is legal but I'm not seeing that it is legal for the state to kick money in something set up along religious lines like that.

henry said: The purpose of the ark was to survive the global flood. It didn't need sails and a rudder. http://www.icr.org/article/noah-and-animals/

Mike Elzinga said: How do you interpret your holy book to account for all these deficiencies?

Stanton said:

Mike Elzinga said: How do you interpret your holy book to account for all these deficiencies?

henry uses magic and Jesus to account for all deficiencies.

Mike Elzinga said:

henry said: The purpose of the ark was to survive the global flood. It didn't need sails and a rudder. http://www.icr.org/article/noah-and-animals/

My my, henry; that’s a lot of interpretation going on there in that Morris speculation. If no rudder is needed, why is there one? With a limited construction crew and so much to do, why the frills? Why not a spherical boat? A sphere has the largest volume-to-surface area ratio; surely your god would know that and could instruct Noah how to do build it. Just decide which part of the sphere is to be the bottom and stack the “ballast animals” there. You haven’t explained the ventilation issue either. The only vents are at the top. Carbon dioxide and methane are trapped inside. How do you get that out through the same vent you bring in the oxygen? How do you prevent methane buildup from mixing with the oxygen and causing an explosion? Where are the ventilation fans? Do you see any explosion-proof design there? How do you interpret your holy book to account for all these deficiencies?

henry said: This is what the ark may have looked like. http://i362.photobucket.com/albums/oo68/popa14701/Saturday/Noahs_Ark.jpg

It might not need a rudder, per se, but did they know about sea anchors in those days? Without something to keep the nose pointed into the wind, a ship as shown with a round bottom would easily capsize in a 40 day storm large enough to swallow all land. A ship like that might survive on a river, but not the open ocean. And with a globe spanning ocean, even every day waves would get enormous.

Actually, I suspect that ventilation wouldn't prove to be a challenge. Quite the opposite. It would have been a challenge for eight people to keep it water tight for a year.

But then, I suppose if God closed the door, I'm sure he could have kept it from sinking, too. And kept it ventilated at the same time. And magicked away the water collecting in the bilges, as well as the dung.

Mike Elzinga said:

Stanton said:

Mike Elzinga said: How do you interpret your holy book to account for all these deficiencies?

henry uses magic and Jesus to account for all deficiencies.

I’d love to see all the predators chasing the prey in a spherical boat.

Scott F said: It might not need a rudder, per se, but did they know about sea anchors in those days? Without something to keep the nose pointed into the wind, a ship as shown with a round bottom would easily capsize in a 40 day storm large enough to swallow all land. A ship like that might survive on a river, but not the open ocean. And with a globe spanning ocean, even every day waves would get enormous. Actually, I suspect that ventilation wouldn't prove to be a challenge. Quite the opposite. It would have been a challenge for eight people to keep it water tight for a year. But then, I suppose if God closed the door, I'm sure he could have kept it from sinking, too. And kept it ventilated at the same time. And magicked away the water collecting in the bilges, as well as the dung.

Scott F said: That would be clever. Get all the predators chasing the prey in one direction, and you might end up rotating a spherical vessel. Not sure what that would get you, though. I wonder if you could use the effect for maneuvering. On the other hand, in a sphere you wouldn't be so worried about capsizing. But a sphere is only useful in space where you can make use of all the volume. You can't stack animals to the rafters in a sphere in a gravity well. :-)

henry said: Genesis 6:15 And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

henry said: Genesis 6:15 And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

Mike Elzinga said: And, by the way, why not a sphere?

Scott F said:

Mike Elzinga said: And, by the way, why not a sphere?

Sorry, you obviously didn't notice the non-spherical dimensions called for in the RFP in Genesis 6:15. A vendor with a spherical boat would have been eliminated in the first round of the selection process. And in this case, failure to get the contract award would prove fatal. With a crew of only 8, mostly family at that, personnel costs would have been minimal. Knowing that personnel costs are the big driver in any project, it's not surprising that Noah came in with the lowest bid. The higher bids probably had all sorts of unnecessary things like sails, and ventilation, and scuppers, and bilge pumps, and things like that. Noah was smarter to rely on a lot of GSE (Government God Supplied Equipment) (like door latches) to keep his bid production costs as low as possible.

Mike Elzinga said: To say nothing of $100 hammers and $700 toilet seats.

I am a bit confused about the legitimacy of Kentucky's action in this case. While providing a tax break is in itself no direct support from the state to the religious institutions involved it does divert tax funding from a normal terminus to the support of an overtly religious end. I would appreciate anyone providing an explanation of how this action of the state of Kentucky can withstand legal challenge as I do not know the relevant precedents for this issue.

Marty Erwin said: I am a bit confused about the legitimacy of Kentucky's action in this case. While providing a tax break is in itself no direct support from the state to the religious institutions involved it does divert tax funding from a normal terminus to the support of an overtly religious end. I would appreciate anyone providing an explanation of how this action of the state of Kentucky can withstand legal challenge as I do not know the relevant precedents for this issue.

Only 5 denarii for OTS models...

I was wondering that too, but aren't churches completely tax free? Seems that the government is typically giving tax breaks to religious institutions. Unlike public schools, attendance at the Ark Park isn't a mandatory thing, so I'd be surprised (pleasantly) if there was any constitutional issue.

henry said:

Michael Roberts said:

Dave Wisker said: Who gets to play Uti-Napishtim?

Dunno but Sarah Palin to play Noah's wife

President Palin has a nice ring to it.

Mike Elzinga said:

henry said: Genesis 6:15 And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

450 feet by 75 feet by 45 feet; that’s considerably smaller than a modern submarine and a hell of a lot smaller than an aircraft carrier.

John Kwok said:

henry said:

Michael Roberts said:

Dave Wisker said: Who gets to play Uti-Napishtim?

Dunno but Sarah Palin to play Noah's wife

President Palin has a nice ring to it.

God forbid. Heavens, no. I'm one Republican who doesn't think so.

John Kwok said:

Mike Elzinga said:

henry said: Genesis 6:15 And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

450 feet by 75 feet by 45 feet; that’s considerably smaller than a modern submarine and a hell of a lot smaller than an aircraft carrier.

The great Chinese admiral Zhong He's treasure fleet ships (which sailed the Eastern Pacific and Indian Oceans during several great voyages of discovery in the early 14th Century) were nearly as large as modern US Navy nuclear-powered aircraft carriers.

President Palin has a nice ring to it.

Scott F said: I was wondering that too, but aren't churches completely tax free? Seems that the government is typically giving tax breaks to religious institutions.

John Kwok said: The great Chinese admiral Zhong He's treasure fleet ships (which sailed the Eastern Pacific and Indian Oceans during several great voyages of discovery in the early 14th Century) were nearly as large as modern US Navy nuclear-powered aircraft carriers.

henry said: The purpose of the ark was to survive the global flood. It didn't need sails and a rudder. http://www.icr.org/article/noah-and-animals/

stevaroni said:

henry said: The purpose of the ark was to survive the global flood. It didn't need sails and a rudder. http://www.icr.org/article/noah-and-animals/

This tells me beyond any doubt that henry has never tried to sail any kind of boat in heavy seas.

Karen S. said:

President Palin has a nice ring to it.

Hardly, but a President Palin halloween costume would scare the crap out of everyone.

Scott F said: I was wondering that too, but aren't churches completely tax free? Seems that the government is typically giving tax breaks to religious institutions. Unlike public schools, attendance at the Ark Park isn't a mandatory thing, so I'd be surprised (pleasantly) if there was any constitutional issue.

From an anthrolopolical point of view, Genesis is quite reliable in the information that it provides. See this:
http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2010/12/challenge-to-shaye-cohens-portrayal-of.html

stevaroni said:

henry said: The purpose of the ark was to survive the global flood. It didn't need sails and a rudder. http://www.icr.org/article/noah-and-animals/

This tells me beyond any doubt that henry has never tried to sail any kind of boat in heavy seas.

"Kentucky politicians are a bit dumber than most."

No, the Governor wants jobs in Grant County, an economically depressed area, and this venture is more wholesome than casinos which most Kentuckians want to restrict to the Ohio River.

Scott F said: But then, I suppose if God closed the door, I'm sure he could have kept it from sinking, too. And kept it ventilated at the same time. And magicked away the water collecting in the bilges, as well as the dung.

Henry said:What is the point of the ark having a sail?

Alice C. Linsley said: No, the Governor wants jobs in Grant County, an economically depressed area, and this venture is more wholesome than casinos which most Kentuckians want to restrict to the Ohio River.

henry said: What is the point of the ark having a sail? There was nowhere to go since the entire globe was covered in water.

The seaworthiness of boats as big, wide, and lightly built as Zhongs would have been a severe issue.

harold said: Stevaroni - I happened to drop in on the tail end of this thread. You seem to have a lot of knowledge about wooden sailing ships - an interest of mine

However, (junks) did seem to manage some fairly impressive voyages. I’ve heard that they used bulkheads long before the west had that concept. Could that have helped? Is it possible that they had a more seaworthy design than the traditional Chinese junk?

stevaroni said: One can only imagine what a 30 degree roll would be like in hold full of dinosaurs and elephants.

stevaroni said: One can only imagine what a 30 degree roll would be like in hold full of dinosaurs and elephants. Everything would break loose, roll to the low side, and increase the list till the craft was swamped and lost.

stevaroni said: No, it would have been critical for Noah to keep head-on into the seas. Given the Ark's freeboard and beam, had it gotten square to the wind and waves it would have wallowed like, well, a barge - or even worse, had the seas started coming in over the stern it would likely swamp. One can only imagine what a 30 degree roll would be like in hold full of dinosaurs and elephants. Everything would break loose, roll to the low side, and increase the list till the craft was swamped and lost.

Robin said:

stevaroni said: One can only imagine what a 30 degree roll would be like in hold full of dinosaurs and elephants.

LOL! What a great image! Thanks Stevaroni!

I can't believe we are discussing ark seaworthiness. I feel like I've slipped into that old SNL 'get a life' skit with William Shatner. Then again, I imagine the sane parts of Kentucky maybe feel the same way.

eric said: I can't believe we are discussing ark seaworthiness. I feel like I've slipped into that old SNL 'get a life' skit with William Shatner. Then again, I imagine the sane parts of Kentucky maybe feel the same way.

raven said:

I’m really not seeing how this theme park is much different from a church. Not seeing how the government can legally step in with tax breaks and other incentives, that separation of church and state principle. Besides which, if the Arkland theme park is a viable commercial concept, they should be able to build it without government subsidies.

Holy Ayn Rand, if you follow the money, this is socialism. The Kentucky government is spending taxpayer money to finance a private business. The Tea Party must have been asleep. Oh, Oh. While the good citizens of Oklahoma were fighting off the Moslem hordes by outlawing Sharia law, the commies took over Kentucky.

We are grateful to God for all this media coverage.

We are grateful to God for all this media coverage.

Karen S. said:

We are grateful to God for all this media coverage.

And 100% of sharks surveyed approved of Noah's project.

henry said:

stevaroni said:

henry said: The purpose of the ark was to survive the global flood. It didn't need sails and a rudder. http://www.icr.org/article/noah-and-animals/

This tells me beyond any doubt that henry has never tried to sail any kind of boat in heavy seas.

What is the point of the ark having a sail? There was nowhere to go since the entire globe was covered in water.

Marty Erwin said: I am a bit confused about the legitimacy of Kentucky's action in this case. While providing a tax break is in itself no direct support from the state to the religious institutions involved it does divert tax funding from a normal terminus to the support of an overtly religious end. I would appreciate anyone providing an explanation of how this action of the state of Kentucky can withstand legal challenge as I do not know the relevant precedents for this issue.

Stanton said:

henry said:

stevaroni said:

henry said: The purpose of the ark was to survive the global flood. It didn't need sails and a rudder. http://www.icr.org/article/noah-and-animals/

This tells me beyond any doubt that henry has never tried to sail any kind of boat in heavy seas.

What is the point of the ark having a sail? There was nowhere to go since the entire globe was covered in water.

Then explain to us how a rudderless, sail-less box would not capsize in the storm during the Deluge. You want us to believe that thinking that God magically prevented the Ark from capsizing is magically supposed to be scientific?

henry said: What is the point of the ark having a sail? There was nowhere to go since the entire globe was covered in water.

Something about this reminds me of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boner%27s_Ark

I believe I read in another discussion on Panda that if the surface of the earth was completely covered with water, the humidity would be such that any air-breathing life would drown at sea-level.

stevaroni said: A modern sailor, faced with these heavy seas and no power, might throw out a sea anchor from the stern, and at least hope that it'll keep him up close up to the wind. But a modern sailor wouldn't be trying to turn something with the surface area of a small container ship in gale force seas. A sea anchor for such a vessel would have to be unimaginably huge, providing an enormous drag force that would severely test the materials of the time. And no, the vaunted "anchor stones of Ararat" wouldn't do it.

cronk said: I believe I read in another discussion on Panda that if the surface of the earth was completely covered with water, the humidity would be such that any air-breathing life would drown at sea-level.

KL said: No more than if you are at the edge of an indoor pool. Humidity is a function of air temp; vapor pressure of water a function of water temp.

I love the "after flud" questions.

How did koalas make it to Australia? Why are they not found along the route?

Why did zebras head west, wild asses east? How did they know they should do so?

Sloths? How did they cross the Atlantic?

What happened to Pakecetus in the flud?

A little closer to home: how did the Abert squirrel know to stay on the south rim of Grand Canyon, and the
Kaibab on the north rim?

Mike Elzinga said: It would be frozen. So we now have to wonder what temperature it was when it “rained” down upon the earth. As all that water fell, it had to fall through the vacuum of outer space, into the rarified upper atmosphere, and continue on down to the surface of the earth. Where did the all heat come from to melt it and warm it as it fell? That’s an incredible amount of heat that has to come from somewhere.

Mike Elzinga said: Where did the all heat come from to melt it and warm it as it fell? That’s an incredible amount of heat that has to come from somewhere.

Good timing, Stevaroni.

stevaroni said: It comes from the potential energy of the ice mass as it falls into the Earths gravity well. A 1 Kg block of ice dropped from 100Km should liberate just under a million joules on its way down. I don't remember enough of the constants to work out the final temperature, and there are some phase changes which will soak up energy, but since a million joules is enough to run a 750 watt household microwave oven for 22 minutes, I'm thinking that even with the ice starting at absolute zero, the scenario has enough energy to make a very steamy cup of tea out of the entire globe.

I love the “after flud” questions. How did koalas make it to Australia? Why are they not found along the route? Why did zebras head west, wild asses east? How did they know they should do so? Sloths? How did they cross the Atlantic? What happened to Pakecetus in the flud? A little closer to home: how did the Abert squirrel know to stay on the south rim of Grand Canyon, and the Kaibab on the north rim?

stevaroni said: It comes from the potential energy of the ice mass as it falls into the Earths gravity well.

John Vanko said: The whole 'canopy' idea (I can't bring myself to use the t word) is physically impossible without a chain of miracles. It's pure, utter silliness (as any YECreationist with a freshman's understanding of physics knows).

Mike Elzinga said:

KL said: No more than if you are at the edge of an indoor pool. Humidity is a function of air temp; vapor pressure of water a function of water temp.

A related question came up on another thread. I did a little back-of-the-envelope calculation there to show that if the water were stored in a “canopy” one foot thick, that “canopy would be located at 170 Earth radii; in other words, in outer space. If the canopy were even thinner, it could be located much farther out. It would be frozen. So we now have to wonder what temperature it was when it “rained” down upon the earth. As all that water fell, it had to fall through the vacuum of outer space, into the rarified upper atmosphere, and continue on down to the surface of the earth. Where did the all heat come from to melt it and warm it as it fell? That’s an incredible amount of heat that has to come from somewhere. As the water accumulated, it pushed the atmosphere up above the increasing water level until the atmosphere is raised above the highest mountains (about 29,000 feet). So what kinds of heat exchanges and temperatures are we to expect above the surface of the waters now covering the entire earth? Cold and dry; hot and humid? Besides providing a poor set of blueprints for a seaworthy vessel, those poor goat herders left a lot of questions unanswered. And now the poor biblical literalists are left to interpret so much of what they are not allowed to interpret in the light of our present day understanding of nature. Aren’t magical fairy tales wonderful? No thinking involved. Great grist for comedy however.

I love them too! After the flood, Noah could have bought an outboard motor for his ark and then dropped every critter off in the right place. Was the ark like the magic school bus? Which makes us wonder how he collected them all in the first place without an ark.

While everyone is playing "let's pretend", they are missing the key point of the Flood.

It was an almost total failure. The intent of the Big Boat plan was to rescue all the animals on the earth.

We now know that 99%+ of all animal life is extinct, that it didn't survive the Flood. Including all the nonavian dinosaurs. This is despite heavy supernatural support with god poofing miracles all along the way whenever the plot got bogged down in too much silliness.

A plan that accomplishes 1% of its objective isn't a success. It also didn't make a whole lot of difference. We are still the same humans we always were. Plan B was for god to send himself down and have himself killed. That didn't make any difference either except Rome fell (destroyed by xian Germanics) and we entered the Dark Age.

The god of the Old Testament doesn't seem too bright or powerful. In fact, he is an idiot.

henry said:

Karen S. said:

President Palin has a nice ring to it.

Hardly, but a President Palin halloween costume would scare the crap out of everyone.

If Palin becomes our first woman president, she can have her image carved into Mount Rushmore.

Its great to see the imagination here. A theme park can be a risk. Yet the museum is a smashing good success and so ambition rises.
Its been a boon to old kentuck and so the park is rightly given tax incentives.
You evolution guys here seem to want to frustrate these things.
If you made a better case for evolution or stoped the general censorship then such things would not happen.
Most people are uninterested. yet you force these people to notice by these spatial creations.
why not visit the museum and write some threads about it.
Ken Ham and company truly are becoming very successful people in the desire of men to know where they came from.
Its like they are blessed or something.
You guys need help.
you started out first but are being outlapped obviously.

Stanton said:

Karen S. said:

We are grateful to God for all this media coverage.

And 100% of sharks surveyed approved of Noah's project.

Actually, 100% of sharks would have died due to exposure to freshwater if it was raining for 40 days and 40 nights.

No, I don’t buy the ark baloney but saying 100% of sharks would die if it rained for 40 days and 40 nights is not a good argument.

Kris said:

Stanton said:

Karen S. said:

We are grateful to God for all this media coverage.

And 100% of sharks surveyed approved of Noah's project.

Actually, 100% of sharks would have died due to exposure to freshwater if it was raining for 40 days and 40 nights.

Really? http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/topics/p_fw_rays.htm http://www.aquaticcommunity.com/sharkfish/freshwatersharks.php No, I don't buy the ark baloney but saying 100% of sharks would die if it rained for 40 days and 40 nights is not a good argument.

cronk said: I believe I read in another discussion on Panda that if the surface of the earth was completely covered with water, the humidity would be such that any air-breathing life would drown at sea-level.

Kevin B said: One of James White's "Sector General" SF stories has a levitating dinosauroid in a spaceship. (The "dinosaur" resembled a brontosaurus and acquired the nickname "Emily".)

There’s J.P. Jeppson’s

Kevin B said:

eric said: I can't believe we are discussing ark seaworthiness. I feel like I've slipped into that old SNL 'get a life' skit with William Shatner. Then again, I imagine the sane parts of Kentucky maybe feel the same way.

No, we're discussing ark unseaworthiness. Obviously the biblical account omits a lot of important detail - Ken Ham is going to have to employ a naval architect on his design team. (Or perhaps Dr Dembski can help - he seems to be all at sea in statistics. :)

If you haven't you should check out Answers in Genesis this morning. Ken Hamm displays an elegant example of hypocrisy. He complains that the media are focused on complaining about the Biblical theme, and not the job- and revenue-generating aspects of the project. His stance is that the project should be weighed by its economic impact, and that the religious theme is irrelevant to judging its value. This coming from a man who runs a ministry devoted to the sole purpose of evangelism. This coming from people who clearly and unambiguously hold that the purpose of the project is to oppose "evolution" and to proselytize a version of Christianity based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. No matter how many times these guys do it, the hypocrisy that they spew leaves me stunned every time.

Stanton said: Or, Kris, why don't you tell me how you think an average bullshark or Amazon freshwater ray could survive the Flood? You could do an experiment about it.

Michael Roberts said:

Kevin B said:

eric said: I can't believe we are discussing ark seaworthiness. I feel like I've slipped into that old SNL 'get a life' skit with William Shatner. Then again, I imagine the sane parts of Kentucky maybe feel the same way.

No, we're discussing ark unseaworthiness. Obviously the biblical account omits a lot of important detail - Ken Ham is going to have to employ a naval architect on his design team. (Or perhaps Dr Dembski can help - he seems to be all at sea in statistics. :)

Kevin You are wrong. The bible gives all the details needed to build an ark

Michael Roberts said: You are wrong. The bible gives all the details needed to build an ark

Make thee an ark of gopher wood... Um, this stuff here is close enough. Yes, an Ark... It's like a big boat. A.R.K. That's not important. Now where was I - Oh, yeah, rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. Cubits. It's like a foot and a half. Ok, it's like half a meter. Again, not important. Anyhow... A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.

Michael Roberts said:

Kevin B said: No, we're discussing ark unseaworthiness. Obviously the biblical account omits a lot of important detail - Ken Ham is going to have to employ a naval architect on his design team. (Or perhaps Dr Dembski can help - he seems to be all at sea in statistics. :)

Kevin You are wrong. The bible gives all the details needed to build an ark

stevaroni said: See, the thing is, creationists are more than happy to ask the questions - it's just that they don't really want the answers.

Michael Roberts said:

Kevin B said:

eric said: I can't believe we are discussing ark seaworthiness. I feel like I've slipped into that old SNL 'get a life' skit with William Shatner. Then again, I imagine the sane parts of Kentucky maybe feel the same way.

No, we're discussing ark unseaworthiness. Obviously the biblical account omits a lot of important detail - Ken Ham is going to have to employ a naval architect on his design team. (Or perhaps Dr Dembski can help - he seems to be all at sea in statistics. :)

Kevin You are wrong. The bible gives all the details needed to build an ark

stevaroni said: It's also, one would expect, going to sport modern, code-compliant lighting and ventilation, so that visitors aren't overcome by the ammonia, methane, and carbon dioxide room all the rotting manure that "two (or, you know, maybe seven ) of every sort " turn out in a day.

Mike Elzinga said:

stevaroni said: It's also, one would expect, going to sport modern, code-compliant lighting and ventilation, so that visitors aren't overcome by the ammonia, methane, and carbon dioxide room all the rotting manure that "two (or, you know, maybe seven ) of every sort " turn out in a day.

Unfortunately there won’t be any codes protecting visitors from brain rot.

Michael Roberts said: You are wrong. The bible gives all the details needed to build an ark

eric said: Gen 6's instructions are insufficient to even draw a picture of a seaworthy vessel, let alone build one.

stevaroni said:

Stanton said: Or, Kris, why don't you tell me how you think an average bullshark or Amazon freshwater ray could survive the Flood? You could do an experiment about it.

Ahhh.. and therein lies the problem with creationists. It is eminently possible to go and test this stuff out. In this case, it's actually relatively practical - my local exotic pet store sells small sharks, and if you want something a little bigger, it would be simple enough to charter a boat and catch some. You could put them in some saltwater tanks and decrease the salinity and increase the turbidity over a few weeks, mess with the temperature and generally just measure how much a shark can survive. In fact, since sharks are a significant factor in world fisheries, you might not even have to handle any sharks at all. It's quite conceivable that some government organization somewhere on the planet has already gathered the basic data. Creationists don't have to guess, they could actually test it, and then know. They could do some real science and, for once, have some real data. Isn't the ICR always telling us that it has all kinds of money on the table for creationist research? And yet, nobody actually does any, now do they, Kris? I'm shocked. Shocked, I say. Next thing you know, someone will tell me that there's gambling at Ricks. See, the thing is, creationists are more than happy to ask the questions - it's just that they don't really want the answers.

Robin said:

stevaroni said:

Stanton said: Or, Kris, why don't you tell me how you think an average bullshark or Amazon freshwater ray could survive the Flood? You could do an experiment about it.

Ahhh.. and therein lies the problem with creationists. It is eminently possible to go and test this stuff out. In this case, it's actually relatively practical - my local exotic pet store sells small sharks, and if you want something a little bigger, it would be simple enough to charter a boat and catch some. You could put them in some saltwater tanks and decrease the salinity and increase the turbidity over a few weeks, mess with the temperature and generally just measure how much a shark can survive. In fact, since sharks are a significant factor in world fisheries, you might not even have to handle any sharks at all. It's quite conceivable that some government organization somewhere on the planet has already gathered the basic data. Creationists don't have to guess, they could actually test it, and then know. They could do some real science and, for once, have some real data. Isn't the ICR always telling us that it has all kinds of money on the table for creationist research? And yet, nobody actually does any, now do they, Kris? I'm shocked. Shocked, I say. Next thing you know, someone will tell me that there's gambling at Ricks. See, the thing is, creationists are more than happy to ask the questions - it's just that they don't really want the answers.

Of course the real problem isn't that creationists won't do any research - it's that they presume that regardless of any evidence, data, or facts the events as described could have occurred. It's impossible to falsify their god or its actions, consequently no test makes any difference. 'Feh...who cares if the ark as described in the bible couldn't have really survived in the types of seas that would have occurred with an actual global flood - maybe our Mythgod just made the waters calm and they just raised up like a filling bathtub while the ark floated nice and comfy on the rising water like a cork!' They can come up with any explanation since every explanation is equally plausible with an omniscient Mythgod.

Robin said: They can come up with any explanation since every explanation is equally plausible with an omniscient Mythgod.

Of course the real problem isn’t that creationists won’t do any research - it’s that they presume that regardless of any evidence, data, or facts the events as described could have occurred.

eric said:

Michael Roberts said: You are wrong. The bible gives all the details needed to build an ark

Gen 6:13-16 gives outside measurements, specifies 3 decks, type of wood, a roof with windows/opening, and a door. That's about it. For someone to claim this is all the information one needs to build a boat is to do exactly what St. Augustine warned against: make Christianity appear laughably stupid by claiming the bible supports you when you make ignorant statements concerning subjects you know little to nothing about. Gen 6's instructions are insufficient to even draw a picture of a seaworthy vessel, let alone build one.

Sorry for flippancy but I have just completed a book chapter on evangelical approaches to climate change.

There are the goodies/greens like Houghton, Cizik, de Wit and the baddies/browns like the Young earth Creationists. The stuff on the websites of AIG, CMI and necrophilia Mackay(Creation Research) simply encourage environmental vandalism, in the name of returning to the CO2 levels before the Flood.The burning of fossil fuels will only improve our climate

eric said:

Michael Roberts said: You are wrong. The bible gives all the details needed to build an ark

Gen 6:13-16 gives outside measurements, specifies 3 decks, type of wood, a roof with windows/opening, and a door. That's about it. For someone to claim this is all the information one needs to build a boat is to do exactly what St. Augustine warned against: make Christianity appear laughably stupid by claiming the bible supports you when you make ignorant statements concerning subjects you know little to nothing about. Gen 6's instructions are insufficient to even draw a picture of a seaworthy vessel, let alone build one.

Stanton said: I mean, what is "gopherwood" and where did they get the pitch used to seal the Ark?

"Ham’s organization appears to fleece children."

He is a rich man doing what he thinks is best with his money. I disagree with Young Earth creationism - a poor excuse for science, but I appreciate that a rich man would put so much into a Bible-focused theme park.

Taking money from those who willingly pay isn't fleecing. The real problem is the information that these children will receive. Or worse, the information that they won't be given: like the fact that hundreds of mace heads have been found in Africa dating from 80,000 to 100,000 years, or that people were mining red ochre from tunnel mines in the Lebombo Mountains 80,000 years ago. Even if the dating is half wrong (which it isn't) this means that humans were on the Earth between 40,000 to 50,000 years ago.

Maybe Santa Clause helped out?

Stanton said: I mean, what is "gopherwood" and where did they get the pitch used to seal the Ark?

Even if the dating is half wrong (which it isn’t) this means that humans were on the Earth between 40,000 to 50,000 years ago.

The more I think about this whole thing, the more I realize that this could backfire on them. What if visitors ask questions about their stinky overcrowded floating barn?

Robin said: Maybe our Mythgod just made the waters calm and they just raised up like a filling bathtub while the ark floated nice and comfy on the rising water like a cork!'

Karen S. said: The more I think about this whole thing, the more I realize that this could backfire on them. What if visitors ask questions about their stinky overcrowded floating barn?

Karen S. said: The more I think about this whole thing, the more I realize that this could backfire on them. What if visitors ask questions about their stinky overcrowded floating barn?

John Vanko said:

Stanton said: I mean, what is "gopherwood" and where did they get the pitch used to seal the Ark?

Sap from pine trees for pitch? Gonna need more PITCH!

mplavcan said: Questions? Ask questions? My God, these people live in a constant state of denial. Their science is like a kindergarten Sunday School book. The overwhelming majority will walk into the barn, enjoy the AC, and admire the cleanliness of the Ark, proving to themselves that because Ken Ham built it, it must have been true.

Stanton said:

Kris said:

Stanton said:

Karen S. said:

We are grateful to God for all this media coverage.

And 100% of sharks surveyed approved of Noah's project.

Actually, 100% of sharks would have died due to exposure to freshwater if it was raining for 40 days and 40 nights.

Really? http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/topics/p_fw_rays.htm http://www.aquaticcommunity.com/sharkfish/freshwatersharks.php No, I don't buy the ark baloney but saying 100% of sharks would die if it rained for 40 days and 40 nights is not a good argument.

Are you aware that those cartilaginous fishes that can migrate between fresh and saltwater need time to adapt? If you violently introduce freshwater into a bull shark's home environment, i.e., by dumping it into a tank of fresh water, it's going to die, not adapt. Furthermore, are you aware that sharks and rays are extremely sensitive to water quality? And I don't see how the water quality would be so great if they had to live in a flood as violent as Creationists claim it was, what with the catastrophic change of salinity, temperature change, and tons and tons of sediment from the mountains allegedly being eroded away. Or, Kris, why don't you tell me how you think an average bullshark or Amazon freshwater ray could survive the Flood? You could do an experiment about it. Oh, wait, no, you said that most experiments are useless and stupid, what with confirming what halfwits already know, as is anything and everything else that didn't project an image of 100% unanimity in the Scientific Community. Tell me again why you're here deliberately antagonizing us if you don't claim to be a troll?

stevaroni said:

mplavcan said: Questions? Ask questions? My God, these people live in a constant state of denial. Their science is like a kindergarten Sunday School book. The overwhelming majority will walk into the barn, enjoy the AC, and admire the cleanliness of the Ark, proving to themselves that because Ken Ham built it, it must have been true.

Depressingly true. And, right on cue... some new studies which show that when True Believers(tm) are presented with evidence which undermines their strongly held beliefs... it only causes them to proselytize louder.

Kris said: Your contention was that 100% of sharks would die if exposed to freshwater, if it was raining for 40 days and 40 nights.

Kris said:

Stanton said:

Kris said:

Stanton said:

Karen S. said:

We are grateful to God for all this media coverage.

And 100% of sharks surveyed approved of Noah's project.

Actually, 100% of sharks would have died due to exposure to freshwater if it was raining for 40 days and 40 nights.

Really? http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/topics/p_fw_rays.htm http://www.aquaticcommunity.com/sharkfish/freshwatersharks.php No, I don't buy the ark baloney but saying 100% of sharks would die if it rained for 40 days and 40 nights is not a good argument.

Are you aware that those cartilaginous fishes that can migrate between fresh and saltwater need time to adapt? If you violently introduce freshwater into a bull shark's home environment, i.e., by dumping it into a tank of fresh water, it's going to die, not adapt. Furthermore, are you aware that sharks and rays are extremely sensitive to water quality? And I don't see how the water quality would be so great if they had to live in a flood as violent as Creationists claim it was, what with the catastrophic change of salinity, temperature change, and tons and tons of sediment from the mountains allegedly being eroded away. Or, Kris, why don't you tell me how you think an average bullshark or Amazon freshwater ray could survive the Flood? You could do an experiment about it. Oh, wait, no, you said that most experiments are useless and stupid, what with confirming what halfwits already know, as is anything and everything else that didn't project an image of 100% unanimity in the Scientific Community. Tell me again why you're here deliberately antagonizing us if you don't claim to be a troll?

Your contention was that 100% of sharks would die if exposed to freshwater, if it was raining for 40 days and 40 nights. You obviously didn't read the information at those links very well. Just a couple of points: when a shark enters a river from an ocean it encounters a sudden exposure to fresh water. Much more sudden, in fact, than it would if it were in an ocean and fresh water were to enter the ocean from rain, even 40 days and nights worth. The Glyphis sharks apparently live in fresh water for their entire lives, and even if they don't it's well established that they can easily endure fresh water. It's also very likely that Glyphis sharks were around at the time in Earth's history when creationists say the biblical flood occurred (around 2400 B.C.?). There's one thing you cannot say with certainty; that 100% of sharks would die if exposed to freshwater, no matter how quickly it happens. You also apparently missed the part about how Bull sharks have been found to live in fresh water for six years without negative effects. Like I said before, I don't buy the ark baloney but your shark argument is not a good one.

stevaroni said:

Kris said: Your contention was that 100% of sharks would die if exposed to freshwater, if it was raining for 40 days and 40 nights.

No. His contention, in vernacular English, was that sharks die on exposure to fresh water. True, some small subset does just fine, but, in general, sharks tend to turn into ex-sharks if they spend a lot of time in fresh, turbid water. Virtually all saltwater fish do. Even though some marine fish, like bull sharks, eels, and salmon, can adapth to either environment, most die. Most die quickly. You are doing what the trolls on this board always do. You are arguing tiny little slivers of semantics and isolated exceptions while ignoring the simple, commonplace 99 percentile.

stevaroni said:

Kris said: Your contention was that 100% of sharks would die if exposed to freshwater, if it was raining for 40 days and 40 nights.

No. His contention, in vernacular English, was that sharks die on exposure to fresh water. True, some small subset does just fine, but, in general, sharks tend to turn into ex-sharks if they spend a lot of time in fresh, turbid water. Virtually all saltwater fish do. Even though some marine fish, like bull sharks, eels, and salmon, can adapth to either environment, most die. Most die quickly. You are doing what the trolls on this board always do. You are arguing tiny little slivers of semantics and isolated exceptions while ignoring the simple, commonplace 99 percentile.

Kris said:

stevaroni said:

Kris said: Your contention was that 100% of sharks would die if exposed to freshwater, if it was raining for 40 days and 40 nights.

No. His contention, in vernacular English, was that sharks die on exposure to fresh water. True, some small subset does just fine, but, in general, sharks tend to turn into ex-sharks if they spend a lot of time in fresh, turbid water. Virtually all saltwater fish do. Even though some marine fish, like bull sharks, eels, and salmon, can adapth to either environment, most die. Most die quickly. You are doing what the trolls on this board always do. You are arguing tiny little slivers of semantics and isolated exceptions while ignoring the simple, commonplace 99 percentile.

He said 100%. It wasn't my number. Don't blame me for things that other people say.

Stanton said:

stevaroni said:

Kris said: Your contention was that 100% of sharks would die if exposed to freshwater, if it was raining for 40 days and 40 nights.

No. His contention, in vernacular English, was that sharks die on exposure to fresh water. True, some small subset does just fine, but, in general, sharks tend to turn into ex-sharks if they spend a lot of time in fresh, turbid water. Virtually all saltwater fish do. Even though some marine fish, like bull sharks, eels, and salmon, can adapth to either environment, most die. Most die quickly. You are doing what the trolls on this board always do. You are arguing tiny little slivers of semantics and isolated exceptions while ignoring the simple, commonplace 99 percentile.

And by attempting to argue that the small subset of sharks is actually the norm, Kris brings up the ridiculous suggestion that a specific species of exclusively freshwater shark could survive the Flood, despite the fact that logic and common sense would dictate that it, along with all freshwater ecosystems would have been fatally washed out to sea.

Stanton said:

Kris said:

Stanton said:

Kris said:

Stanton said:

Karen S. said:

We are grateful to God for all this media coverage.

And 100% of sharks surveyed approved of Noah's project.

Actually, 100% of sharks would have died due to exposure to freshwater if it was raining for 40 days and 40 nights.

Really? http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/topics/p_fw_rays.htm http://www.aquaticcommunity.com/sharkfish/freshwatersharks.php No, I don't buy the ark baloney but saying 100% of sharks would die if it rained for 40 days and 40 nights is not a good argument.

Are you aware that those cartilaginous fishes that can migrate between fresh and saltwater need time to adapt? If you violently introduce freshwater into a bull shark's home environment, i.e., by dumping it into a tank of fresh water, it's going to die, not adapt. Furthermore, are you aware that sharks and rays are extremely sensitive to water quality? And I don't see how the water quality would be so great if they had to live in a flood as violent as Creationists claim it was, what with the catastrophic change of salinity, temperature change, and tons and tons of sediment from the mountains allegedly being eroded away. Or, Kris, why don't you tell me how you think an average bullshark or Amazon freshwater ray could survive the Flood? You could do an experiment about it. Oh, wait, no, you said that most experiments are useless and stupid, what with confirming what halfwits already know, as is anything and everything else that didn't project an image of 100% unanimity in the Scientific Community. Tell me again why you're here deliberately antagonizing us if you don't claim to be a troll?

Your contention was that 100% of sharks would die if exposed to freshwater, if it was raining for 40 days and 40 nights. You obviously didn't read the information at those links very well. Just a couple of points: when a shark enters a river from an ocean it encounters a sudden exposure to fresh water. Much more sudden, in fact, than it would if it were in an ocean and fresh water were to enter the ocean from rain, even 40 days and nights worth. The Glyphis sharks apparently live in fresh water for their entire lives, and even if they don't it's well established that they can easily endure fresh water. It's also very likely that Glyphis sharks were around at the time in Earth's history when creationists say the biblical flood occurred (around 2400 B.C.?). There's one thing you cannot say with certainty; that 100% of sharks would die if exposed to freshwater, no matter how quickly it happens. You also apparently missed the part about how Bull sharks have been found to live in fresh water for six years without negative effects. Like I said before, I don't buy the ark baloney but your shark argument is not a good one.

None of those links you provided were about sharks being exposed to catastrophic conditions similar to the Flood. In my original statement, I implied that 100% of sharks would have died in the Flood, what with the turbulence, dramatic sediment pollution and temperature changes, along with drastic salinity changes. I would think that if there was enough rainwater added to the oceans, over the course of 40 days, to raise the sea level beyond the peaks of the highest mountains, common sense would suggest that the salinity change would be extremely harmful to sharks, along with all other sea life. Furthermore, why would you assume that the Glyphis shark, along with all freshwater organisms, be able to survive a 40 day long storm powerful to wash it and all other inhabitants of its ecosystem out to sea? Why is assuming a Global Flood would be traumatic enough to kill all sea life, along with all freshwater life, illogical?

Kris said: Didn't you see the part about my not buying the ark baloney? Can anyone here actually READ? None of you have to convince me that the story of the ark is total BS. In fact, it's hard for me to imagine a more ridiculous story.

In other words, Kris, you still haven't given us a reason, any reason, to trust that you aren't a troll.

So the troll has tired to hijack yet another thread. This time he argues that the magic flood that he doesn't believe in would not have killed every single individual of one species. Great point. And the magic wand that I don't believe in would never be able to kill all of the little witches at Hogwarts. Brilliant. Glad we got that scientific controversy all cleared up.

Ignore him and he will go away.

DS said: So the troll has tired to hijack yet another thread. This time he argues that the magic flood that he doesn't believe in would not have killed every single individual of one species. Great point. And the magic wand that I don't believe in would never be able to kill all of the little witches at Hogwarts. Brilliant. Glad we got that scientific controversy all cleared up. Ignore him and he will go away.

Stanton said:

Kris said: Didn't you see the part about my not buying the ark baloney? Can anyone here actually READ? None of you have to convince me that the story of the ark is total BS. In fact, it's hard for me to imagine a more ridiculous story.

Yes, we can read. And we've also encountered numerous Creationist trolls who also claimed that they believed in science and or were scientists, and even claimed to deny the story of the Ark. Yet, they would go on to prove themselves to be liars in everything they said.

DS said: So the troll has tired to hijack yet another thread. This time he argues that the magic flood that he doesn't believe in would not have killed every single individual of one species. Great point. And the magic wand that I don't believe in would never be able to kill all of the little witches at Hogwarts. Brilliant. Glad we got that scientific controversy all cleared up. Ignore him and he will go away.

kris the creepy stalker: Are you guys really so insecure in your position that you need to be so paranoid? Are your egos and alleged scientific knowledge really that fragile?

raven said:

kris the creepy stalker: Are you guys really so insecure in your position that you need to be so paranoid? Are your egos and alleged scientific knowledge really that fragile?

NO. We are just bored with mentally ill trolls like kris wasting our valuable time. Don't feed the trolls and they will go somewhere else. Which never happens on PT. I can predict that when a troll shows up, the thread turns into a zombie. There are a lot more posts, all off topic troll feeding and not worth reading further. BTW, kris is using typical classic passive-aggressive tactics. Any sane adult with an IQ over 100 should be able to deal with that easily. It is a child's game. Don't play it.

stevaroni said: ...in general, sharks tend to turn into ex-sharks if they spend a lot of time in fresh, turbid water.

Stanton said:

Karen S. said:

We are grateful to God for all this media coverage.

And 100% of sharks surveyed approved of Noah's project.

Actually, 100% of sharks would have died due to exposure to freshwater if it was raining for 40 days and 40 nights.

Mike Elzinga said:

Robin said: They can come up with any explanation since every explanation is equally plausible with an omniscientpotent Mythgod.

But the fun part is that it takes only a semester of freshman physics to show just how ludicrous they look when they do this.

Kris said: Grow up.

It wouldn't be just the salinity, of course. There's also temperature changes, pressure increase, sunlight blockage, changes in oxygen content, changes in amount of other salts present, lack of reachable shelter, not to mention turbulence.

Then, anything that managed to survive all of that would then look around for something to eat - and wouldn't find it.

Henry J said: It wouldn't be just the salinity, of course. There's also temperature changes, pressure increase, sunlight blockage, changes in oxygen content, changes in amount of other salts present, lack of reachable shelter, not to mention turbulence.

Robin said: Well again, from our - that is logical and rational - perspective, this is true. But consider for a moment that there was a gremlin that you really knew existed that could change the circumstances repeatedly and unpredictably. Wouldn't the knowledge gained in the semester of freshmen physics become negligible?

Michael Roberts said: what's the icon for irony? . do I baracket all I say with Fe?

If the tempest was insufficient to break apart a structurally vulnerable 450 foot barge built by a novice, then the sturdy little working boats of the day should have made it, too. If we’re going with the biblical conceit that fishes had an easy time of it (clearly, Noah saw no need to rescue any) then at least some food would have been available to fishermen, the likely demographic for boat ownership. At least hundreds, if not a few thousand, should have survived.

Flint said: I admit I've never quite understood this and similar critiques.

stevaroni said:

Stanton said: Or, Kris, why don't you tell me how you think an average bullshark or Amazon freshwater ray could survive the Flood? You could do an experiment about it.

Ahhh.. and therein lies the problem with creationists. It is eminently possible to go and test this stuff out. In this case, it's actually relatively practical - my local exotic pet store sells small sharks, and if you want something a little bigger, it would be simple enough to charter a boat and catch some. You could put them in some saltwater tanks and decrease the salinity and increase the turbidity over a few weeks, mess with the temperature and generally just measure how much a shark can survive. In fact, since sharks are a significant factor in world fisheries, you might not even have to handle any sharks at all. It's quite conceivable that some government organization somewhere on the planet has already gathered the basic data. Creationists don't have to guess, they could actually test it, and then know. They could do some real science and, for once, have some real data. Isn't the ICR always telling us that it has all kinds of money on the table for creationist research? And yet, nobody actually does any, now do they, Kris? I'm shocked. Shocked, I say. Next thing you know, someone will tell me that there's gambling at Ricks. See, the thing is, creationists are more than happy to ask the questions - it's just that they don't really want the answers.

Kris said: And I never said or implied that an "average bullshark or Amazon freshwater ray could survive the Flood".

Flint said: I admit I've never quite understood this and similar critiques. After all, this was BILLED to be a magical flood.

Well let's look at the evidence. Here are the three arguments that Kris has made so far:

1) Dembski should be taken seriously, since his ideas have never been tested.

2) "Someone" might not want to believe in evolution, if you could not prove every detail of abiogenesis to their satisfaction.

3) The magic flood would not have killed every single shark, especially if it never happened.

Now why on earth would anyone ever get the idea that he was really a creationist lying about being a creationist? Maybe if he tried to make some real point about real science "someone" might believe him. Until then, seems like just another concern troll to me.

If Kris is somehow so poor at communication that these are not actually the point he was trying to make, he has had every opportunity to clarify his views. He has responded with only ridicule to those who have attempted to make some sense of his mutterings, yet another classic creationist characteristic. He might not be a creationist, but he sure does a good imitation.

stevaroni said: Buuuuut.... That's not how the DI, and ICR, and the creationist nuts on my state school board want to play it, probably because even they realize how thin and feeble the "it's just God-magic" explanation sounds. They insist on portraying it as a real event, that really happened, subject to the laws of real physics. the displays at the Creation Museum all strive to emphasize that this is real stuff you're seeing, and I will put big money that "Ark Encounter" will be chock-full of helpful signs explaining the vapor canopy and how it's possible for 8 people to care for all the worlds' animals by judicious selection of pre-pubescent elephants. It's actually a creationist game to claim the Ark was a real craft on a real mission, subject to the real laws of physics. At this point, as far as the rationalist side is concerned, it's really not much more than a parlor game any more. the idea of a real, physical Ark is so discredited that there's really not much to do in the face of that sort of ignorance except to say "Um, no. Here's even more things wrong with that idea"

Stanton said: Actually, 100% of sharks would have died due to exposure to freshwater if it was raining for 40 days and 40 nights.

Kris said: Really? http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/topics/p_fw_rays.htm http://www.aquaticcommunity.com/sharkfish/freshwatersharks.php No, I don't buy the ark baloney but saying 100% of sharks would die if it rained for 40 days and 40 nights is not a good argument.

Stanton said: Are you aware that those cartilaginous fishes that can migrate between fresh and saltwater need time to adapt? If you violently introduce freshwater into a bull shark's home environment, i.e., by dumping it into a tank of fresh water, it's going to die, not adapt. Furthermore, are you aware that sharks and rays are extremely sensitive to water quality? And I don't see how the water quality would be so great if they had to live in a flood as violent as Creationists claim it was, what with the catastrophic change of salinity, temperature change, and tons and tons of sediment from the mountains allegedly being eroded away. Or, Kris, why don't you tell me how you think an average bullshark or Amazon freshwater ray could survive the Flood? You could do an experiment about it. Oh, wait, no, you said that most experiments are useless and stupid, what with confirming what halfwits already know, as is anything and everything else that didn't project an image of 100% unanimity in the Scientific Community. Tell me again why you're here deliberately antagonizing us if you don't claim to be a troll?

If you’re not a troll, then how come you feel the need to insult us because we won’t reward your blatantly hostile attitude with civility? I mean, did you ever stop to think we are unreceptive to your statements because of your blatant hostility, constant attempts to hijack every thread you come to, and incessant demands that we bow down and worship your every incoherent platitude?

DS said: Well let's look at the evidence. Here are the three arguments that Kris has made so far: 1) Dembski should be taken seriously, since his ideas have never been tested. 2) "Someone" might not want to believe in evolution, if you could not prove every detail of abiogenesis to their satisfaction. 3) The magic flood would not have killed every single shark, especially if it never happened. Now why on earth would anyone ever get the idea that he was really a creationist lying about being a creationist? Maybe if he tried to make some real point about real science "someone" might believe him. Until then, seems like just another concern troll to me. If Kris is somehow so poor at communication that these are not actually the point he was trying to make, he has had every opportunity to clarify his views. He has responded with only ridicule to those who have attempted to make some sense of his mutterings, yet another classic creationist characteristic. He might not be a creationist, but he sure does a good imitation.

Nothing in my original post was an attack, or blatantly hostile, demanding, or a hijack, and if information that shows you were wrong is a “platitude” then I guess you should have known about that information already.

Nice try at distorting the facts, but you really shouldn’t pretend to speak for me.

The paranoia here is getting worse by the minute.

I’m starting to feel like I’m at a revival meeting.

So, he frequently attends revival meetings. Makes sense. Well, I'm glad he finally cleared up all the confusion about his real beliefs. I know I'm completely satisfied. It's all so clear now.

Mike Elzinga said: If the rain came from that “canopy” in outer space and rained down depositing 3 x 10²⁹ joules of energy in 40 days, that works out to be about 4 x 10⁹ watts per square meter.

stevaroni said: I still want to know where it went.

During the Flood, something like 3 million times more energy per second was being deposited on the Earth’s surface than we get from ordinary sunlight.

stevaroni said: I still want to know where it went.

raven said: That is an interesting calculation but it suffers from all criticisms of the Flood. It ignores the existence of a powerful being with a magic wand that can do anything.

John Vanko said: Why it disappeared, miraculously! Mark Isaak did a great job of reviewing all the problems with the Flood here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

When asked why steel and modern tools and materials were used to build this new Ark, Ham will say it was a matter of time only.

John Vanko said: Mark Isaak did a great job of reviewing all the problems with the Flood here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html Near the end he asks, "If God is omnipotent, why not kill what He wanted killed directly? Why resort to a roundabout method that requires innumerable additional miracles?"

All one has to do is look a Jason Lisle’s attempt to “save the phenomenon” to see that they want desperately to look scientific.

Kris said:

DS said: Well let's look at the evidence. Here are the three arguments that Kris has made so far: 1) Dembski should be taken seriously, since his ideas have never been tested. 2) "Someone" might not want to believe in evolution, if you could not prove every detail of abiogenesis to their satisfaction. 3) The magic flood would not have killed every single shark, especially if it never happened. Now why on earth would anyone ever get the idea that he was really a creationist lying about being a creationist? Maybe if he tried to make some real point about real science "someone" might believe him. Until then, seems like just another concern troll to me. If Kris is somehow so poor at communication that these are not actually the point he was trying to make, he has had every opportunity to clarify his views. He has responded with only ridicule to those who have attempted to make some sense of his mutterings, yet another classic creationist characteristic. He might not be a creationist, but he sure does a good imitation.

Nice try at distorting the facts, but you really shouldn't pretend to speak for me. The paranoia here is getting worse by the minute. I'm starting to feel like I'm at a revival meeting.

stevaroni said:

When asked why steel and modern tools and materials were used to build this new Ark, Ham will say it was a matter of time only.

... And that's another question that's always bothered me. Just how did Noah ever get that damned huge Ark built?

stevaroni said: (Gee, do you think the Ark people will put up signs bragging on how much their barn weighs or how many individual trees they had to cut down and dress to build it?) But that's 2000 tons of woodworking per man.

Now admittedly, the Bible doesn’t say how long Noah took to build his boat. It does say Noah was 600 years old, so, admittedly he could have been hammering away for 6 centuries, but if that’s the case, then God decided man was wicked, then waited 30 generations to kill all the evil peoples descendants.

A big problem I see with the whole "vapor canopy" thing is that although it is a common argument used by literalists, it is not consistent with a literal reading of the story. The flood narrative says (Genesis 7) "on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights." Genesis 8 reinforces these three sources of flood water.

I can't think of any reason why one should accept that the story was historically correct with regard, for example, to Noah fitting all those land animals into the ark, yet deny the plainly stated existence of the waters above the firmament and the waters of the deep. So, as far as I'm concerned, anyone who makes the silly "vapor canopy" argument isn't really a literalist.

By the way, if you're willing accept a cosmology that includes the waters of the deep, it seems pretty clear that when the waters receded, the deep is likely the place all the excess water went. The wind that occurs at the beginning of Genesis 8 probably just blew the flood water off the edge of the earth into the deep.

Problem solved, except for that whole spherical Earth thing ...

SWT said: So, as far as I'm concerned, anyone who makes the silly "vapor canopy" argument isn't really a literalist. Problem solved, except for that whole spherical Earth thing ...

Problem solved, except for that whole spherical Earth thing …

Flint said:

Nothing in my original post was an attack, or blatantly hostile, demanding, or a hijack, and if information that shows you were wrong is a “platitude” then I guess you should have known about that information already.

But you have not produced information showing he was wrong. Granted, he presumed that if the flood happened in no more than a 40-day period (the salinity would have changed drastically in a much shorter period), THEN sharks would have had to adapt to salinity changes within the time-frame of the flood. Showing that SOME sharks can adapt to salinity changes over considerably longer periods of time doesn't show that he was wrong, it shows that you have forgotten an essential detail of the flood myth. A strange forgetfulness, since the necessary time period was stated right there in the claim you objected to. Now, what you could have said was that the ability of sharks to adapt to sudden salinity changes seems to have been lost in most species, and reduced considerably in others, since those days. Or alternatively, sharks in those days were quite different from today's sharks. Or perhaps that the sea was freshwater at that time. Or that sharks were magically protected from any injury due to flood side-effects, etc.

stevaroni said:

Mike Elzinga said: If the rain came from that “canopy” in outer space and rained down depositing 3 x 10²⁹ joules of energy in 40 days, that works out to be about 4 x 10⁹ watts per square meter.

I still want to know where it went.

Flint said:

Nice try at distorting the facts, but you really shouldn’t pretend to speak for me.

So far, nobody has been able to guess what you're trying to say, and you've attacked every attempt by everyone to do so. Here's a clue: If ONE person misunderstands you and nobody else does, that person is probably at fault. If EVERYONE misunderstands you, and all share the same misunderstanding, your attempts to "communicate" may, just maybe, have some shortcomings.

The paranoia here is getting worse by the minute.

If you were to vanish, I imagine the paranoia would as well. Sheer coincidence, you understand.

I’m starting to feel like I’m at a revival meeting.

You probably know this feeling better than anyone else here. If I had to guess, I'd guess a revival meeting is where someone walks in and starts attacking and insulting everyone else for no particular reason. And then accuses everyone else of paranoia!

Mike Elzinga said:

Robin said: Well again, from our - that is logical and rational - perspective, this is true. But consider for a moment that there was a gremlin that you really knew existed that could change the circumstances repeatedly and unpredictably. Wouldn't the knowledge gained in the semester of freshmen physics become negligible?

Anybody who winds up in that sorry state is ripe for picking by the likes of Ken Ham.

Flint said:

Nothing in my original post was an attack, or blatantly hostile, demanding, or a hijack, and if information that shows you were wrong is a “platitude” then I guess you should have known about that information already.

But you have not produced information showing he was wrong. Granted, he presumed that if the flood happened in no more than a 40-day period (the salinity would have changed drastically in a much shorter period), THEN sharks would have had to adapt to salinity changes within the time-frame of the flood. Showing that SOME sharks can adapt to salinity changes over considerably longer periods of time doesn't show that he was wrong, it shows that you have forgotten an essential detail of the flood myth. A strange forgetfulness, since the necessary time period was stated right there in the claim you objected to. Now, what you could have said was that the ability of sharks to adapt to sudden salinity changes seems to have been lost in most species, and reduced considerably in others, since those days. Or alternatively, sharks in those days were quite different from today's sharks. Or perhaps that the sea was freshwater at that time. Or that sharks were magically protected from any injury due to flood side-effects, etc.

John Vanko said: When asked why steel and modern tools and materials were used to build this new Ark, Ham will say it was a matter of time only. Shameless profiteer.

Robin,

I agree with your comments. The important thing is that Kris claims to believe in evolution and claims not to be a raving bat shit insane fundamentalist. You are also correct in that technically he is probably right, at least one shark of some kind might not have been immediately killed in the magic flood.

However, what kind of a rational person argues for days about something he claims he doesn't believe ever happened? What's the point? He isn't defending evolution. He isn't engaging in any rational discussion. He just seems to want to prove that he can get people to argue with him. FIne, anyone who wants to argue with him is welcome. He hasn't been banned and he can post anything he wants on any thread.

SInce I can't seem to find anything worth discussing with him, I don't intend to respond to his taunts. You can feel free to discuss the fate of bull sharks in the imaginary flood with him if you want. Just don't be surprised if, in the end, he turns out to be just another duplicitous creationist.

Kris said:

Flint said:

Nothing in my original post was an attack, or blatantly hostile, demanding, or a hijack, and if information that shows you were wrong is a “platitude” then I guess you should have known about that information already.

But you have not produced information showing he was wrong. Granted, he presumed that if the flood happened in no more than a 40-day period (the salinity would have changed drastically in a much shorter period), THEN sharks would have had to adapt to salinity changes within the time-frame of the flood. Showing that SOME sharks can adapt to salinity changes over considerably longer periods of time doesn't show that he was wrong, it shows that you have forgotten an essential detail of the flood myth. A strange forgetfulness, since the necessary time period was stated right there in the claim you objected to. Now, what you could have said was that the ability of sharks to adapt to sudden salinity changes seems to have been lost in most species, and reduced considerably in others, since those days. Or alternatively, sharks in those days were quite different from today's sharks. Or perhaps that the sea was freshwater at that time. Or that sharks were magically protected from any injury due to flood side-effects, etc.

Let's see the data for your contention that "SOME sharks can adapt to salinity changes over considerably longer lengths of time" than 40 days. In other words, the data that shows that it takes considerably longer than 40 days for any shark to adapt to salinity changes, or fresh water. Let's see your data that shows that all Glyphis sharks cannot or do not live in fresh water for their entire lives, and that if they are exposed to fresh water they would die. And you're still trying to introduce things that have nothing to do with my original comments. Here's a place to start to see how long it may take for Bull sharks to adapt to salinity changes or fresh water. There's a lot more about it if you dig for it. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=22&ved=0CCIQFjABOBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1040%26context%3Dichthynicar&rct=j&q=Freshwater%20Shark%20of%20Lake%20Nicaragua&ei=6GwATZnKEs35nAeBtKHlDQ&usg=AFQjCNGziYd1b4zo1ddBzEG4xkYeQseUXA&cad=rja Here are some excerpts from that study that you may find informative: "the bull shark is capable, as are certain salmonids, eels and lam- preys, of functioning in either fresh or marine water. The sharks differ from the latter, however, in that they can move between the two media freely and repeatedly, in a pattern not necessarily related to their life cycle" "C. leucas survives for long periods of time in fresh water (Thorson, unpublished data) without untoward effects. Hematocrit values for C. leucas are slightly higher in fresh water than in marine specimens, rather than lower, as would be the case if dilution of body fluids occurred when they enter fresh water (Thorson, Cowan and Watson, 1973). Furthermore, total body water of C. leucas from Lake Nicaragua is nearly identical (72.1 % of body weight) with the average of three marine species of sharks (71.5%), as is the pattern of water apportionment among the major body fluid compartments (Thorson, 1962a; 1962b). The osmoregulatory equipment of C. leucas is fully capa- ble of effective functioning throughout the full range of environmental salinities usually encountered by the species. Its presence in fresh water is apparently a matter of the exploitation of an ecological opportunity by a species that is equipped to tolerate fresh water and deal physiologically with the osmotic problems found there". "It is now well-established that both the juveniles and adults of this species have the full range of tolerance to environmental salinities from fresh water to full strength sea water and they are capable of moving freely back and forth between the two media" You were saying? Like I've already said, the biblical flood story is ridiculous, but saying that 100% of sharks would die if exposed to fresh water is not a good argument.

DS said: Just don't be surprised if, in the end, he turns out to be just another duplicitous creationist.

DS said: Robin, I agree with your comments. The important thing is that Kris claims to believe in evolution and claims not to be a raving bat shit insane fundamentalist. You are also correct in that technically he is probably right, at least one shark of some kind might not have been immediately killed in the magic flood. However, what kind of a rational person argues for days about something he claims he doesn't believe ever happened? What's the point? He isn't defending evolution. He isn't engaging in any rational discussion. He just seems to want to prove that he can get people to argue with him. FIne, anyone who wants to argue with him is welcome. He hasn't been banned and he can post anything he wants on any thread.

SInce I can't seem to find anything worth discussing with him, I don't intend to respond to his taunts. You can feel free to discuss the fate of bull sharks in the imaginary flood with him if you want. Just don't be surprised if, in the end, he turns out to be just another duplicitous creationist.

All the sauropods were really thirsty when they got off the boat. :)

Robin,

Once again, we seem to be in agreement. I don't have any problem with posting references that indicate that some sharks have high tolerance to changing salt conditions. That's fine, I just don't see the point.

The thing you have to understand is that this is at least the third time this kind of thing has happened recently, on at least three different threads. FIrst, Kris claims that Dembski should be taken seriously because his ideas have never been tested. When it was pointed out to him that this was not the case, he claimed that he had been completely misunderstood, although he never explained exactly what point is was he was trying to make and no one seemed to get it. Then, on another thread, he argued that i"someone" might now want to believe in evolution if science could not explain everything from the big bang to abiogenesis to their satisfaction. Once again, when it was pointed out that this was not a valid argument, he claimed that he was completely misunderstood. I asked him to clarify his views, (perhaps not as politely as I should have) and his response was, well let's just say it did nothing to clarify his views, Now he yammers on and on about sharks that didn't die in the magic flood, all the while claiming that the flood story is ridiculous and that it never happened. I'm sure it's all just one more big misunderstanding.

There is a pattern here. It is not just an isolated incident. Either he is a sincere evolution supporter who simply cannot express a coherent argument (a rare species), or he is a concern troll looking for attention. Even if he isn't really a creationist, so what? Unless he can make himself more clearly understood, I see no point in responding. You of course are free to do as you wish.

eric said: I don't disagree with that last statement, but realistically the state will require him to follow various building safety codes (including the ones for ships if it is taking passengers). I'm sure he doesn't want to test the ark story, but fact is that the state wouldn't let him even if he wanted to. No one gets to build a 1.6 million cubic foot theme park structure without a sprinker system, fire doors, electrical lights, etc... and even though we'd like to see Ken Ham fall on his face trying to replicate the ark, these rules are a good thing.

DS said, regarding Kris: What's the point? He isn't defending evolution. He isn't engaging in any rational discussion. He just seems to want to prove that he can get people to argue with him.

Mike Elzinga said: If the rain came from that “canopy” in outer space and rained down depositing 3 x 10²⁹ joules of energy in 40 days, that works out to be about 4 x 10⁹ watts per square meter. Compare that with the 1.4 x 10³ watts per square meter that we get from sunlight. During the Flood, something like 3 million times more energy per second was being deposited on the Earth’s surface than we get from ordinary sunlight.

John Vanko said: And he will then turn those State code requirements around as an example of civil government biased against a biblical worldview, preventing him from building his Ark true to the original autograph.

eric said: No one gets to build a 1.6 million cubic foot theme park structure without a sprinker system, fire doors, electrical lights, etc... and even though we'd like to see Ken Ham fall on his face trying to replicate the ark, these rules are a good thing. John Vanko replied: And he will then turn those State code requirements around as an example of civil government biased against a biblical worldview, preventing him from building his Ark true to the original autograph.

DS said: The thing you have to understand is that this is at least the third time this kind of thing has happened recently, on at least three different threads.

FIrst, Kris claims that Dembski should be taken seriously because his ideas have never been tested. When it was pointed out to him that this was not the case, he claimed that he had been completely misunderstood, although he never explained exactly what point is was he was trying to make and no one seemed to get it.

Then, on another thread, he argued that i"someone" might now want to believe in evolution if science could not explain everything from the big bang to abiogenesis to their satisfaction. Once again, when it was pointed out that this was not a valid argument, he claimed that he was completely misunderstood. I asked him to clarify his views, (perhaps not as politely as I should have) and his response was, well let's just say it did nothing to clarify his views, Now he yammers on and on about sharks that didn't die in the magic flood, all the while claiming that the flood story is ridiculous and that it never happened. I'm sure it's all just one more big misunderstanding.

There is a pattern here. It is not just an isolated incident. Either he is a sincere evolution supporter who simply cannot express a coherent argument (a rare species), or he is a concern troll looking for attention. Even if he isn't really a creationist, so what? Unless he can make himself more clearly understood, I see no point in responding. You of course are free to do as you wish.

Robin,

Once again, we seem to be in complete agreement. Which means of course that I must conclude that you are a scholar and a gentlemen. Unless of course you are a chick. Then I guess you're a scholar and a really smart chick.

Perhaps Kris will get the idea. He isn't making himself clear. If that is deliberate, then I guess it won't change. If it is unintentional, there is still hope. I for one have little patience after the IBIG fiasco.

DS said: Robin, Once again, we seem to be in complete agreement. Which means of course that I must conclude that you are a scholar and a gentlemen. Unless of course you are a chick. Then I guess you're a scholar and a really smart chick. Perhaps Kris will get the idea. He isn't making himself clear. If that is deliberate, then I guess it won't change. If it is unintentional, there is still hope. I for one have little patience after the IBIG fiasco.

Mike Elzinga said:

henry said: This is what the ark may have looked like. http://i362.photobucket.com/albums/oo68/popa14701/Saturday/Noahs_Ark.jpg

How does this design solve the problems of ventilation? And, by the way, why not a sphere?

Scott F said: It might not need a rudder, per se, but did they know about sea anchors in those days? Without something to keep the nose pointed into the wind, a ship as shown with a round bottom would easily capsize in a 40 day storm large enough to swallow all land. A ship like that might survive on a river, but not the open ocean. And with a globe spanning ocean, even every day waves would get enormous. Actually, I suspect that ventilation wouldn't prove to be a challenge. Quite the opposite. It would have been a challenge for eight people to keep it water tight for a year. But then, I suppose if God closed the door, I'm sure he could have kept it from sinking, too. And kept it ventilated at the same time. And magicked away the water collecting in the bilges, as well as the dung.

henry said: Scott F doesn't think that ventilation is a problem. Apparently, it's not a deficiency as you might think.

Actually, the Bible just states that the Ark was built. It doesn't give much details, because it wasn't intended to be a manual for building arks.

Possibly, since some animals hibernate, it's possible most if not all of the animals were hibernating,which means waste materials wouldn't be a huge problem.

henry said: Possibly, since some animals hibernate, it's possible most if not all of the animals were hibernating,...

henry said: Actually, the Bible just states that the Ark was built. It doesn't give much details, because it wasn't intended to be a manual for building arks.

Possibly, since some animals hibernate, it's possible most if not all of the animals were hibernating,which means waste materials wouldn't be a huge problem.

henry the idiot said:

How does this design solve the problems of ventilation? And, by the way, why not a sphere?

Scott F doesn't think that ventilation is a problem. Apparently, it's not a deficiency as you might think. Actually, the Bible just states that the Ark was built. It doesn't give much details, because it wasn't intended to be a manual for building arks.

Possibly, since some animals hibernate, it's possible most if not all of the animals were hibernating,which means waste materials wouldn't be a huge problem.

Since the Bible doesn't give technical details, perhaps the ark was like a TARDIS. We probably already have the plans somewhere other than in the Bible, but no ability to read them due to that whole tower of Babel incident. Bummer!

henry said: This is what the ark may have looked like. http://i362.photobucket.com/albums/oo68/popa14701/Saturday/Noahs_Ark.jpg

Poor henry; this stuff just sails right over his head.

The older diesel boats of the type on which I served had technology to partially deal with the build-up of carbon dioxide. If the boat was submerged for several days, you could tell when the oxygen levels were getting low because a match wouldn’t stay lit.

But far more dangerous was the buildup of carbon dioxide which was difficult to notice unless one was attuned to the signs. Drowsiness, pounding heart, and confusion were some of the signs. If nothing were done about it, people would just doze off and never wake up.

So we would spread lithium hydroxide around on sheets and hang canisters of this stuff around the boat to absorb the carbon dioxide. Most of the crew would limit their physical activity to reduce the rate of buildup. That would buy us a few more hours. But eventually you had to surface and start ventilating the boat either by putting up the snorkel and running the engines to draw the “bad” air out and have it replenished with fresh air, or by going up on the surface and having the engines draw in the fresh air through the conning tower hatch and whatever other hatches you could open.

Any explosive gasses, in particular hydrogen from the batteries and methane from the “sanitary” tanks, were also an issue. The sanitary tanks could be closed off and pressurized to blow them out into surrounding water. Hydrogen was a far more difficult problem; and low oxygen levels actually helped here.

These kinds of issues occur with any ship, including surface vessels. Heavier gasses accumulate below decks; and with no active ventilation system (e.g., fans and a well designed set of intake and exhaust ducts) explosions and suffocation are always a danger.

On all vessels, there are crewmembers whose job it is to constantly monitor these conditions and stay on top of them.

Modern nuclear submarines have systems that “scrub” the carbon dioxide from the air, and other systems for extracting oxygen from sea water. And there are systems for dealing with methane, hydrogen, and other gasses from weaponry and other sources

And by the way, hibernating animals breathe also. If they breathe carbon dioxide and methane buildups, they die in their sleep.

Mike Elzinga said: Poor henry; this stuff just sails right over his head. The older diesel boats of the type on which I served had technology to partially deal with the build-up of carbon dioxide. If the boat was submerged for several days, you could tell when the oxygen levels were getting low because a match wouldn’t stay lit. But far more dangerous was the buildup of carbon dioxide which was difficult to notice unless one was attuned to the signs. Drowsiness, pounding heart, and confusion were some of the signs. If nothing were done about it, people would just doze off and never wake up. So we would spread lithium hydroxide around on sheets and hang canisters of this stuff around the boat to absorb the carbon dioxide. Most of the crew would limit their physical activity to reduce the rate of buildup. That would buy us a few more hours. But eventually you had to surface and start ventilating the boat either by putting up the snorkel and running the engines to draw the “bad” air out and have it replenished with fresh air, or by going up on the surface and having the engines draw in the fresh air through the conning tower hatch and whatever other hatches you could open. Any explosive gasses, in particular hydrogen from the batteries and methane from the “sanitary” tanks, were also an issue. The sanitary tanks could be closed off and pressurized to blow them out into surrounding water. Hydrogen was a far more difficult problem; and low oxygen levels actually helped here. These kinds of issues occur with any ship, including surface vessels. Heavier gasses accumulate below decks; and with no active ventilation system (e.g., fans and a well designed set of intake and exhaust ducts) explosions and suffocation are always a danger. On all vessels, there are crewmembers whose job it is to constantly monitor these conditions and stay on top of them. Modern nuclear submarines have systems that “scrub” the carbon dioxide from the air, and other systems for extracting oxygen from sea water. And there are systems for dealing with methane, hydrogen, and other gasses from weaponry and other sources And by the way, hibernating animals breathe also. If they breathe carbon dioxide and methane buildups, they die in their sleep.

God simply delivered the animals in compact freeze-dried storage units, each conveniently pressed into a brick-like form for easy stacking.

Henry J said:

God simply delivered the animals in compact freeze-dried storage units, each conveniently pressed into a brick-like form for easy stacking.

They used carbonite?!

Henry J said:

God simply delivered the animals in compact freeze-dried storage units, each conveniently pressed into a brick-like form for easy stacking.

They used carbonite?!

mplavcan said: God simply delivered the animals in compact freeze-dried storage units, each conveniently pressed into a brick-like form for easy stacking. No feeding, no space problems, no waste problems.

stevaroni said: God is apparently like one of those James Bond ubervillans. It would be way too simple to simply, say, shoot Bond, ...

Mike Elzinga said:

henry said: This is what the ark may have looked like. http://i362.photobucket.com/albums/oo68/popa14701/Saturday/Noahs_Ark.jpg

How does this design solve the problems of ventilation?

Just had another thought: Won't the boat capsize when the elephants start making love?

If this ark is rockin', don't bother knockin'

I mean seriously (sort of), surely some of the animals will breed and give birth, making the mess on the floor even more disgusting. Noah is running a colossal puppy mill!

Great stuff, anything to wind up closed-minded evolutionist yobboes

DS said: Robin, I agree with your comments. The important thing is that Kris claims to believe in evolution and claims not to be a raving bat shit insane fundamentalist. You are also correct in that technically he is probably right, at least one shark of some kind might not have been immediately killed in the magic flood. However, what kind of a rational person argues for days about something he claims he doesn't believe ever happened? What's the point? He isn't defending evolution. He isn't engaging in any rational discussion. He just seems to want to prove that he can get people to argue with him. FIne, anyone who wants to argue with him is welcome. He hasn't been banned and he can post anything he wants on any thread. SInce I can't seem to find anything worth discussing with him, I don't intend to respond to his taunts. You can feel free to discuss the fate of bull sharks in the imaginary flood with him if you want. Just don't be surprised if, in the end, he turns out to be just another duplicitous creationist.

Kris said:

DS said: Robin, I agree with your comments. The important thing is that Kris claims to believe in evolution and claims not to be a raving bat shit insane fundamentalist. You are also correct in that technically he is probably right, at least one shark of some kind might not have been immediately killed in the magic flood. However, what kind of a rational person argues for days about something he claims he doesn't believe ever happened? What's the point? He isn't defending evolution. He isn't engaging in any rational discussion. He just seems to want to prove that he can get people to argue with him. FIne, anyone who wants to argue with him is welcome. He hasn't been banned and he can post anything he wants on any thread. SInce I can't seem to find anything worth discussing with him, I don't intend to respond to his taunts. You can feel free to discuss the fate of bull sharks in the imaginary flood with him if you want. Just don't be surprised if, in the end, he turns out to be just another duplicitous creationist.

You STILL don't get it. I am not arguing about "something he claims he doesn't believe ever happened", and I am not arguing that "at least one shark of some kind might not have been immediately killed in the magic flood". Take a REAL GOOD LOOK at what Robin said about "in and of itself". Then put some serious thought into that. My original comments were ONLY about Stanton's claim that 100% of sharks would die IF EXPOSED TO FRESH WATER. You, and some others, can't find anything worth discussing with me because you don't read what I actually said and you go off on a bunch of chaotic and self serving detours that have NOTHING to do with what I said.

Once again, Kris complains about being misunderstood, but makes to actual attempt to clarify his position. And I am not the only one who "misunderstood", so I seriously doubt this is my fault.

Now if someone actually cared what Kris thought, they might just ask him point blank:

1) Do you think that descent with modification produced the diversity of life we see today?

2) Do you think that there was a world wide flood?

3) What do you think that scientists should do to help more people to understand and accept evolution?

4) Do you think that ID is science?

Maybe you would get understandable answers, maybe you wouldn't. Either way, I'm sure he would blame you for any "misunderstanding" that did occur.

Here are some sample answers, to get an actual discussion going:

1) Not all by itself.

2) Not all at once.

3) Steal all children from their parents at infancy and return them at age 7.

4) Not until any supernatural component is removed.

On a related note, in a recent post on AiG, the Ken Ham drones are preparing their children to provoke classroom battles again.

This is the equivalent of an irresponsible and stupid junior officer sending absolutely green troops to their death while at the same time trying to make the “enemy” look like ruthless, slaughtering bastards.

But just look at those old book references these children are given. Just who is provoking a war here? We know what’s in those books; and it is all crap that was debunked back in the 1970s and 80s.

They just keep recycling it.

John Kwok said: Nor have I lost sight that your last sentence might be a most apt description of Kris and his modus operandi:

DS said: Just don't be surprised if, in the end, he turns out to be just another duplicitous creationist.

I have serious reservations about Kris's genuine support of biological evolution as sound mainstream science simply because he has refused to acknowledge that, for all practical purposes, Bill Dembski acts as though he is the "Josef Goebbels of the Intelligent Design movement". Should Kris ever acknowledge this, I might revise upward my opinion of him.

Well, at least he answered all of the questions and cleared up all of the confusion.

DS said: Well, at least he answered all of the questions and cleared up all of the confusion.

I’m ignoring your questions because they are irrelevant and stupid that's what I do.

Karen S. said: Won't the boat capsize when the elephants start making love? ... making the mess on the floor even more disgusting....

Complaining that "someone" doesn't get it, while at the same time refusing to explain what "it " is, is counter productive in the extreme. No I don't get it. I don't even care to get it. Why would "someone" completely ignore a few reasonable questions and then ask if "someone" was being sarcastic when "someone" said that "someone' had answered the questions?

"In and of itself", the fact that some sharks have some tolerance for saline variation is completely irrelevant to the thread topic and appropo of absolutely nothing. The entire subject is only of any interest at all in the context of the magic flood, you know, the actual topic of this thread.

If "someone" gave a rats ass, "someone" might wonder why "someone" who claims to support evolution so tenaciously defends the proposition that the magic flood, that never really happened, would not kill every shark immediately. "Someone" might wonder why "someone" who supposedly supports evolution would so steadfastly defend a known charlatan and sworn enemy of evolution. "Someone" might wonder why "someone" so adamantly refuses to offer any suggestions whatsoever as to how "someone" might convince "someone" that "someone" does not have know every detail of how abiogenesis occurred in order to accept the evidence that descent with modification produced the diversity of life on earth. "Someone" might wonder why "someone" did not just give clear answers to questions asking for no more than clarification of "someones" position, unless "someone" had something to hide. Assuming of course that "someone" gave a rats ass.

Thanks to Flint for actually answering the questions.

John Vanko said:

Mike Elzinga said:

henry said: This is what the ark may have looked like. http://i362.photobucket.com/albums/oo68/popa14701/Saturday/Noahs_Ark.jpg

How does this design solve the problems of ventilation?

henry, read Mike's expert discussion of ventilation on a submarine. It's evident he's been there and knows whereof and what of he speaks. Now look at your artist's rendition of the Ark. See the problem? The insurmountable problem of ventilation? There is none, on your big boat. All the animals and all the people would have died. Plain and simple. As anyone with real-world experience on ocean-going vessels knows, like Mike. So please, stop your armchair nonsense. Admit Mike's right, for once.

henry said: I suppose Mike is right about submarines, but the ark wasn't a submarine. http://www.icr.org/article/wave-power-ventilating-ark/

According to newly translated instructions inscribed in ancient Babylonian on a clay tablet telling the story of the ark, the vessel that saved one virtuous man, his family and the animals from god's watery wrath was not the pointy-prowed craft of popular imagination but rather a giant circular reed raft.

"Wall, wall! Reed wall, reed wall! Atram-Hasis, pay heed to my advice, that you may live forever! Destroy your house, build a boat; despise possessions And save life! Draw out the boat that you will built with a circular design; Let its length and breadth be the same."

"The tablet goes on to command the use of plaited palm fibre, waterproofed with bitumen, before the construction of cabins for the people and wild animals."

DS said: No I don't get it. I don't even care to get it.

That's abundantly clear.

"In and of itself", the fact that some sharks have some tolerance for saline variation is completely irrelevant to the thread topic and appropo of absolutely nothing.

Then maybe you should tell Stanton, and some others, that they shouldn't bring up things that, according to you, are off topic and completely irrelevant. I responded to Stanton in a way that was completely relevant to his claim. The subsequent attacks on me are way off topic, and not only are your attacking remarks off topic but all the things you're trying to introduce into your arguments with me are way off topic to my original comments too. Hypocrite.

If "someone" gave a rats ass

Well, you've already made it clear that you don't give a rat's ass about understanding plain English.

Flint said:

I’m ignoring your questions because they are irrelevant and stupid that's what I do.

FIFY

DS said: Robin, Once again, we seem to be in agreement. I don't have any problem with posting references that indicate that some sharks have high tolerance to changing salt conditions. That's fine, I just don't see the point. The thing you have to understand is that this is at least the third time this kind of thing has happened recently, on at least three different threads. FIrst, Kris claims that Dembski should be taken seriously because his ideas have never been tested. When it was pointed out to him that this was not the case, he claimed that he had been completely misunderstood, although he never explained exactly what point is was he was trying to make and no one seemed to get it. Then, on another thread, he argued that i"someone" might now want to believe in evolution if science could not explain everything from the big bang to abiogenesis to their satisfaction. Once again, when it was pointed out that this was not a valid argument, he claimed that he was completely misunderstood. I asked him to clarify his views, (perhaps not as politely as I should have) and his response was, well let's just say it did nothing to clarify his views, Now he yammers on and on about sharks that didn't die in the magic flood, all the while claiming that the flood story is ridiculous and that it never happened. I'm sure it's all just one more big misunderstanding. There is a pattern here. It is not just an isolated incident. Either he is a sincere evolution supporter who simply cannot express a coherent argument (a rare species), or he is a concern troll looking for attention. Even if he isn't really a creationist, so what? Unless he can make himself more clearly understood, I see no point in responding. You of course are free to do as you wish.

I suppose Mike is right about submarines, but the ark wasn’t a submarine.

Kris said: The only "pattern" here is the one you and some others show of being in an arrogant, self-righteous, closed-minded, ignorant rut.

STANTON IS COMPLETELY WRONG. There are you happy now? You win. You are too smart for us. Now everyone must admit that the magic flood, that never really happened, could not have possibly killed every single shark immediately. You should publish your ground breaking result in Science. I'm sure everyone will be really impressed.

Of course that was not your real point was it? It's all one big misunderstanding and you never really meant any of that did you? You really weren't making any point whatsoever now were you? You're not really a creationist are you? You're just trying to prove that you can be as annoying as one.

If you think that ignoring you is stirring up trouble, then be prepared for a whole lot of trouble.

DS said: STANTON IS COMPLETELY WRONG. There are you happy now? You win. You are too smart for us. Now everyone must admit that the magic flood, that never really happened, could not have possibly killed every single shark immediately. You should publish your ground breaking result in Science. I'm sure everyone will be really impressed. Of course that was not your real point was it? It's all one big misunderstanding and you never really meant any of that did you? You really weren't making any point whatsoever now were you? You're not really a creationist are you? You're just trying to prove that you can be as annoying as one. If you think that ignoring you is stirring up trouble, then be prepared for a whole lot of trouble.

Stanton said:

DS said: STANTON IS COMPLETELY WRONG. There are you happy now? You win. You are too smart for us. Now everyone must admit that the magic flood, that never really happened, could not have possibly killed every single shark immediately. You should publish your ground breaking result in Science. I'm sure everyone will be really impressed. Of course that was not your real point was it? It's all one big misunderstanding and you never really meant any of that did you? You really weren't making any point whatsoever now were you? You're not really a creationist are you? You're just trying to prove that you can be as annoying as one. If you think that ignoring you is stirring up trouble, then be prepared for a whole lot of trouble.

I would say, "Kris is right: all sharks could survive the Flood perfectly that Kris repeatedly states he doesn't believe in because bullsharks and Glyphis sharks can survive and thrive in complete immersion in freshwater," but, even I'm savvy enough to know that that won't stop him from continuing to troll, quibble and insult us.

Stanton said:

DS said: STANTON IS COMPLETELY WRONG. There are you happy now? You win. You are too smart for us. Now everyone must admit that the magic flood, that never really happened, could not have possibly killed every single shark immediately. You should publish your ground breaking result in Science. I'm sure everyone will be really impressed. Of course that was not your real point was it? It's all one big misunderstanding and you never really meant any of that did you? You really weren't making any point whatsoever now were you? You're not really a creationist are you? You're just trying to prove that you can be as annoying as one. If you think that ignoring you is stirring up trouble, then be prepared for a whole lot of trouble.

I would say, "Kris is right: all sharks could survive the Flood perfectly that Kris repeatedly states he doesn't believe in because bullsharks and Glyphis sharks can survive and thrive in complete immersion in freshwater," but, even I'm savvy enough to know that that won't stop him from continuing to troll, quibble and insult us.

DS said:

Stanton said:

DS said: STANTON IS COMPLETELY WRONG. There are you happy now? You win. You are too smart for us. Now everyone must admit that the magic flood, that never really happened, could not have possibly killed every single shark immediately. You should publish your ground breaking result in Science. I'm sure everyone will be really impressed. Of course that was not your real point was it? It's all one big misunderstanding and you never really meant any of that did you? You really weren't making any point whatsoever now were you? You're not really a creationist are you? You're just trying to prove that you can be as annoying as one. If you think that ignoring you is stirring up trouble, then be prepared for a whole lot of trouble.

I would say, "Kris is right: all sharks could survive the Flood perfectly that Kris repeatedly states he doesn't believe in because bullsharks and Glyphis sharks can survive and thrive in complete immersion in freshwater," but, even I'm savvy enough to know that that won't stop him from continuing to troll, quibble and insult us.

I'm sure you are right about that. But at least it shows that you are willing to explain your views and admit when you are wrong. Perhaps you can serve as a roll model for "someone" less fortunate in those departments. Thank goodness Kris is on our side. Can you imagine the confusion that would result if he were really a creationist? (Yea that was sarcasm again).

henry said: I suppose Mike is right about submarines, but the ark wasn't a submarine. http://www.icr.org/article/wave-power-ventilating-ark/

Be-ist thou inspired by 21st century experiments into renewable energy, and make-est thou a moon-pool in thine boat. And conect-ith thine moonpool to various parts of the ship via large ventilation ducts, being-ist careful to design thine venilation system so as to preclude it being-ist a source of extreme vulnerability, seeing as is basicaly a number of below-waterline channels for water to get into the ship.

Okay. Sure, Kris. Whatever. Are you done now?

Oh, and henry, before you write back and tell me that plenty of vessels, particularly those involved with ocean-service or research, actually have moonpools (after all, the word exists, so the thing it describes must be common) please go read the wikipedia article about moon pools and their venting issues.

All the extant examples I found are either open (sea level) systems or pressure is carefully controlled to regulate water level.

Nowhere did I find a closed system used for ventilation pumping (though you are certainly welcome to look, if you were to find one I would find it fascinating)

henry said:

John Vanko said:

Mike Elzinga said:

henry said: This is what the ark may have looked like. http://i362.photobucket.com/albums/oo68/popa14701/Saturday/Noahs_Ark.jpg

How does this design solve the problems of ventilation?

henry, read Mike's expert discussion of ventilation on a submarine. It's evident he's been there and knows whereof and what of he speaks. Now look at your artist's rendition of the Ark. See the problem? The insurmountable problem of ventilation? There is none, on your big boat. All the animals and all the people would have died. Plain and simple. As anyone with real-world experience on ocean-going vessels knows, like Mike. So please, stop your armchair nonsense. Admit Mike's right, for once.

I suppose Mike is right about submarines, but the ark wasn't a submarine. http://www.icr.org/article/wave-power-ventilating-ark/

...modern technological developments continue to demonstrate that—despite critics’ cries that “it couldn’t have been done”—the biblical account of the Flood and Noah’s journey is, indeed, realistic and within the realm of scientific possibility.

— ICR

...modern technological developments continue to demonstrate that—despite critics’ cries that “it couldn’t have been done”—the biblical account of the Flood and Noah’s journey is, indeed, realistic and within the realm of scientific possibility.

— ICR

stevaroni said:

...modern technological developments continue to demonstrate that—despite critics’ cries that “it couldn’t have been done”—the biblical account of the Flood and Noah’s journey is, indeed, realistic and within the realm of scientific possibility.

— ICR

Then just do it and shut us all up.

Check out this interesting article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20101210/sc_livescience/lostcivilizationmayhaveexistedbeneaththepersiangulf

I wonder if the ark believers will use the alleged "evidence for one of the oldest boats in the world" in their arguments in favor of an ark.

Mike Elzinga said:

henry said:

John Vanko said:

Mike Elzinga said:

henry said: This is what the ark may have looked like. http://i362.photobucket.com/albums/oo68/popa14701/Saturday/Noahs_Ark.jpg

How does this design solve the problems of ventilation?

henry, read Mike's expert discussion of ventilation on a submarine. It's evident he's been there and knows whereof and what of he speaks. Now look at your artist's rendition of the Ark. See the problem? The insurmountable problem of ventilation? There is none, on your big boat. All the animals and all the people would have died. Plain and simple. As anyone with real-world experience on ocean-going vessels knows, like Mike. So please, stop your armchair nonsense. Admit Mike's right, for once.

I suppose Mike is right about submarines, but the ark wasn't a submarine. http://www.icr.org/article/wave-power-ventilating-ark/

Snicker. These guys have no clue.

stevaroni said:

henry said: I suppose Mike is right about submarines, but the ark wasn't a submarine. http://www.icr.org/article/wave-power-ventilating-ark/

Well, that link was certainly... interesting. However, somehow I missed the part in Genesis where God commanded Noah...

Be-ist thou inspired by 21st century experiments into renewable energy, and make-est thou a moon-pool in thine boat. And conect-ith thine moonpool to various parts of the ship via large ventilation ducts, being-ist careful to design thine venilation system so as to preclude it being-ist a source of extreme vulnerability, seeing as is basicaly a number of below-waterline channels for water to get into the ship.

But that being said, it's a nice try on ICR's part, but seeing as, near as I can tell with a quick google search, this apparently sensible approach to ventilation probably wasn't known to Noah. Actually, I don't see where it has ever actually been implemented in the entire history of boat-building, a history that, as we have discussed before, has been rife with the need for good ventilation. Maybe Mike Elzinga can chime in, maybe he's seen it before, but I haven't, so I'm left assume there must be a reason, and there's there's a vulnerability that might not be land-lubber like me. Let's see if we can find some... Well, first, a big moon-pool leading off to ventilation ducts would be an immense vulnerability. Not only does it create a plethora of paths for water to enter the ship, but in heavy seas I'd bet that it could dramatically affect ship stability. Imagine all that water sloshing around in what was essentially a closed space. Better yet, imagine a heavy roll or in a deep wave trough that exposes the edge of the pool and lets a giant air (read buoyancy) bubble burp out at an inopportune time. You know, like in the middle of a storm that could produce those kind of waves in the first place. Second, the big moonpool is pneumatically connected to the ventilated spaces of the ship. That means the pressure changes in the pool are being connected too. Let's say, on a bad day, the water in the pool is heaving up and down 5 feet. That seems reasonable for a tempest that could wreck every other boat on the water. A five foot head of water correlates to about 2.2psi of air pressure. Not a big number... Until you start applying it to large structures. That's 300 pounds of pressure on every square foot of internal structure. Or 15 tons of pressure on the ceiling of a 10 foot square room below-decks. And it's oscillating back and forth 20 times a minute. Not only is that going to dramatically fatigue the structure, but nobody is going to have eardrums by the time the trip is over. But mostly, the biggest flaw I see with the moonpool ventilation idea is that it just won't work. The pool itself is a low, enclosed space. It's going to have the exact same problem as any other closed space in the rest of the hull - no gas exchange. Although I'm willing to concede that a good system, designed by a competent HVAC engineer, might have been some help during the tempest, the tempest only raged for 40 days. Then Noah drifted on calm seas for months. Once the waves stopped, even the best wave-powered vent system totally stops working, and all the spaces - including the now-still moonpool - start to fill with gas. It wasn't until the 7th month that God - and I quote - "remembered" Noah and his menagerie and turned the wind back on to dry the land. That makes 110 days where Noah had neither wind nor wave action to ventilate his big boat. (personally, I think he did it with giant hamster-wheels driving fans. After all, he had to keep his zoo exercised, and that kills two birds with one stone. No wait... we don't want to kill any birds, we don't have any to spare.)

If you never find a satisfactory solution in your lifetime, you can ask the Creator when you see Him face to face.

Absolutely. But then again, that shouldn't stop you from looking for satisfactory solutions in this lifetime now should it? Especially if the "creator" doesn't turn out to be any more forthcoming in the afterlife than she was in this life.

henry said: It's hard to imagine that the Ark drifted on calm seas since there weren't any land to break the waves. But if the seas were calm, the moonpool would still work.

The vents didn’t do the whole job in rough weather

Actually, henry, now you've got me curious with this whole wave-powered ventilation thing.

Not that I think AIG has a point. noting that modern advances have made people explore wave-generated power and therefore Noah could have used it is about like pointing out that people today are exploring windmills, and therefore Noah could have rigged up windmill-driven fans.

Technically true, I suppose, but it glosses over the fact that it would have represented giant technological leap from a bronze-age goatherd who was a total novice at marine engineering. In fact, pretty much everybody then was a total novice at marine engineering. Still, it was a leap that nobody else - even those who were marine engineers - seemed to make for 4000 years.

No, what I find fascinating is that, for some reason, nobody seems to have developed wave-driven ventilation.

You would think that someone would have developed it at some point. It seems an obvious idea.

I can see why a naval architect might reject a big moonpool out of hand for a myriad of structural reasons, but it seems that a more modest approach might be possible, say, a structurally competent metal pipe that went from the keel to air-handling machinery above-decks. That way the pipe would handle the task of being watertight, and couldn't spill inside the vessel.

Still, though I can find references to wave power as far back as the 1780's I can't find any record of anything like this used on a real ship.

Which, to me is interesting, since ventilation was a continuing problem.

The closest parallel I can find, biomass-wise, to Noah's Ark were the ships that made the middle passage for the slave trade of the 1800's. There were a couple of large wooden ships, like the 180 foot, 1100 ton Nightingale, that carried up to 900 slaves, probably giving a comparable bio-density to the Ark.

On these ships, despite "modern" medicine and food-storage technology, the task of keeping their valuable cargo alive was often taxing for a 30 person crew. The crowded, unsanitary conditions aboard resulted in a typical 15-20% mortality rate as smallpox, typhus and scurvy ransacked the "cargo".

The primary technique used to deal with this seems to have been to rely on speed to get through the passage quickly. Many later slave ships were converted from fast clippers.

Still, a ship that found bad winds and took longer than the typical 6 weeks, or a ship that embarked one slave with the wrong kind of dysentery, could pull into the Charleston dock with a 50% "spoilage" rate.

{shudder}

While the conditions on the slave ships probably merit the creation of a special level of hell just for their owners and crew, they do serve to illustrate the problem the Noah's would face.

Now, take that middle-passage slave ship; scale it up by a factor of 10 or so; staff it with 8 crew; and then keep it at sea for seven months and see what you get.

I'm traveling at the moment, so I don't have time to reply.

But the "wave powered ventilation" notion is complete crap; and anybody who has been out on the open ocean on any kind of surface ship knows why.

And typical waves are not just gentle 5 footers; certainly not in any kind of storm, and certainly not in a storm that is the result of the entire Earth being flooded.

In particular, such an attempt a ventillation would blow a wooden ship apart.

I'll have more to say on this when I get back tomorrow evening.

If you can't beat them piss them off by making their victory yours.

For our Pastafarian friends this Ark they are building should really be a holy shrine for it seems to me that Noah was the First Pirate. Lets look at the truth behind the tale: Noah built the biggest pirate ship of all times, he pillaged the whole earth of its most precious cargo (it's life) to preserve it, he and his crew escaped in a sea manifest by his almighty FSM filling the earth with his most perfect sauce, and in the end for all those left behind who might seek to do harm to Noah, were destroyed by his Divine Noodliness in a watery grave. A most divine and perfect legend of piracy indeed. For his great deed, Noah must be considered the first King of the Pirates and among the most holy to the Pastafarians. Unfortunately in time, the Christians ,descendents of his own crew they may be, sought to corrupt this most divine legend and fulfill their evil plot to steel illegally and in cowardice that which Noah had stolen legally thru the miracle intervention of his divine Noodliness, And so they build their shrine to their false gods, knowing not the truth but only the lie handed down to them by their mutinous ancestors. And in doing so, they are really creating a most holy site for the true believers, the "Shrine of the Pirate King". In homage I think it is the responsibility of every true believer to make offerings of rum, pirate flags, and parchment bestowing the truth of Noah the Pirate King and the treachery of those who would steal the true meaning of the ark. We should encourage attendees to the shrine to dress in their most ceremonial pirate attire and then preform a gig on this most holy a shrine to let his most Noodly Lord know that the faithful have not forgotten the truth and are not afraid to celebrate his glory.

A most divine and perfect legend of piracy indeed. For his great deed, Noah must be considered the first King of the Pirates and among the most holy to the Pastafarians.

stevaroni said: I've got to believe that if it were a viable idea, then someone in the entire history of marine engineering would have tried it.

Any one with genuine engineering knowledge, or genuine experience with the seas, knows that Noah's big boat is impossible. Period.

Moreover, any one with genuine knowledge of geology (not the fake geologists of AiG, ICR, or CMI, degrees notwithstanding) knows that there is absolutely no evidence of Noah's big flood in the geological record of the Earth. Just the opposite. That record speaks with a totality of deposition, none of which could come from a global flood.

So why the persistence of this myth? Are myths so powerful? Evidently they are. They were taught to us by our Mothers, and everyone knows that Mothers never lie to their babies.

The Cult of Ham is banking on it.

henry said: If you never find a satisfactory solution in your lifetime, you can ask the Creator when you see Him face to face.

henry said:

Mike Elzinga said:

henry said:

John Vanko said:

Mike Elzinga said:

henry said: This is what the ark may have looked like. http://i362.photobucket.com/albums/oo68/popa14701/Saturday/Noahs_Ark.jpg

How does this design solve the problems of ventilation?

henry, read Mike's expert discussion of ventilation on a submarine. It's evident he's been there and knows whereof and what of he speaks. Now look at your artist's rendition of the Ark. See the problem? The insurmountable problem of ventilation? There is none, on your big boat. All the animals and all the people would have died. Plain and simple. As anyone with real-world experience on ocean-going vessels knows, like Mike. So please, stop your armchair nonsense. Admit Mike's right, for once.

I suppose Mike is right about submarines, but the ark wasn't a submarine. http://www.icr.org/article/wave-power-ventilating-ark/

Snicker. These guys have no clue.

If you never find a satisfactory solution in your lifetime, you can ask the Creator when you see Him face to face.

eric said:

henry said: If you never find a satisfactory solution in your lifetime, you can ask the Creator when you see Him face to face.

"Ask the creator" is why it is not science, never will be, and doesn't belong in biology classes no matter how much you believe it to be true. Science asks nature. And at this point, nature says your flood never happened.

Mike Elzinga said: Submariners are trained far more thoroughly in dealing with these kinds of issues than are surface sailors. On the older diesel boats, snorkeling in heavy seas was always battle with maintaining relatively constant air pressure inside the boat. To prevent water from coming into the snorkel, electrical sensors below the main induction valve triggered the hydraulics that closed that valve when water surged to the top of the snorkel. During the time that the main induction is closed, the engines draw air from inside the boat. When the water recedes and the main induction opens, the air pressure is restored. Thus, there are continual surges in air pressure as the main induction opens and closes.

Stanton said:

eric said:

henry said: If you never find a satisfactory solution in your lifetime, you can ask the Creator when you see Him face to face.

"Ask the creator" is why it is not science, never will be, and doesn't belong in biology classes no matter how much you believe it to be true. Science asks nature. And at this point, nature says your flood never happened.

henry's response of "why don't you just die and go ask God, yourself" also demonstrates why Creationists, as a whole, make for totally useless, totally incompetent teachers and researchers. Can you imagine the potential legal fallout if a teacher were to tell a curious student to "wait until you meet the Creator face to face" to ask questions?

For someone who claims to not be a troll, Kris, you sure do a lot of concern-trolling.

If, in your rant, you're implying that I am obligated to treat henry, who is one of the resident Creationist trolls, and who repeatedly says numerous, profoundly stupid, profoundly bigoted, baseless claims, with respect, you, yourself, are an idiot, too.

henry has done absolutely nothing to merit even the most insignificant amount of respect here: he is a Creationist who believes that his literal interpretation of the Bible, and not science, should be taught in science classrooms, and he's even outed himself to be a racist bigot who frets about how President Obama, colored people and foreigners are ruining America for white conservatives.

And then there is the fact that whenever a Creationist or other Christian fundamentalist says "why don't you go meet God/the Creator face to face," they're really saying "Die and go to Hell, already."

In other words, Kris, if you really do find us so evil and so stupid and so corrupt, and so anti-Science, why don't you stop posting here altogether? That you persist in making deliberately provocative posts whining about how horrible we are strongly suggests that you're just trolling.

And since Kris has outed himself as being just an argumentative concern troll who is angry that we do not reward his deliberate abrasiveness with worship and hugs, would it be possible to kill this thread?

(cue Kris throwing a temper tantrum about censorship in 3, 2...)

Kris said: When I first came here I was convinced that evolutionary theory is solid but now I see more holes in it thanks to some of the things you so-called scientists have said. I still believe that evolution is real but now I'm a lot more aware of the mistakes, inconsistencies, fraud, assumptions, and just plain bullshit in evolutionary theory and science in general.

SWT said:

Kris said: When I first came here I was convinced that evolutionary theory is solid but now I see more holes in it thanks to some of the things you so-called scientists have said. I still believe that evolution is real but now I'm a lot more aware of the mistakes, inconsistencies, fraud, assumptions, and just plain bullshit in evolutionary theory and science in general.

OK, here's a golden opportunity for you: name some specific mistakes, inconsistencies, fraud, or BS in evolutionary theory. I've omitted "assumptions" because every scientific theory has some set of core assumption, but feel free to let us know what unwarranted or unstated assumptions you see. Enlighten us.

SWT said:

Kris said: When I first came here I was convinced that evolutionary theory is solid but now I see more holes in it thanks to some of the things you so-called scientists have said. I still believe that evolution is real but now I'm a lot more aware of the mistakes, inconsistencies, fraud, assumptions, and just plain bullshit in evolutionary theory and science in general.

OK, here's a golden opportunity for you: name some specific mistakes, inconsistencies, fraud, or BS in evolutionary theory. I've omitted "assumptions" because every scientific theory has some set of core assumption, but feel free to let us know what unwarranted or unstated assumptions you see. Enlighten us.

Kris the concern troll wrote:

"You’re an ass."

And this after complaining about personal attacks for days! What a hypocrite.

Oh and now he gets around to admitting that he has problems with evolution. I'm shocked! Of course it's all our fault. It seems much more likely that Kris is really a creationist, that he has been one all along. If not, he really needs to think about what side of arguments he takes a little more carefully. Does this mean he's really a female as well? Who can say? Nobody actually seems to care who he is or what he thinks.

Now we can test this hypothesis if Kris starts spouting still more creationist arguments, such as Piltdown Man, etc. Maybe he doesn't realize that we're already wise to all these tricks. Maybe that's why he didn't realize that using them would put us wise to him. Of course it's still not too late for Kris. He still has the opportunity to start actually defending evolution, you know the way he said he would but never quite got around to. If he does, I'm sure "someone" will care.

Just to be clear, it doesn't matter if Darwin assassinated the pope and killed every first born christian in order to destroy christianity. Darwin was right. Evolution is real. Trying to claim otherwise is foolish.

As a latecomer to this thread, apologies if this contains duplication.

I was stuck by their design for an ark. With its prow and massive skeg it seems more like a boat than a raft. What use is directional stability and streamlining without a means of propulsion I wondered? If God commanded the ark to be almost as wide as it were long, would it not have been better from both a structural and seaworthiness point of view. Maybe Mike can help with real sea experience, but I tried googling and almost the first thing I found was www.worldwideflood.com I suspect it is Henry's source for his ventilation methods, and from the illustrations certainly shares common ancestry with AIG's proposals. It does contain some serious numerical analysis, which I am sure will provide much amusement under closer examination when I have time. I was particularly intrigued by the consideration of Balsa as a potential construction material;
presumably Noah had some shipped back from Central America with his pair of Sloths

I have a particular interest in the construction and operation of ships in the age of sail. Anybody who has ever been on a real large wooden ship (or even tried to maintain a small one) can never believe a few amateurs could build a boat many times larger than the best efforts of 19th century master craftsmen could produce, even if they did live for 800 years. The survivors like HMS Victory in Portsmouth and USS Constitution in Boston represent the practical limit for wooden ships, even with the benefit of iron fastenings. They and modern seagoing replicas serve as an excellent illustration of the complexity of the structure of such vessels. The Götheborg East Indiaman "replica" www.soic.se is very much a 21st century ship wrapped in an early 18th century structure, but the french replica of Hermione, the ship which brought La Fayette to America in 1780 is, except for the use of modern fastenings,
indistinguishable from the real thing. The web site at www.hermione.com, (and the french language version has far more pictures) illustrates the effort involved. It has taken teams of skilled men and women twelve years to build so far, with the immense benefit of modern power tools. If the French are somehow allowed to bring a vessel that modern maritime regulations consider a floating coffin into Boston in 2012, don't miss it. And take Ken Ham with you to see it!

Bad Pandas. Bad Pandas!

If you're not careful you'll drive Kris away from science and into the comforting arms of that old-time religion. What with your no-quarter-asked-no-quarter-given attitudes you won't even consider the other side of "the controversy."

What's wrong with you? [end sarcasm]

He claims to be a scientist. (I hope he's not one of those fake scientists at AiG. He certainly seems to want to appease the Creationists. Maybe he's just a peacemaker.)

I for one want to know. So Kris, if this will help, I apologize for my poor, lame attempts at humor. I'm sorry if I've insulted you. This sandbox is a tough place, not for the faint of heart. Now please speak plainly and tell us your real position. Who do you work for? ("You gotta serve somebody" - Bob Dylan )

Dave Lovell said: Maybe Mike can help with real sea experience, but I tried googling and almost the first thing I found was www.worldwideflood.com I suspect it is Henry's source for his ventilation methods, and from the illustrations certainly shares common ancestry with AIG's proposals.

John Vanko said: This sandbox is a tough place, not for the faint of heart.

If anyone thinks that the behavior of its proponents is a valid criteria for judging a scientific theory, then by all means go right ahead. All you have to do is look at the track record of creationists compared to real scientists and the difference will become obvious. Creationists lie, cheat and steal. They break the law and crow about not having to pay for it. They even lie under oath when they are standing up for god and you know she doesn't like that. They get people fired and branded and make death threats, all in the name of their loving god.

Now if Kris claims to have been pushed into creationism, so be it. If he wasn't convinced by the evidence in the first place, he was just fooling himself anyway. If he thinks that anyone cares, he is mistaken. Personally, I think that for him, it was a very short walk off a very long pier.

Kris said: When I first came here I was convinced that evolutionary theory is solid but now I see more holes in it thanks to some of the things you so-called scientists have said. I still believe that evolution is real but now I'm a lot more aware of the mistakes, inconsistencies, fraud, assumptions, and just plain bullshit in evolutionary theory and science in general.

Kris said: If I weren't already so against religion, and so scientifically inclined, I would be tempted to become religious JUST because of the way you people are. If anything, you arrogant, dishonest assholes drive people AWAY from science. You've got a LOT to learn.

Mike Elzinga said: The keel design is not low enough or strong enough to hold the necessary amount of ballast to keep the boat from easily rolling over in the path of a typical ocean wave.

stevaroni said: I used to sail on a moderate-sized boat that still had to have three tons of lead in the keel for stability! And that's sport sailing, where we could just go in when the waves go to 6 feet.

phantomreader42 said:

"Not one example of which you’ll be able to NAME, of course."

Not one? How about more than one?

"In September 2001, the Journal of Reproductive Medicine weighed in on the healing power of God. A Columbia University research group reported that patients at a fertility clinic in Seoul were twice as likely to get pregnant when Christians prayed for them. Within a month, the study was in the New York Times science section and on Good Morning America, where the medical editor for ABC News called it "very well done" and opined that "getting pregnant involves a lot of biological, psychological, maybe even spiritual factors that we don't yet understand."
Related in Slate
In December, Amanda Schaffer discussed Paul Ginsparg's digital archive in a piece about science publication.

The prayer study has since fallen from grace. Scientists around the world wrote angry letters to the journal attacking the methodology, and the research-protections office of the Department of Health and Human Services looked into whether the subjects had properly given consent. Last year, the study's senior author removed his name from the paper, saying that he hadn't directly participated in the research. The real lead author will not discuss the work, and the third author—a parapsychologist, lawyer, and convicted con man—is now serving time in a federal prison (for an unrelated charge of fraud).

Why did this quackery get so far before being exposed? The prayer study seemed legitimate because it appeared in the pages of a "peer-reviewed" medical journal. That means the paper was vetted by an independent panel of experts in the field.

Peer review is the gold standard of modern science. For medical researchers and other scientists, it's the gateway to funding, publication, and career advancement. When they apply for government grants from the National Institutes of Health or the National Science Foundation, their proposals are reviewed by a panel of their colleagues. When they submit their completed work for publication, journals and university presses ask for the opinions of others in the field. And when they apply for jobs or tenure, scientists are judged largely on the basis of their peer-reviewed publications."

And:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081210091031.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090505111649.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101115210944.htm

http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/001616

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2004/nov/18/dishonesty-in-science/

http://www.economist.com/node/13776974

http://www.themonkeycage.org/2008/06/post_90.html

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005738

http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/92prom.html

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf061/sf061a02.htm

http://blog.ketyov.com/2010/10/fraud-in-science-whats-in-name.html

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2006/01/2578.ars

http://www.prisonplanet.com/flu-vaccines-pharma-fraud-quack-science-the-cdc-and-who-all-exposed-by-richard-gale-and-gary-null.html

http://www.bukisa.com/articles/55368_fraud-in-science-a-look-at-the-evidence-relating-to-ssri-paroxetine

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/15/2006/main2272769.shtml

http://www.experiment-resources.com/science-fraud.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/science/20rese.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct

http://nanopolitan.blogspot.com/2008/04/fraud-in-science-indian-edition.html

http://www.springerlink.com/content/83u0t2842071114l/

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=58&ved=0CEQQFjAHODI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcreation.com%2Fimages%2Fpdfs%2Ftj%2Fj18_3%2Fj18_3_104-109.pdf&rct=j&q=fraud%20in%20science&ei=r8cGTfHTEI3_ngfh28XlCQ&usg=AFQjCNGMyFylERGtcIBqLtyEpwMKu8fOaA&cad=rja

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=60&ved=0CFQQFjAJODI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencemag.org%2Fcontent%2F238%2F4828%2F813.2.full.pdf&rct=j&q=fraud%20in%20science&ei=r8cGTfHTEI3_ngfh28XlCQ&usg=AFQjCNFcystOQ8cEJphQ54N7B5LOVzKO1Q&cad=rja

http://jos.sagepub.com/content/18/3/364.abstract

http://www.alternet.org/story/18696

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/03/climate-science-fraud-at-albany-university/

http://users.bart.nl/users/lightnet/science/scientificfraud.htm

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=73&ved=0CCIQFjACOEY&url=http%3A%2F%2Fethics.iit.edu%2Fperspective%2Fv1n3-4%2520perspective.pdf&rct=j&q=fraud%20in%20science&ei=asoGTf62MYOgnwfhrZSNCQ&usg=AFQjCNFhNxIGPA7PUDiLNJjcpEzdwU6nRA&cad=rja

http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/science-becoming-religion/2009/nov/23/climategate-emails-expose-global-warming-fraud/

http://www.ntskeptics.org/1993/1993february/february1993.htm

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1050374

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/sign/2007/00000004/00000001/art00006

http://www.annals.org/content/104/2/254.abstract

To name a few.

Google: 40,300,000 hits for "fraud in science".

These links pertain mainly to fraud/potential fraud. How many links do you suppose there are for mistakes, inconsistencies, assumptions, etc., and how much taxpayer money has been wasted on fraud, inconsistencies, assumptions, mistakes, and bullshit in 'mainstream' science?

Oh, and it doesn't matter (except to maniacal creationist haters with blinders on) how fraudulent, mistaken, inconsistent, assumptive, or full of bullshit creationism or creation science is when it comes to how fraudulent, mistaken, inconsistent, assumptive, or full of bullshit non-creation science is. Just because one side is a mess doesn't mean it's ok for the other side to be a mess.

If you want to bitch about someone elses house, and you want to not look like (and be) a hypocrite, make sure your house is in good order first, and that it stays that way.

And speaking of bullshit, how about that NASA Mono Lake bacteria farce? How much do you suppose that bullshit cost taxpayers? If people can't trust NASA, who can they trust? Why don't you go out on the street and ask some people? Then ask them how much they trust 'science' in general. Go ahead, do it. Step outside of your little box of creationist hating and see what the 'average' person thinks.

Kris said: Oh, and it doesn't matter (except to maniacal creationist haters with blinders on) how fraudulent, mistaken, inconsistent, assumptive, or full of bullshit creationism or creation science is when it comes to how fraudulent, mistaken, inconsistent, assumptive, or full of bullshit non-creation science is. Just because one side is a mess doesn't mean it's ok for the other side to be a mess.

a) How are all these research catastrophes all directly the fault of the commentors and staff of Panda's Thumb, and their fault alone?

b) Did it ever occur to you to direct your seething anger and hatred towards the specific scientists, themselves? How exactly would trolling here in order to usurp control over this blog and or drive away all of the commentors you hate and despise make scientists perform more productively and intelligently?

c) Why do you persist in thinking that being a deliberately vague, deliberately abrasive, unpleasantly argumentative and vociferous quibbler will get your points across to us? You don't appear to realize that we are never going to take your points seriously if you continue constantly attacking us over tone, over your own sensitive self-righteousness, or how you're going to hold your breath until you die if scientists don't start doing research on topics that you, yourself, personally appreciate.

d) Explain to us again why we are forbidden from pointing out how Creationists prize and flaunt stupidity, ignorance, self-delusion and bigotry as sacred virtues. Why is calling an idiot "an idiot," or calling a bigot "a bigot" to be cruel and bigoted?

Well, at least Kris is finally defending evolution. Perhaps he would like to post a list of frauds that has been perpetrated by creationists. Of course, that would include everything they have ever done.

DS said: Well, at least Kris is finally defending evolution. Perhaps he would like to post a list of frauds that has been perpetrated by creationists. Of course, that would include everything they have ever done.

I'd think that peer-review is much closer to a first hurdle than it is to anything like a gold standard.

Kris said: Why did this quackery get so far before being exposed? The prayer study seemed legitimate because it appeared in the pages of a "peer-reviewed" medical journal. That means the paper was vetted by an independent panel of experts in the field. Peer review is the gold standard of modern science. For medical researchers and other scientists, it's the gateway to funding, publication, and career advancement.

Stanton said: a) How are all these research catastrophes all directly the fault of the commentors and staff of Panda's Thumb, and their fault alone? b) Did it ever occur to you to direct your seething anger and hatred towards the specific scientists, themselves? How exactly would trolling here in order to usurp control over this blog and or drive away all of the commentors you hate and despise make scientists perform more productively and intelligently? c) Why do you persist in thinking that being a deliberately vague, deliberately abrasive, unpleasantly argumentative and vociferous quibbler will get your points across to us? You don't appear to realize that we are never going to take your points seriously if you continue constantly attacking us over tone, over your own sensitive self-righteousness, or how you're going to hold your breath until you die if scientists don't start doing research on topics that you, yourself, personally appreciate. d) Explain to us again why we are forbidden from pointing out how Creationists prize and flaunt stupidity, ignorance, self-delusion and bigotry as sacred virtues. Why is calling an idiot "an idiot," or calling a bigot "a bigot" to be cruel and bigoted?

stevaroni said:

Kris said: Why did this quackery get so far before being exposed? The prayer study seemed legitimate because it appeared in the pages of a "peer-reviewed" medical journal. That means the paper was vetted by an independent panel of experts in the field. Peer review is the gold standard of modern science. For medical researchers and other scientists, it's the gateway to funding, publication, and career advancement.

Um... You do realize that the vast majority of the examples people cite for "science fraud" are known to be frauds precisely because of peer review, right? Of course it happens that scientists occasionally publish shaky research for questionable reasons, and they don't get caught by the limited review of the science journals. But the essence of science is repeatable data. Once the larger community gets the paper and tries to reproduce the results, bad methodology and outright fraud tend to reveal themselves quickly. That's the nice thing about the scientific mindset, "Trust nothing till you show me the data" largely tends to be a self-correcting strategy.

Kris said:

Stanton said: a) How are all these research catastrophes all directly the fault of the commentors and staff of Panda's Thumb, and their fault alone? b) Did it ever occur to you to direct your seething anger and hatred towards the specific scientists, themselves? How exactly would trolling here in order to usurp control over this blog and or drive away all of the commentors you hate and despise make scientists perform more productively and intelligently? c) Why do you persist in thinking that being a deliberately vague, deliberately abrasive, unpleasantly argumentative and vociferous quibbler will get your points across to us? You don't appear to realize that we are never going to take your points seriously if you continue constantly attacking us over tone, over your own sensitive self-righteousness, or how you're going to hold your breath until you die if scientists don't start doing research on topics that you, yourself, personally appreciate. d) Explain to us again why we are forbidden from pointing out how Creationists prize and flaunt stupidity, ignorance, self-delusion and bigotry as sacred virtues. Why is calling an idiot "an idiot," or calling a bigot "a bigot" to be cruel and bigoted?

Well, in that case, you're a stupid, ignorant, self-delusional, cruel, deliberately abrasive, control usurping, trollish, seethingly angry, unpleasantly argumentative, unproductive, unintelligent, hateful, bigoted idiot, seriously. Works both ways ya know, and it also works both ways with mainstream science versus creationism when it comes to fraud, mistakes, assumptions, inconsistencies, etc. That's the thing you don't get. Hmm, I wonder why religion is so popular, even though mainstream science is so perfect and never makes mistakes, has no fraud, never assumes anything, has no inconsistencies, and no bullshit of any kind. Maybe you guys should do a study on it? LMAO You barfed: "....directly the fault of the commentors and staff of Panda's Thumb, and their fault alone.." I never said that. There you go exaggerating again. That seems to be your specialty, and the specialty of some others here. Whatever you do, don't stop or you'll ruin your reputation as a blowhard.

Kris said:

stevaroni said:

Kris said: Why did this quackery get so far before being exposed? The prayer study seemed legitimate because it appeared in the pages of a "peer-reviewed" medical journal. That means the paper was vetted by an independent panel of experts in the field. Peer review is the gold standard of modern science. For medical researchers and other scientists, it's the gateway to funding, publication, and career advancement.

Um... You do realize that the vast majority of the examples people cite for "science fraud" are known to be frauds precisely because of peer review, right? Of course it happens that scientists occasionally publish shaky research for questionable reasons, and they don't get caught by the limited review of the science journals. But the essence of science is repeatable data. Once the larger community gets the paper and tries to reproduce the results, bad methodology and outright fraud tend to reveal themselves quickly. That's the nice thing about the scientific mindset, "Trust nothing till you show me the data" largely tends to be a self-correcting strategy.

In your imagined perfect world.

mrg said:

Kris said: Oh, and it doesn't matter (except to maniacal creationist haters with blinders on) how fraudulent, mistaken, inconsistent, assumptive, or full of bullshit creationism or creation science is when it comes to how fraudulent, mistaken, inconsistent, assumptive, or full of bullshit non-creation science is. Just because one side is a mess doesn't mean it's ok for the other side to be a mess.

Sorry sport. Simply because banks are imperfect organizations -- sometimes badly managed, sometimes even looted by crooks -- doesn't mean that I'm going to believe Nigerian email scammers offering to put $16 million USD in my bank account are better, or just as good, or even remotely as good.

Stanton said:

Kris said:

Stanton said: a) How are all these research catastrophes all directly the fault of the commentors and staff of Panda's Thumb, and their fault alone? b) Did it ever occur to you to direct your seething anger and hatred towards the specific scientists, themselves? How exactly would trolling here in order to usurp control over this blog and or drive away all of the commentors you hate and despise make scientists perform more productively and intelligently? c) Why do you persist in thinking that being a deliberately vague, deliberately abrasive, unpleasantly argumentative and vociferous quibbler will get your points across to us? You don't appear to realize that we are never going to take your points seriously if you continue constantly attacking us over tone, over your own sensitive self-righteousness, or how you're going to hold your breath until you die if scientists don't start doing research on topics that you, yourself, personally appreciate. d) Explain to us again why we are forbidden from pointing out how Creationists prize and flaunt stupidity, ignorance, self-delusion and bigotry as sacred virtues. Why is calling an idiot "an idiot," or calling a bigot "a bigot" to be cruel and bigoted?

Well, in that case, you're a stupid, ignorant, self-delusional, cruel, deliberately abrasive, control usurping, trollish, seethingly angry, unpleasantly argumentative, unproductive, unintelligent, hateful, bigoted idiot, seriously. Works both ways ya know, and it also works both ways with mainstream science versus creationism when it comes to fraud, mistakes, assumptions, inconsistencies, etc. That's the thing you don't get. Hmm, I wonder why religion is so popular, even though mainstream science is so perfect and never makes mistakes, has no fraud, never assumes anything, has no inconsistencies, and no bullshit of any kind. Maybe you guys should do a study on it? LMAO You barfed: "....directly the fault of the commentors and staff of Panda's Thumb, and their fault alone.." I never said that. There you go exaggerating again. That seems to be your specialty, and the specialty of some others here. Whatever you do, don't stop or you'll ruin your reputation as a blowhard.

And yet, you deny being a troll, all while continuing to attack us for not conforming to your will. You still haven't explained how constantly attacking and insulting us for not slavishly conforming to your will, or how your vociferous quibbling will make us see your points that you refuse to clarify.

Kris said:

mrg said:

Kris said: Oh, and it doesn't matter (except to maniacal creationist haters with blinders on) how fraudulent, mistaken, inconsistent, assumptive, or full of bullshit creationism or creation science is when it comes to how fraudulent, mistaken, inconsistent, assumptive, or full of bullshit non-creation science is. Just because one side is a mess doesn't mean it's ok for the other side to be a mess.

Sorry sport. Simply because banks are imperfect organizations -- sometimes badly managed, sometimes even looted by crooks -- doesn't mean that I'm going to believe Nigerian email scammers offering to put $16 million USD in my bank account are better, or just as good, or even remotely as good.

I never said or implied that you should. You don't get it. What a surprise. Not.

Did anyone else bother to check any of Kris's links? Because it's obvious he didn't take the time to read more than a handful of them himself. I checked a few, and while some of them do document actual cases of fraud, most of them are irrelevant. One of them is a wikipedia entry on the meaning of scientific misconduct for Christ's sake! Mixed in are a few amateur blogs, a book review, some nonsense claiming climategate proves global warming is a hoax, and, ironically, a number of peer reviewed articles. But the best part is where he tells us a google search for "fraud in science" turned up 40,300,000 links, as if that were meaningful. It reminds me of a guy by the name of William N. Kerney who's comments on Amazon used to provide myself and many others with endless amusement.

SWT said:

Kris said: When I first came here I was convinced that evolutionary theory is solid but now I see more holes in it thanks to some of the things you so-called scientists have said. I still believe that evolution is real but now I'm a lot more aware of the mistakes, inconsistencies, fraud, assumptions, and just plain bullshit in evolutionary theory and science in general.

OK, here's a golden opportunity for you: name some specific mistakes, inconsistencies, fraud, or BS in evolutionary theory. I've omitted "assumptions" because every scientific theory has some set of core assumption, but feel free to let us know what unwarranted or unstated assumptions you see. Enlighten us.

Kris said: Google: 40,300,000 hits for "fraud in science".

Kris said: And you wonder why creationists won't listen to people like you?

My points are clear to anyone who actually knows how to read and comprehend, and to anyone who isn't crazily obsessed with hating everyone who doesn't agree with them, and doesn't also blindly join their crusade.

Some of you are just like some of the creationists. Neither of you will accept or admit that you could be wrong about anything, or that others in your 'field' could be wrong, fraudulent, inconsistent, assumptive, or full of shit.

Google: 19,100,000 results for "Kris is blowing smoke"

Kris said: And you wonder why creationists won't listen to people like you? My points are clear to anyone who actually knows how to read and comprehend, and to anyone who isn't crazily obsessed with hating everyone who doesn't agree with them, and doesn't also blindly join their crusade. Some of you are just like some of the creationists. Neither of you will accept or admit that you could be wrong about anything, or that others in your 'field' could be wrong, fraudulent, inconsistent, assumptive, or full of shit.

I couldn't resist going through some more of Kris's links. I found an anti-vaccination rant and an article by Jerry Bergman (yes, Jerry Bergman). Does Kris really think including these links helps his case?

Kris said:

But the essence of science is repeatable data. Once the larger community gets the paper and tries to reproduce the results, bad methodology and outright fraud tend to reveal themselves quickly. That's the nice thing about the scientific mindset, "Trust nothing till you show me the data" largely tends to be a self-correcting strategy.

In your imagined perfect world.

And you wonder why creationists won’t listen to people like you?

nope.

turns out we studied the issue and published an article about it in Science some time ago:

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~deenasw/Assets/bloom&weisberg%20science.pdf

you can read it to understand yourself, if you wish.

How many links do you suppose there are for mistakes, inconsistencies, assumptions, etc., and how much taxpayer money has been wasted on fraud, inconsistencies, assumptions, mistakes, and bullshit in ‘mainstream’ science?

percentagewise?

less than .5%

now, tell us, how much money will taxpayers waste/not receive by subsidizing this:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/12/ark-encounter-w.html

yeah.

how much public money has been wasted over hundreds of years subsidizing religious nonsense?

Stanton said:

henry said:

Mike Elzinga said:

henry said:

John Vanko said:

Mike Elzinga said:

henry said: This is what the ark may have looked like. http://i362.photobucket.com/albums/oo68/popa14701/Saturday/Noahs_Ark.jpg

How does this design solve the problems of ventilation?

henry, read Mike's expert discussion of ventilation on a submarine. It's evident he's been there and knows whereof and what of he speaks. Now look at your artist's rendition of the Ark. See the problem? The insurmountable problem of ventilation? There is none, on your big boat. All the animals and all the people would have died. Plain and simple. As anyone with real-world experience on ocean-going vessels knows, like Mike. So please, stop your armchair nonsense. Admit Mike's right, for once.

I suppose Mike is right about submarines, but the ark wasn't a submarine. http://www.icr.org/article/wave-power-ventilating-ark/

Snicker. These guys have no clue.

If you never find a satisfactory solution in your lifetime, you can ask the Creator when you see Him face to face.

This is one of the many, many, many reasons why we point out that you are a colossal idiot, henry. That you have to suggest that we can only find answers for the questions unearthed by Creationism until after we die is an admission of the utter worthlessness of Creationism. How would anyone be able to disseminate the answers? Through a Ouija Board?

Evil Don said: Did anyone else bother to check any of Kris's links? Because it's obvious he didn't take the time to read more than a handful of them himself. I checked a few, and while some of them do document actual cases of fraud, most of them are irrelevant. One of them is a wikipedia entry on the meaning of scientific misconduct for Christ's sake! Mixed in are a few amateur blogs, a book review, some nonsense claiming climategate proves global warming is a hoax, and, ironically, a number of peer reviewed articles. But the best part is where he tells us a google search for "fraud in science" turned up 40,300,000 links, as if that were meaningful. It reminds me of a guy by the name of William N. Kerney who's comments on Amazon used to provide myself and many others with endless amusement.

Kris said:

Evil Don said: Did anyone else bother to check any of Kris's links? Because it's obvious he didn't take the time to read more than a handful of them himself. I checked a few, and while some of them do document actual cases of fraud, most of them are irrelevant. One of them is a wikipedia entry on the meaning of scientific misconduct for Christ's sake! Mixed in are a few amateur blogs, a book review, some nonsense claiming climategate proves global warming is a hoax, and, ironically, a number of peer reviewed articles. But the best part is where he tells us a google search for "fraud in science" turned up 40,300,000 links, as if that were meaningful. It reminds me of a guy by the name of William N. Kerney who's comments on Amazon used to provide myself and many others with endless amusement.

I said they "pertain" to fraud or potential fraud, and they do. Something else you obviously missed is that there are plenty of reputable sources who say that fraud is "not uncommon" in science. I was pressed for examples and I provided some. The amount of links (40,300,000) is significant at least in the sense of showing that fraud in science is far from uncommon and is a serious topic for many people, including many scientists. You guys just want to argue something that has no real foundation (your denial of anything being wrong with science), just like the creationists (their denial of anything being wrong with creationism) you despise so much. I'm watching Faith Hill sing Christmas songs on TV. Damn she's fine, even though she believes in fairy tales (she said she is christian). I wonder if her god approves of the very short miniskirt she wears in the Sunday Night Football intro. Well, whether he does or not, I'd do her in a hearbeat. And now, back to your regular BS.

henry said: Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, which includes Genesis. If the rich man and his five brothers didn't listen to Moses and the prophets, according to Abraham as told by Jesus, they wouldn't listen to one who rose from the dead, which may be reference to the resurrection of Jesus Himself.

henry said:

Stanton said:

henry said:

Mike Elzinga said:

henry said:

John Vanko said:

Mike Elzinga said:

henry said: This is what the ark may have looked like. http://i362.photobucket.com/albums/oo68/popa14701/Saturday/Noahs_Ark.jpg

How does this design solve the problems of ventilation?

henry, read Mike's expert discussion of ventilation on a submarine. It's evident he's been there and knows whereof and what of he speaks. Now look at your artist's rendition of the Ark. See the problem? The insurmountable problem of ventilation? There is none, on your big boat. All the animals and all the people would have died. Plain and simple. As anyone with real-world experience on ocean-going vessels knows, like Mike. So please, stop your armchair nonsense. Admit Mike's right, for once.

I suppose Mike is right about submarines, but the ark wasn't a submarine. http://www.icr.org/article/wave-power-ventilating-ark/

Snicker. These guys have no clue.

If you never find a satisfactory solution in your lifetime, you can ask the Creator when you see Him face to face.

This is one of the many, many, many reasons why we point out that you are a colossal idiot, henry. That you have to suggest that we can only find answers for the questions unearthed by Creationism until after we die is an admission of the utter worthlessness of Creationism. How would anyone be able to disseminate the answers? Through a Ouija Board?

A Ouija Board isn't necessary for the following. Luke 16:19-31 is about Lazarus and the rich man. The rich man wanted to warn his five brothers about the place in which he was tormented, but Abraham told him they could hear Moses and the prophets. The rich man said send Lazarus back but Abraham replied if they won't listen to Moses and the prophets, they won't listen to one who rose from the dead. Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, which includes Genesis. If the rich man and his five brothers didn't listen to Moses and the prophets, according to Abraham as told by Jesus, they wouldn't listen to one who rose from the dead, which may be reference to the resurrection of Jesus Himself.

Dale Husband said: First signs of dishonesty and cowardice is backpedaling, Kris. You made a good point against Stanton about the freshwater sharks, but you've been going downhill ever since. Your ego must be bigger than Mount Everest! And no, I wouldn't "do" Faith Hill, you perv! I respect both her and Tim McGraw too much to make such moronic statements in public.

Kris said:

Evil Don said: Did anyone else bother to check any of Kris's links? Because it's obvious he didn't take the time to read more than a handful of them himself. I checked a few, and while some of them do document actual cases of fraud, most of them are irrelevant. One of them is a wikipedia entry on the meaning of scientific misconduct for Christ's sake! Mixed in are a few amateur blogs, a book review, some nonsense claiming climategate proves global warming is a hoax, and, ironically, a number of peer reviewed articles. But the best part is where he tells us a google search for "fraud in science" turned up 40,300,000 links, as if that were meaningful. It reminds me of a guy by the name of William N. Kerney who's comments on Amazon used to provide myself and many others with endless amusement.

I said they "pertain" to fraud or potential fraud, and they do. Something else you obviously missed is that there are plenty of reputable sources who say that fraud is "not uncommon" in science. I was pressed for examples and I provided some. The amount of links (40,300,000) is significant at least in the sense of showing that fraud in science is far from uncommon and is a serious topic for many people, including many scientists. You guys just want to argue something that has no real foundation (your denial of anything being wrong with science), just like the creationists (their denial of anything being wrong with creationism) you despise so much. I'm watching Faith Hill sing Christmas songs on TV. Damn she's fine, even though she believes in fairy tales (she said she is christian). I wonder if her god approves of the very short miniskirt she wears in the Sunday Night Football intro. Well, whether he does or not, I'd do her in a hearbeat. And now, back to your regular BS.

The amount of links (40,300,000) is significant at least in the sense of showing that

... you haven't the slightest clue of the irrelevancy of a google search result number to ANYTHING.

I get over 600,000 hits on search for ebola and cookies.

must mean there is a vast cookie consipracy!

what a complete maroon.

Why do you come to this site, especially when you must realize that you will be ridiculed?

same question to you, fucknut.

Kris said: It's not perverted for a man to be attracted to a woman, and especially a beautiful woman. You sound like a sexually frustrated, right wing, xtian fundamentalist.

Backpedaling? Who's backpedaling?

Dale Husband said: More proof that henry is an idiot:

henry said: Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, which includes Genesis. If the rich man and his five brothers didn't listen to Moses and the prophets, according to Abraham as told by Jesus, they wouldn't listen to one who rose from the dead, which may be reference to the resurrection of Jesus Himself.

Since the Book of Deuteronomy ends with Moses' death and there is an indication that it must have been written long afterwards, your assertion that "Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, which includes Genesis," is clearly false. Indeed, there is no independent evidence that he even existed, let alone that he wrote anything.

Kris said: Your argument against Henry is interesting, in that you say "and there is an indication that it must have been written long afterwards" but then you go on to say that his assertion "is clearly false". If you're going to argue a specific matter and say it's "clearly false", you probably should use a better argument than "an indication", and "must have been". Do you feel some uncertainty as to the veracity of what Henry asserted?

Dale Husband said:

Kris said: It's not perverted for a man to be attracted to a woman, and especially a beautiful woman. You sound like a sexually frustrated, right wing, xtian fundamentalist.

What you said was disgusting, and had nothing to do with attraction. I'm attracted to lots of women, that doesn't mean I want to have sex with any of them! Or maybe you are acting that that damned stereotype of atheist evolutionists all being sex maniacs. Sickening!

Backpedaling? Who's backpedaling?

You posted a lot of links you claimed showed scientific fraud, and others said many of them don't and you then replied, "I said they “pertain” to fraud or potential fraud, and they do." But your links include webpages of the right-wing extremist "news" source Prison Planet and the global warming denialist blog Watts Up With That. You are as stupid as you are arrogant.

Dale Husband said: It's obvious by now that you and henry are in league to troll us to madness.

Your sympathetic questioning of him is a giveaway to that.

Can't get an honest answer out of Kris, just endless sympathy for Creationists and religion. That speaks volumes. Just as much as his flooding this forum. DS, Stanton, Ichthyic, phantomreader42 are right about him.

He reminds me ever so much of IBIG who, after filling 400 panels in the Bathroom, went silent.

Kris is our new IBIG, no doubt about it. Very clever he is. Evolved he has.

Kris said:

Your sympathetic questioning of him is a giveaway to that.

Yeah, it's a crime to ask someone sincere questions. Shame on me.

SWT said: Kris, 1) You posted a long list of articles about scientific fraud. Which of these deals with inconsistencies, fraud, and just plain BS in evolutionary theory, and how are they related to what people have said in this forum? 2) What would you propose in place of peer review to improve the accuracy of published scientific accounts?

Kris, you really are a moron. If you're going to reply to my comment, at least give some indication you've comprehended it. I obviously did not miss the fact that there are reputable sources that claim science fraud is "not uncommon." I wrote that a few of your links mention genuine cases of fraud. You must have missed that sentence. I also pointed out that a few of your links were peer-reviewed articles. I respect the peer-review process, although I don't think it's perfect. No one here has said it is perfect. You're just making shit up. And I can't believe I have to spell this out, but no, the number of google links for "fraud in science" is not in any way significant. Unless you're willing to admit that my google search turning up 19,100,000 hits for "Kris is blowing smoke" is significant.

henry the moron said:

Stanton said:

henry said:

Mike Elzinga said:

henry said:

John Vanko said:

Mike Elzinga said:

henry said: This is what the ark may have looked like. http://i362.photobucket.com/albums/oo68/popa14701/Saturday/Noahs_Ark.jpg

How does this design solve the problems of ventilation?

henry, read Mike's expert discussion of ventilation on a submarine. It's evident he's been there and knows whereof and what of he speaks. Now look at your artist's rendition of the Ark. See the problem? The insurmountable problem of ventilation? There is none, on your big boat. All the animals and all the people would have died. Plain and simple. As anyone with real-world experience on ocean-going vessels knows, like Mike. So please, stop your armchair nonsense. Admit Mike's right, for once.

I suppose Mike is right about submarines, but the ark wasn't a submarine. http://www.icr.org/article/wave-power-ventilating-ark/

Snicker. These guys have no clue.

If you never find a satisfactory solution in your lifetime, you can ask the Creator when you see Him face to face.

This is one of the many, many, many reasons why we point out that you are a colossal idiot, henry. That you have to suggest that we can only find answers for the questions unearthed by Creationism until after we die is an admission of the utter worthlessness of Creationism. How would anyone be able to disseminate the answers? Through a Ouija Board?

A Ouija Board isn't necessary for the following. Luke 16:19-31 is about Lazarus and the rich man. The rich man wanted to warn his five brothers about the place in which he was tormented, but Abraham told him they could hear Moses and the prophets. The rich man said send Lazarus back but Abraham replied if they won't listen to Moses and the prophets, they won't listen to one who rose from the dead. Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, which includes Genesis. If the rich man and his five brothers didn't listen to Moses and the prophets, according to Abraham as told by Jesus, they wouldn't listen to one who rose from the dead, which may be reference to the resurrection of Jesus Himself.

SWT said:

Kris said:

Your sympathetic questioning of him is a giveaway to that.

Yeah, it's a crime to ask someone sincere questions. Shame on me.

Questions like these?

SWT said: Kris, 1) You posted a long list of articles about scientific fraud. Which of these deals with inconsistencies, fraud, and just plain BS in evolutionary theory, and how are they related to what people have said in this forum? 2) What would you propose in place of peer review to improve the accuracy of published scientific accounts?

Well I warned you guys. The best thing to do about Kris is to ignore him. When asked for examples of scientific fraud, he cited religious nuts who tried to fool a real journal editor into publishing religious crap in the journal and global warming deniers. Yea, science sure is screwed up.

On the off chance that he really believes that trying to be "nice" to henry is somehow going to make him magically change his mind or get him to engage in some kind of real discussion of science, he is in for a rude awakening. Man, I can't wait until he tries his "nice" routine on Byers.

Just to be clear, I did try to be "nice" to "someone" until "someone" refused to answer my questions or clarify their position despite repeated requests. Apparently that was enough to make him deny all of science. Imagine that. Or maybe he just has a bad case of science envy. Maybe all he needs is a little Faith.

SWT said:

Kris said:

Your sympathetic questioning of him is a giveaway to that.

Yeah, it's a crime to ask someone sincere questions. Shame on me.

Questions like these?

SWT said: Kris, 1) You posted a long list of articles about scientific fraud. Which of these deals with inconsistencies, fraud, and just plain BS in evolutionary theory, and how are they related to what people have said in this forum? 2) What would you propose in place of peer review to improve the accuracy of published scientific accounts?

Kris said: phantomreader42 said: "Not one example of which you’ll be able to NAME, of course." Not one? How about more than one? "In September 2001, the Journal of Reproductive Medicine weighed in on the healing power of God. A Columbia University research group reported that patients at a fertility clinic in Seoul were twice as likely to get pregnant when Christians prayed for them. Within a month, the study was in the New York Times science section and on Good Morning America, where the medical editor for ABC News called it "very well done" and opined that "getting pregnant involves a lot of biological, psychological, maybe even spiritual factors that we don't yet understand."

To name a few.

Kris said: Hmm, I wonder why religion is so popular, even though mainstream science is so perfect and never makes mistakes, has no fraud, never assumes anything, has no inconsistencies, and no bullshit of any kind. Maybe you guys should do a study on it? LMAO

SWT said:

Kris said:

Your sympathetic questioning of him is a giveaway to that.

Yeah, it's a crime to ask someone sincere questions. Shame on me.

Questions like these?

SWT said: Kris, 1) You posted a long list of articles about scientific fraud. Which of these deals with inconsistencies, fraud, and just plain BS in evolutionary theory, and how are they related to what people have said in this forum? 2) What would you propose in place of peer review to improve the accuracy of published scientific accounts?

Kris said: And you wonder why creationists won't listen to people like you?

My points are clear to anyone who actually knows how to read and comprehend, and to anyone who isn't crazily obsessed with hating everyone who doesn't agree with them, and doesn't also blindly join their crusade.

Some of you are just like some of the creationists. Neither of you will accept or admit that you could be wrong about anything, or that others in your 'field' could be wrong, fraudulent, inconsistent, assumptive, or full of shit.

Kris said:

SWT said:

Kris said:

Your sympathetic questioning of him is a giveaway to that.

Yeah, it's a crime to ask someone sincere questions. Shame on me.

Questions like these?

SWT said: Kris, 1) You posted a long list of articles about scientific fraud. Which of these deals with inconsistencies, fraud, and just plain BS in evolutionary theory, and how are they related to what people have said in this forum? 2) What would you propose in place of peer review to improve the accuracy of published scientific accounts?

I said sincere questions. I haven't been asked a sincere question since I first posted on this site. I've been insulted, attacked, and ridiculed, and any questions I've been asked have been more like hostile demands than questions. I've answered some of them but I've ignored some too. Also, some of the questions have just been too stupid or irrelevant to bother answering. It's plainly obvious to me that unless a person (like me) obsessively hates creationists as much as some of you do and blindly promotes evolutionary theory and science in general like a TV evangelist promotes religion, that person will be treated here in the same manner as a lamb would be in the lion enclosure at a zoo. Torn to pieces. Like many religious zealots, some of you obviously expect anyone who posts here (and probably everyone else everywhere) to be completely adherent to YOUR way of thinking and YOUR blind faith in science and YOUR obsessive hatred of people who disagree with you. In other words, you want nothing but goose stepping, obedient soldiers in your army, and everyone else is the enemy, to be disposed of. Yep, sounds a lot like some religious wackos. All or nothing! I march to my own drummer.

Once again Kris passes up a golden opportunity to explain his actual position, only to complain about insults and insincerity. He alone decides which questions are sincere and which aren't. Perhaps all of the questions were sincere, until he refused to answer.

Meanwhile, still no real examples of scientific fraud. Of course that doesn't really matter now does it? Even if he can come up with one or two real examples, so what? There isn't any point at all now is there? Just like all of his other crap. about sharks.

I wonder, if we were really nice to him, would he go away?

SWT said:

Kris said:

SWT said:

Kris said:

Your sympathetic questioning of him is a giveaway to that.

Yeah, it's a crime to ask someone sincere questions. Shame on me.

Questions like these?

SWT said: Kris, 1) You posted a long list of articles about scientific fraud. Which of these deals with inconsistencies, fraud, and just plain BS in evolutionary theory, and how are they related to what people have said in this forum? 2) What would you propose in place of peer review to improve the accuracy of published scientific accounts?

I said sincere questions. I haven't been asked a sincere question since I first posted on this site. I've been insulted, attacked, and ridiculed, and any questions I've been asked have been more like hostile demands than questions. I've answered some of them but I've ignored some too. Also, some of the questions have just been too stupid or irrelevant to bother answering. It's plainly obvious to me that unless a person (like me) obsessively hates creationists as much as some of you do and blindly promotes evolutionary theory and science in general like a TV evangelist promotes religion, that person will be treated here in the same manner as a lamb would be in the lion enclosure at a zoo. Torn to pieces. Like many religious zealots, some of you obviously expect anyone who posts here (and probably everyone else everywhere) to be completely adherent to YOUR way of thinking and YOUR blind faith in science and YOUR obsessive hatred of people who disagree with you. In other words, you want nothing but goose stepping, obedient soldiers in your army, and everyone else is the enemy, to be disposed of. Yep, sounds a lot like some religious wackos. All or nothing! I march to my own drummer.

My questions above were sincere, as were my previous requests for clarifications. If you were to set aside your self-righteous anger for a little while, we might be able to have a reasonable conversation. Regardless, march as you choose with whom you choose. It's of no consequence to me as long as you're not advocating the teaching of religion in public school science classes or otherwise obstructing the teaching of good science in the public schools.

Kris said: That sexual frustration of yours may be terminal.

It doesn’t matter how sincere your questions are, Kris will just lie about it. We know this because there are over seven hundred thousand google search results for kris is a lying moron. :P

John Vanko said: He reminds me ever so much of IBIG who, after filling 400 panels in the Bathroom, went silent.

When people stop feeding the kris troll and playing his games, he will undoubtedly come back with another ID.

Watch for it.

http://circleh.wordpress.com/2008/05/28/natural-selection-and-the-scientific-peer-review-process/ Natural selection and the scientific peer review process Natural selection describes the process by which variations in a population of organisms are edited over time to enhance the ability of the individual organisms to survive and reproduce in an environment. Even if over 90% of all mutations, being random, are harmful to the next generation, natural selection can still eliminate those and keep those others that are beneficial, thus countering the destructive effects of mutations in general. It is the same with the scientific peer review process. Because science has made so much progress over the past few centuries, most people have the impression that scientists are unusually brilliant, nearly infallible, and totally objective in their views and methods. But in fact, that is simply not the case for most of them, at least as individuals. Scientists can be just as mistaken, corrupt, dogmatic, and failing in their efforts and assumptions as the rest of humanity. A few of them can even be downright stupid! If that is true, how can science be trusted to produce reliable facts and theories? Because the scientists use peer review as their means to test any new ideas put on the table by one of their number. No scientist’s word need be taken at face value. In order for his idea to be accepted as anything beyond a speculation, he must show observational or experimental data, clearly defined, that supports it. Thus, it should always be possible for other scientists to duplicate the results of the first scientist making the claim. If attempts to duplicate the observations or experiments do not produce the same result, the idea is rejected. Sometimes the peer review process goes too far in its skepticism, and a valid idea, such as continental drift, is rejected and even ridiculed by scientists even though it explains all the data collected and is contradicted by none of it. But that’s why repeated testing of that idea is required, as long as it is not outright falsified. Continental drift WAS accepted in the 1960s once an overwhelming amount of evidence was found to support it and those geologists who had been bigoted against it in the 1920s had died or retired, and a new generation had arisen that was more open-minded. Those who supported the continental drift theory were able to come up with a mechanism, plate tectonics, that explained it, and once they did opposition to it faded away rapidly. Individual scientists may fall so deeply in love with their own ideas that they refuse to accept the peer review process when it rejects their ideas. Then they become cranks who no longer do science, but instead put out propaganda to appeal to the scientifically illiterate. This is especially true of Creationists and global warming denialists who happen to have science degrees. They even go so far as to attack the peer review process itself! But it must be noted that they can never produce anything that would produce superior results in terms of seeking objective data in the universe and explaining it. Scientists who refuse to recognize that an idea of theirs is wrong are like a population of organisms that are too specialized in their lifestyle to adapt to any sudden change in their environment, resulting in their extinction. Fortunately, the progress of science continues even in spite of such incidents, just as life on Earth has continued despite the mass extinctions that have wiped out most species that evolved on Earth before.

mrg said:

John Vanko said: He reminds me ever so much of IBIG who, after filling 400 panels in the Bathroom, went silent.

He didn't actually go silent -- his adversaries finally managed to pressure him into taking the quarrel elsewhere. It may still be going on for all I know.

mrg said:

John Vanko said: He reminds me ever so much of IBIG who, after filling 400 panels in the Bathroom, went silent.

He didn't actually go silent -- his adversaries finally managed to pressure him into taking the quarrel elsewhere. It may still be going on for all I know.

Great minds think alike.

Ichthyic said: I get over 600,000 hits on search for ebola and cookies. must mean there is a vast cookie consipracy! what a complete maroon.

John Vanko said: I think faith4flipper and Kris have a similar agenda. Robin notes Bobby.

I march to my own drummer.

— Kris

John Vanko said: He reminds me ever so much of IBIG who, after filling 400 panels in the Bathroom, went silent.

Trouble is that that's like trying to ignore a persistent itch...

Yeah. How many times have people said: "Ignore the troll!" -- ? One can make a personal choice on that of course, but there are people here (naming no names) who feel they have a DUTY to argue with trolls. I find that hard to understand, because the POINT of being a troll is to pick fights.

Comments are now closed.