If you read this blog, then I'm sure you probably saw the Rachel Maddow bit about the C Street House and a group called "The Family". Now, even if you aren't liberal, or even atheist, doesn't this group sound like a bunch of fucking crackpots!? What the fucking fuck!? Here, just have a look:
Really, are these people on the same fucking planet as the rest of us? And again, this just goes to the whole idea that religion empowers people of power to abuse that power because it's perfectly okay to do so according to their god(s). Why can't people see through that thin veneer that tries to hide how utterly ridiculous religion is? As I am fond of saying: "Science will fly you to the moon. Religion will fly you into buildings." While many folks will extol the virtues of religion, and its impact on art, music, and even philanthropic efforts, all those could easily be accomplished, and surpassed by secular efforts.
On the good news front, I finally got to see the Fareed Zakaria episode where he interviewed the British Foreign Minister, an atheist! Considering that this man is a possible leader of the Labour Party, and then even in line as a Prime Minister actually had my wife and I cheering as we watched the show. He's articulate, intelligent, well spoken, and has a balanced view of the world (even with Fareed's jab on the Kashmir region). Imagine that! The part that got me cheering was at the 18:58 point in this video.
Okay, just a quick blog for today. I am still doing the whole application of jobs and trying to ensure that me and my family are well taken care of, while still contributing to the world. While this blog is fun and all, it doesn't quite meet that mission statement. :)
11 July 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
70 comments:
Science will fly you to the moon. Religion will fly you into buildings."
All religions? Really? Do you believe that or are you just another, um, forget it.
While many folks will extol the virtues of religion, and its impact on art, music, and even philanthropic efforts, all those could easily be accomplished, and surpassed by secular efforts."
Ya, but you don't do you? Atheists just lay around thinking about themselves, brooding about themselves, obsessed with whether someone will ruin their day by saying Merry Christmas to them.
The MENTALITY is applicable to all religions. As Voltaire said (paraphrased), once you believe absurdities, it's easy to make you commit atrocities.
Wow, you have a totally fucked up view of atheists. Of course, you probably only believe what your paster tells you, and can't see the real world for what it is because it's too frightening to your ignorant little mind. Tell Bill Gates he's just sitting around brooding. As a matter of fact, here are a nice list of secular charities:
Three of the four greatest American philanthropists have been atheist/agnostic:
Bill Gates & Warren Buffett (also two of the world's wealtheist men)
Andrew Carnegie
In alphabetical order
Accion (micro-lending)
Alternative Gifts International
American Civil Liberties Union
American Humanists
American Lung Association
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Americares Delivering medicines, medical supplies and aid to people in crisis around the world.
Atheist Centre of India (runs 3 charities: disaster relief, women's empowerment, criminal tribes)
Atheist Volunteers
Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation working to find a cure for spinal cord injuries. It is ironically satisfying that this goal is very close to that of "healing amputees", yet Christopher Reeve was an atheist. Smiley
Direct Relief International
Doctors Without Borders
Feeding America (formerly known as America's Second Harvest)
FINCA International
Fred Hollows Foundation (preventing blindness)
Humane Society US
Humanist Charities (same as American Humanists)
Kiva (person-to-person micro-lending)
Lions Club International
Meals On Wheels (some local affiliates may be run by churches)
Mercy Corps
Orbis (saving eyesight worldwide)
Oxfam America
Pathfinder International
Partners In Health
Peace Corps (U.S. government org)
Planned Parenthood
Rotary International
Ryan's Well Foundation (Digs wells in Africa)
The Smile Train (funds surgeries to correct children's cleft palate)
SOS Children's Villages
TechnoServe
UNICEF
"The typical no-faith American donated just $200 in 2006, which is more than seven times less than the amount contributed by the prototypical active-faith adult ($1500). Even when church-based giving is subtracted from the equation, active-faith adults donated twice as many dollars last year as did atheists and agnostics. In fact, while just 7% of active-faith adults failed to contribute any personal funds in 2006, that compares with 22% among the no-faith adults"
Interesting Link
"Many individuals, groups, organizations, institutes, and foundations are currently active in the United States which exist for the sole purpose of destroying the Constitutional laws and rights upon which honest Americans abide. Their motivations are many, consisting of a broad spectrum of destructive and tyrannical religious ideologies. There are no known secular hate groups in operation in the United States..."
Interesting link!
From the linked "article"
The better-educated among us watched in horror as David Duke, the one-time head of the Christian organization called The Ku Klux Klan, nearly acquired the governor-ship of Louisiana.
Could they please cite another example that isnt from over a decade ago? Meanwhile Robert Byrd still continues to serve unabated. Why no faux outrage in this instance?
We continue to observe hatred and bigotry spouted from every fundamentalist Christian pulpit across the country.
Does this guy "Drama Queen" much? Nowhere is "fundamentalist" defined by the writer and if it were, he woukd be wrong.
Every week brings news of domestic Christian terrorists murdering abortion providers, blowing up business, or assaulting women. One Christian terrorist organization last month even went so far as to plant two bombs timed apart for the specific purpose of killing rescue workers working to aid the victims of the first.
In the 10 years prior to George Tiller's shooting, please list for me all of the so-called "bombings", "assualts" and "murders" that occured. Since Tiller's death, please list same.
The author of this crap commits a logical error that most irreligious do in that they lump all religions in together. I would catalog all of the factual errors contained in this canard, but it would fill volumes.
JD Curtis: "In the 10 years prior to George Tiller's shooting, please list for me all of the so-called "bombings", "assualts" [sic] and "murders" that occured [sic]. Since Tiller's death, please list same."
Arson, bombing, and property crime incidences in the U.S. during the last ten years:
* October 1999: Martin Uphoff set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, causing US$100 worth of damage. He was later sentenced to 60 months' in prison.
* May 28, 2000: An arson at a clinic in Concord, New Hampshire, resulted in damage estimated at US$20,000. The case remains unsolved.
* September 30, 2000: A Catholic priest drove his car into the Northern Illinois Health Clinic after learning that the FDA had approved the drug RU-486. He pulled out an axe before being shot at by a security guard.
* June 11, 2001: An unsolved bombing at a clinic in Tacoma, Washington, destroyed a wall, resulting in US$6000 in damages.
* July 4, 2005: A clinic Palm Beach, Florida, was the target of an arson. The case remains open.
* December 12, 2005: Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe threw a Molotov cocktail at a clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana. The device missed the building and no damage was caused. In August 2006, Hughes was sentenced to six years' in prison, and Dunahoe to one year. Hughes claimed the bomb was a “memorial lamp” for an abortion she had had there.
* September 13, 2006: David McMenemy of Rochester Hills, Michigan, crashed his car into the Edgerton Women's Care Center in Davenport, Iowa. He then doused the lobby in gasoline and then started a fire. McMenemy committed these acts in the belief that the center was performing abortions; however, Edgerton is not an abortion clinc.
* April 25, 2007: A package left at a women's health clinic in Austin, Texas, contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury or death. A bomb squad detonated the device after evacuating the building. Paul Ross Evans (who had a criminal record for armed robbery and theft) was found guilty of the crime.
* May 9, 2007: An unidentified person deliberately set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia.
* December 6, 2007: Chad Altman and Sergio Baca were arrested for the arson of Dr. Curtis Boyd's clinic in Albuquerque. Altman’s girlfriend had scheduled an appointment for an abortion at the clinic.
* January 22, 2009: Matthew L. Derosia, 32, who was reported to have had a history of mental illness, rammed a SUV into the front entrance of a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Paul, Minnesota.
Incidences outside the U.S. during the last ten years:
Australia:
* July 16, 2001: Steven Rogers, a security guard at a clinic in Melbourne, Australia, was shot in the face and killed by Peter James Knight. Knight was charged and was sentenced to life in prison on November 19, 2002.
* January 6, 2009: A firebombing using Molotov cocktails was attempted at a medical clinic in Mosman Park, Western Australia. Faulty construction of the bombs limited damage to a single external burnt area, though if successful damage would have been severe. It is believed that the inviduals who made the attack were responsible for graffiti "baby killers" on the site, indicating a pro-life reason for the attack. The site turned out to, in fact, not be an abortion clinic, though the attackers most likely were not aware of this.
Canada:
Attemped murder
* July 11, 2000: Dr. Romalis was stabbed by an unindentified assailant in the lobby of his clinic.
Source: Wikipedia -- Anti-abortion violence.
JD, is there a link showing how much WORK is done by the non-faithful versus the faithful that has not strings attached? All too often, I am dismayed that so many religious organizations will offer help, but only if you attend their services, or join their church.
When secular organizations offer help, they just help, with no expectation of a payoff from the recipient.
And as I am fond of saying, I'd rather have one pair of hands doing work than a thousand clasped in prayer. Maybe the religious just feel like they are doing something good by giving money because their church tells them to? And I have found that most of the religious charities are notoriously bad at actually getting the money to those in need (15 cents on the dollar, versus 85 cents on the dollar for secular organizations).
is there a link showing how much WORK is done by the non-faithful versus the faithful that has not strings attached?
I would be pleased to explore the subject with you but first tell me, are you referring to "abortion-unexpected mothers" or just in general?
Ivan, there is no doubt that the occasional nut-job will do something wrong in this manner but the article states that it is on a weekly basis and the examples ou cite do not support that.
Ivan, of the 11 incidents you cite, 4 are unsolved arsons (and could be a firebug for all we know) and one is the result of a person who "had a history of mental illness" Only in a couple is the religious affiliation of the person involved mentioned. Personally? I never cite Wiki. I really don't have much faith in it as a reliable source. (Although I would begin a search there if I have no other alternative)
JD: "Only in a couple is the religious affiliation of the person involved mentioned."
What other motivation is there for violence against the clinic, other than a religious inspired one?
JD: "Personally? I never cite Wiki. I really don't have much faith in it as a reliable source."
However, you Christians seem to have faith in and have no trouble citing an ancient book -- The Bible -- which is based on nothing more than hearsay and was written by Hebrew goat herders in the desert.
Whereas Wikipedia has a policy of challenging and removing any item, submitted by its numerous contributors, that does not cite its source. You can see for yourself that each incident, mentioned in the article, has a reference number and its source at the bottom of the article.
What other motivation is there for violence against the clinic, other than a religious inspired one?
Mere hand-waving and speculation until the motives of said firebugs is confirmed. Who is to say that these arson attempts arent random acts?
Wikipedia has a policy of challenging and removing any item, submitted by its numerous contributors, that does not cite its source.
Just the most recent example of Wikipedia run amok. (From last May)
However, you Christians seem to have faith in and have no trouble citing an ancient book -- The Bible -- which is based on nothing more than hearsay and was written by Hebrew goat herders in the desert.
The Bible is FILLED with archeologically verifiable facts and I wonder if you ever considered it's trustworthiness when it comes to historical accuracy.
From the article linked to by JD: "... even though administrators at the free online encyclopedia quickly caught the quote’s lack of attribution and removed it..."
That just confirms my point, but you can't stop every vandal that tries to cause mischief in Wikipedia.
JD: "The Bible is FILLED with archeologically verifiable facts..."
Like what, for instance?
JD: "... and I wonder if you ever considered it's [sic] trustworthiness when it comes to historical accuracy."
What... Genesis? Noah's Ark? Feh!
From the same article..
A full month went by and nobody noticed the editorial fraud
"The Bible is FILLED with archeologically verifiable facts..."
Like what, for instance?
Please note that I am not a theologian, however, just off the top of my head I can cite...
A. The existance of the "non-existant" Hittite Empire
B. The verified existance of the "fabled" city of Nineveh
C. The historical existance of the supposedly "made-up" King Saul
D. The existance of the cities of Sodom and Gemorrah
E. Nehemiah's Wall
Feel free to verify these examples at your leisure.
What... Genesis? Noah's Ark?
These are a discussion unto themselves. Will post more tomorrow if you are interested.(?)
From the article: "...but not quickly enough to keep some journalists from cutting and pasting it first.
"A full month went by and nobody noticed the editorial fraud. So Fitzgerald told several media outlets in an e-mail and the corrections began."
Actually, that was referring to the newspaper editorials.
From the article: "Fitzgerald [the hoaxer] stressed that Wikipedia’s system requiring about 1,500 volunteer 'administrators' and the wider public to spot bogus additions did its job, removing the quote three times within minutes or hours. [Emphasis mine] It was journalists eager for a quick, pithy quote that was the problem."
That's why I don't buy newspapers!
Anyway, it's getting bloody late here in the U.K.
OK Ivan, post tomorrow if you like...
Good night..
RE Previous Post: In general. Most charities from churches are with the strings attached that you attend services, bear witness, or some other such bullshit.
JD, just because the bible has a real place in it FROM that time, doesn't make the whole book real. I've been to the Public Library in NYC. By that logic, "Ghostbusters" is real. Heck, so is ANY piece of fiction set on earth, or even this solar system.
The bible has stuff wrong as well: http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerrant.htm And when the bible makes an assertion about something, then ALL evidence is missing. No flood. No exodus. No resurrection. etc.
Although, looking at your blog, I see you support the "birthers", so I must relegate you to the dustbin of loonies. I can see your grasp of reality is tenuous enough as it is, and find this more like wasting time than an intelligent conversation.
Lunk, might you want to comment on this story? Link It would seem that there would be others that would follow suit and do what this guy did and that would create havoc in the military. This could all be easily settled if the POTUS would simply provide documentation.
Will comment on your other points later.
Yeah, the guy is clearly a loon, and is probably a danger to himself and his unit. People who are clinging to this irrational belief are clearly deluded and downright insane even.
If you look closely, POTUS HAS provided documentation. Idiots and morons just refuse to believe it.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
http://msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/birth.jpg
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Fucking LOON!
Here's what I'm getting at. They REVOKED his orders. Look at it this way, if the Pentagon had any sort of "evidence" that he was eligible, they would have provided it and said, "OK guy, report for duty, there's your evidence" but apparently they don't. And this is just the BEGINNING. Might we assume that others would follow suit? Do any of the links you provide have pictures of the long-form, certificate of live birth that they keep hammering on?
I checked out the link you provided re: "inerrancy". It seems to provide both halves of the respective arguements and lets the reader decide for themselves on different issues. Let's keep it simple. Pick ONE subject that the Bible mentions that you take issue with and perhaps we can take a look at it together.
They revoked his orders because he was fucking loony. There is lots of evidence, yet he refused to believe it, and kept on being an asshat. There are rules under the UCMJ that says the President is the boss, and as long as the order is legal, you do what he says. This idiot still didn't believe the documented and verifiable evidence and would be detrimental to good order and discipline. And the fact that he's clearly a deluded loony. I say good riddance to the moron. Hell, I can't even produce the original paperwork proving that I am a US citizen. And every person doesn't get the exact same documentation. Of course, I suppose that the Honolulu Advertiser was also in on the conspiracy with the publishing of a birth announcement. Not only that, short form birth certificate is sufficient to prove citizenship for "all reasonable purposes." according to law. Sorry, chase that goose somewhere else.
Okay, the bible and the flood. That's nice fable explaining rainbows. The reason that page is more deferential is because deluded fools can make up excuses for anything, no matter how irrational. They just say "MAGIC" and arguments melt away. Almost as crazy as the "birthers" really.
Larian: "They revoked his orders because he was fucking loony."
I have to disagree with you there, Larian.
The term "was" is past tense, which implies that the man referred to is now no longer afflicted with the said condition or is now deceased.
What you should say is that they revoked his orders because he IS fucking loony!
That way, you avoid any ambiguity.
Okay, the bible and the flood.
OK, here is an entire entry on the subject. Peruse it at your leisure and let me know if there is anything that you agree with.
BTW, wasnt the great Apollo 15 astronaut, James Irwin interested in finding the Ark of Noah?
Yeah, James Irwin was interested in finding Noah's Ark, because he was a bloody lunatic.
Conservapedia? Really, that's like linking someone to the KKK on issues of race... I am not even going to dignify that pile of craptasic dogma with a response.
WHy not check: http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/sillyflood.htm Notice the title of the page; sillyflood. It is indeed very silly.
Yeah, Larian, no wonder JD doesn't trust Wikipedia, which the founder of Conservapedia, Andy Schlafly, thinks it has a liberal, anti-Christian, and anti-American bias.
Well, here's another encyclopedia that has an even better viewpoint than Wikipedia on the subject of The Great Flood.
Furthermore, here is some interesting information on Conservapedia.
I checked out all 3 souces cited by you 2 and they are a JOKE.
Maybe this time will be the charm. I'll cite a few things from the source that I provided and if any of you would like to have what can pass for an intelligent conversation about the subject, then feel free to comment.
Virtually nothing historical, from writings to civilization to long-living organisms like trees, has survived from before about 3000 B.C., an approximate date given to the Great Flood
True or false?
Today 60% of Americans accept as truth the Biblical account of the Great Flood
True or false?
most cultures record a world-destroying flood in their oral or written histories.
True or false?
And BTW, what ever you do, DON'T check out the Conservapedia entry for Evolution. You just might blow a gasket!
Uh JD, Uncyclopedia IS a joke. It's called a Pow perhaps since you weren't able to tell it was a joke? It's modeled after parodies like the onion. And Conservapedia is actually less accurate than UNcyclopedia if you get right down to it. I have read conservapedia's entry on evolution, and it's about 3 IQ points short of ZERO. And it doesn't even know it's a joke.
Great Lunkster, for the purposes of moving the discussion forward, might you be able to answer the 3 questions I just asked?
Yeah, Larian, JD has clearly demonstrated that Evangelical fundamentalists have no sense of humour and, consequently, cannot tell a parody when they see one.
Virtually nothing historical, from writings to civilization to long-living organisms like trees, has survived from before about 3000 B.C., an approximate date given to the Great Flood -- True or false?
FALSE! Seriously, JD, since you don't trust Wikipedia, because your mind is filled with Constipedia propaganda, here are some news items from the world's most trusted source -- BBC News:
* Chinese writing '8,000 years old'.
* 'Oldest pottery' found in China.
* Earliest evidence of art found.
Finally, from the Metropolitan Museum of Art:
Chauvet Cave (ca. 30,000 B.C.) paintings.
Today 60% of Americans accept as truth the Biblical account of the Great Flood -- True or false?
TRUE. However, that is known as argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, it is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges, "If many believe so, it is so."
This logical fallacy is often used by children as an excuse for wanting something (everybody's got one), or doing something (everybody's doing it). Despite the juvenile nature of the argument, it is often used by people who should know better, particularly by those who are trying to force other people to their way of thinking. A case in point is the push in the U.S. to get creationism taught in public school science classes. The argument runs along the lines of suggesting that because a majority of people in the U.S. believe in creationism, it should therefore be taught as science. Sadly, the argument is rarely defeated by pointing out its fallaciousness, but by pointing out the fact that the teaching of creationism in public school classes is unconstitutional by being at odds with the First Amendment.
My overall point I was trying make concerning this question Ivan was to move the discussion along in a more academic manner. That and to demonstrate that it is a widely held belief. These statistics do not, in and of themselves, prove that it happened
Re: The Chauvet Cave: But archaeologists must also be wary of radiocarbon dates, argue Pettitt and Bahn in a paper that appeared in Antiquity last month. Bahn's suspicions were aroused when he translated the latest coffee-table book on the Chauvet cave into English. Around 30 radiocarbon ages are presented in this book, but the measurements were all made at the same French laboratory. Using results from only one team, however skilled, just is not scientific, says Bahn
Also...Worse, the same laboratory is currently embroiled in an argument over the age of the artwork in another cave, Candamo in Spain. They dated black dots on its walls to 30,000 years ago, but Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Massachusetts, estimated the age of a second sample to be just half that. Link
[M]ost cultures record a world-destroying flood in their oral or written histories -- True or false?
TRUE. However, there is a hypothesis that the origin of flood myths have been inspired by ancient observations of fossil seashells and fish inland and on mountains, which ancient peoples misinterpreted, due to their lack of scientific knowledge of plate tectonics, to have been caused by some 'act of god' bringing about a world-wide flood. Though the Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, and Chinese all commented in ancient writings about seashells and/or impressions of fish that they found inland and/or in the mountains, it was Leonardo da Vinci who postulated that an immediate deluge could not have caused the layered and neatly ordered strata that he had found in the Italian Apennines. The Greeks hypothesized that the Earth had been covered by water several times, and noted the seashells and fish fossils that they had found on mountain tops as the evidence for this belief. Native Americans also expressed this belief to early Europeans, though they had not written these ideas down previously.
Some geologists hypothesize that quite dramatic, greater than normal flooding of rivers in the distant past might have influenced the myths. One of the latest, and quite controversial, hypotheses of this type is the Ryan-Pitman Theory, which argues for a catastrophic deluge about 5600 BCE from the Mediterranean Sea into the Black Sea. This has been the subject of considerable discussion and a news article from National Geographic News in February 2009 reported that the flooding might have been "quite mild".
There has also been speculation that a large tsunami in the Mediterranean Sea caused by the Thera eruption, dated ca. 1630–1600 BCE geologically, was the historical basis for folklore that evolved into the Deucalion myth. However, the tsunami hit the South Aegean Sea and Crete; it did not affect cities in the mainland of Greece, such as Mycenae, Athens, and Thebes, which continued to prosper, and therefore it had a local rather than a regionwide effect.
Another theory is that a meteor or comet crashed into the Indian Ocean in prehistoric times around 2800-3000 BCE, which created the 30-km undersea Burckle Crater and generated a giant tsunami that flooded coastal lands.
RE: The Chauvet Cave carbon dating doubts.
From Wikipedia: The cave contains the oldest known cave paintings, based on radiocarbon dating of "black from drawings, from torch marks and from the floors", according to Jean Clottes. Clottes concludes that the "dates fall into two groups: one centred around 27,000-26,000 BP, and the other around 32,000-30,000 BP." As of 1999, the dates of 31 samples from the cave had been reported. The earliest, sample Gifa 99776 from "zone 10", dates to 32,900±490 BP.
However, some archaeologists have questioned these dates. Christian Züchner, based on his archaeological dating, is of the opinion that the red paintings are from the Gravettian period (c. 28,000–23,000 BP) and the black paintings are from the Early Magdalenian period (early part of c. 18,000–10,000 BP). Pettitt and Bahn believe the dating is inconsistent with the traditional stylistic sequence and that there is uncertainty about the source of the charcoal used in the drawings and the extent of surface contamination on the exposed rock surfaces. New stylistic studies show that some Gravettian engravings are superimposed on black paintings proving the paintings' older origins.
Let me ask you this Ivan...If you actually saw an ancient vessel, on a mountaintop in that part of the world, whose dimensions corresponded those of the Ark of Noah, would you then believe?
Considering that the vessel couldn't even exist as described (it would tear itself apart under its own weight), that would be quite a feat. My first inclination would be to proclaim HOAX since it's physically impossible. Of course, bronze age desert tribesmen don't know about that fancy engineering stuff...
Considering that the vessel couldn't even exist as described (it would tear itself apart under its own weight), that would be quite a feat
That's a criticism that I have heard leveled at The Epic of Gilgamesh rather than Noah. Check out this Link entitled Is the Biblical Flood Account a Modified Copy of the Epic of Gilgamesh?
Yep, that was a fable too. So why do people believe one, but not the other? And we have the measurements of the boat, and we know the properties of wood. The boat would rip itself apart, but since it was never really built, how would the bronze age tribes people even know that? Oh yeah, they just made the whole thing up.
Read the Link Einstein
I did. They are BOTH FABLES. Your point?
And if I pointed you toward a study showing that Noah's Ark would have been seaworthy? Link
I went over to William Lane Craig's website (you know, the "ass-hat" that you still havent meaningfully refuted) anyway, he seems to subscibe to a regional flood rather than worldwide. Not everyone agrees on the matter.
That link talks about a subjective evaluation between comfort, strength, and stability. What it neglects to show is that a FULL SIZE boat of those dimensions CANNOT be made from wood. At all. It would rip apart under its own weight. Of course, you can claim "magic" and sit all smug in believing fairy tales.
Regional floods are not what is described in Genesis, so are they admitting the word of god(s) is not the truth? Or is there a secret decoder ring somewhere that clues you in to what not to believe and what you must adhere to? Just look at how incredibly silly the whole thing is though. ALL the impossibilities in just that ONE myth.
JD: "If you actually saw an ancient vessel, on a mountaintop in that part of the world, whose dimensions corresponded those of the Ark of Noah, would you then believe?"
If you are referring to the "Ararat anomaly", those are just shadows -- no different from the so-called "Face on Mars".
JD: "And if I pointed you toward a study showing that Noah's Ark would have been seaworthy?"
Here is a list of the largest wooden ships that were ever built and what happened to them:
List of world's largest wooden ships.
Built in 1909, the schooner Wyoming was state-of-the art in wooden hulled shipbuilding. She was a six-masted schooner and, at 329.5 feet (100.4 m), the longest ship with an all wood keel and hull ever built. She was the last of nine wooden hulled, six-masted schooners built between 1900 and 1909. All were 300 ft. or more in length. They were all state-of-the art.
The Wyoming had 90 steel crossbraces. Even while she was still on the drawing boards the marine engineers who designed and built her knew from experience with shorter ships that the length of the Wyoming would exceed the structural limits of wood. Therefore, they attempted to defeat, or at least support, the laws of physics and the principles of marine engineering with steel.
It was to no avail. Not even the steel bracing could prevent the flexing and twisting that resulted in the separation of the hull planking. The Wyoming required constant pumping by donkey steam engines, as did her sister ships. It is said that she could be seen to snake (movement of the bow and stern from side to side in relation to the midship) and hog (movement of the bow and stern up and down in relation to the midship) while underway. The action of the waves, in even calm seas, caused the planking to be sprung beyond the capabilities of any calking that could be devised. The Wyoming and her sisters were used, for the most part, for short, close-in coastal hauls, generally in sight of land. At the first sign of inclement weather, they could run for port.
Ivan, you compare the Ark to a six-masted schooner which apparently it was not. From the firm Shearer and Associates, Naval Architects, Marine Engineers, Marine Surveyors...
Therefore, from the information supplied, it is my opinion that the Ark is structurally sound, and has sufficient stability and buoyancy for the cargo carried. Link to full article
And there you go to a site that is set up to support lies and distortions. There is no way by any stretch of the imagination that a ship of the purported dimensions would stay in one piece. It would fall apart. The six masted schooner (much SMALLER) was used as a basic example.
Wow, you are impenetrable in your deluded little blanket, aren't you?
RE: Shearer and Associates, and the "Secrets of Noah's Ark".
ROFLMAO!
I have checked out that outfit, via Google, and their only "Area of Operation" is in US Gulf Coast and Inland Waterways -- which means bloody barges!
The first thing that I noticed about that Ark 'design' by Joseph Z. Silver, which at 627 feet long and 104.5 wide is even bigger than that of the alleged Ark, was that it lacks a keel -- an essential foundation or 'backbone' of any ocean going vessel
Even the President of that outfit, Mr. Edward L. Shearer, stated: "[Mr. Silver] makes no mention if [transverse bulkheads] are only structural or if they are watertight. From his description of the feed, air and gas shafts, one can assume that the bulkheads are non-tight as well as the two decks. Therefore, it is my opinion that the Ark had no watertight integrity and, if damaged, would have sunk. [Emphasis mine.] However, in the operating environment at that time for the Ark, I would imagine there were very few obstructions and other vessels that could cause damage.
"Therefore, from the information supplied, it is my opinion that the Ark is structurally sound, and has sufficient stability and buoyancy for the cargo carried. Water-tight integrity is not present, but is not required."
Yeah, well, that last paragraph is the same sort of complacent attitude that the designer of the Tay Bridge, Sir Thomas Bouch, had when he neglected to take into account wind loading on the bridge.
Furthermore, JD, before you spout any more nonsense here, consider this...
St. Augustine of Hippo:
It not infrequently happens that something about the Earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the Sun and Moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.
–- De Genesi ad literam 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [A.D. 408].
Came across this link today that answers most of the questions, including that of the animals. Link
OT- Is this the longest thread you've ever had Lunk?
Yes, this is the longest thread.
And again, you go to a Xtian APOLOGETICS site to verify your truth. Of fucking course they will say it's all true, because they already believe it and will lie through their teeth to support it, no matter how much evidence is against it.
Find a site from a non-religious university that says a global flood happened. Or that the ark could carry everything. I think that as a field of study related to reality, this has been given up as a fantasy over 50 years ago!
JD, that link that I had provided above to the Uncyclopedia spoof article on "The Great Flood" makes more sense than that Christian Apologetics & Research(!) Ministry article on "Could Noah's Ark Hold all the Animals?" -- which is 100% certified, steaming hot pile of male bovine excrement!
The 'science' in that CARM article is like they are talking to a classroom of fucking third-graders (Pardon my French, Larian) in bloody Sunday school! WTF are those guys smoking to come up with such a load of bollocks?
Take this from that article: "The total number of mammals would be 3,700 times two pair which equals 7,400 animals. 7,400 divided by 240 = 31 boxcars used.
[...]
"The total number of boxcars used would be 318 with a total number of animals at 145,400."
Now, where there are animals, there is animal shit, so do those guys at CARM have any bloody idea how much manure a typical dairy farm or zoo produces?
Well, according to this PDF file, an animal unit is a 1000 pound (455 kg) animal, frequently taken as one market-weight beef animal. Each animal generates approximately 50 to 60 pounds (~25 kg) of manure per day. So, the waste load for 1000 animal units is about 21,000,000 lbs (~9545 tonnes) of manure per year, which is over 25 tonnes per day -- that's one helluva shit load!
From those figures, one animal unit equals 1,000 lbs of the live weight of an animal; e.g., four 1,250-pound cows equal 5 "animal units" of cattle, while 125 eight-pound chickens make up 1 "animal unit" of chicken.
By that measure, one animal unit of chickens produces an average of 15.24 tonnes of manure each year, fattened cattle 10.78 tonnes per year and dairy cows 15.52 tonnes per year. In comparison, one "animal unit" of humans produces a mere 5.58 tonnes of waste per year.
There's also another problem: Manure Gas Dangers; people often believe that animal manure is harmless, but in truth it can be quite hazardous and can release over 400 separate gases -- the principle gases released are hydrogen sulfide, methane, ammonia, and carbon dioxide.
Now just imagine trying to 'slop out' in that confined and inadequately ventilated environment on a daily basis!
Now, where there are animals, there is animal shit, so do those guys at CARM have any bloody idea how much manure a typical dairy farm or zoo produces?
Youre really overthinking this Ivan. Given that the plans for the Ark called for only one entrance/window, might the conditions have been ripe to induce a condition known as hibernation to occur, thus taking care of feeding/waste issues that might have arisen aboard the Ark?
Hey Happy Ass! (Lunk) I just posted something over at my blog that I would like to get your professional opinion about. Check out tody's entry.
Made my comment. :)
Hibernations STILL doesn't solve the problem that there physically isn't even enough room to carry ONE of each animal of the planet.
Ivan, you are free to use whatever language you want. French, English, or even that funny "British" language.
JD, only some animals -- bats, some species of ground squirrels and other rodents, mouse lemurs, the West European Hedgehog and other insectivores, monotremes and marsupials, and even some rattlesnakes -- that have evolved (yes, e-v-o-l-v-e-d -- deal with it!) the ability to hibernate, are able to do so during winter when food suppllies are short.
For instance, hibernating arctic ground squirrels, Spermophilus parryii, may reduce their core body temperatures as low as −2.9 °C (27 °F), maintaining sub-zero body temperature for more than three weeks at a time. Before entering hibernation, most species, with that abilty, eat a large amount of food and store energy in fat deposits in order to survive the winter.
Bears, contrary to popular belief, do not go into "true hibernation". During a bear's winter sleep state, the degree of metabolic depression is much less than that observed in smaller mammals. Many prefer to use the term "denning". The bear's body temperature remains relatively stable (depressed from 37 °C [99 °F] to approximately 31 °C [88 °F]) and it can be easily aroused.
There is, however, a problem with hibernation: the animal is completely inactive, but the body is still alive and still producing waste products, some of which are poisonous if allowed to build up. This means that even a mammal in deep hibernation has to arouse itself at least every couple of weeks to excrete waste products -- just like a drunk, who has had several imperial pints of lager, has to get up several times during the early hours to take a leak.
Earlier one of you (Lunk?) asked if the flood was regional instead of covering the whole Earth, would that be a sign that the Bible was wrong? This Link references places in the Old Testament where the "whole earth" (or kol erets)is used to give you an idea what is meant by the translation from the original Hebrew.
Extract from that article:
"In order to accept a global flood, you must reject Psalm 104 and the inerrancy of the Bible.
[...]
"However, one should note that today we look at everything from a global perspective, whereas the Bible nearly always refers to local geography."
Which means, basically, that the biblical stories are all metaphorical, as stated by St. Augustine above, and not to be taken seriously -- the Bible is just the work of men, not 'god' (I choose not to capitalize that noun, thank-you-very-much!).
the Bible is just the work of men
Did St Augustine say this?
"However, one should note that today we look at everything from a global perspective, whereas the Bible nearly always refers to local geography."
Which probably denotes a poor Hebrew to English translation. I heard an Episcopalian minister recently state that when the King James Bible was being translated, we knew perhaps 2 or 3 different words that a word in Hebrew could translate to. Now that number is up to nine different words. How little we actually know.
From the cited aticle
the Bible declares the Genesis flood to be local in extent,though universal in its judgment of humans (with the exception of Noah and his family).
JD: "'the Bible is just the work of men'
"Did St Augustine say this?"
Not the actual words, but that was what he had implied in De Genesi ad literam 1:19–20.
JD: "From the cited aticle...
'the Bible declares the Genesis flood to be local in extent,though universal in its judgment of humans (with the exception of Noah and his family)'."
What was so special about Noah, anyway? According to Genesis 9:20-25, the "just and righteous" Noah (6:9, 7:1) plants a vineyard, drank the wine and gets totally pissed, and lies around naked in his tent. His son, Ham, happens to see his father in this condition. When Noah sobers up and hears "what his young son had done unto him" (WTF did he do besides look at him?), he curses not Ham, who "saw the nakedness of his father", but Ham's son, Canaan. "A servant of servants shall he [Canaan] be unto his brethren". This is a typical case of biblical justice, and is one of many Bible passages that have been used to justify slavery.
P.S. For an illustrated version of Noah's insobriety, click here.
Now you're just being silly. The Biblical account relates that the guy got drunk. This is just one example where we can see the fallibility of different characters in the Bible. If there was alot of tampering with the original documents, one would assume that there would be a thorough scrubbing of various people in the Bible however their less than perfect descriptions are left in there for us to see. Warts and all.
I have a tendency to be silly after reading silly stories -- ask a silly question, you will get a silly answer; garbage in, garbage out!
You know what Ivan? You've piqued my interest a little. I'm going to write to a professor of New Testament and find out if there was something more specific in the "mustard seed" translation in order to examine the passage further. Will keep you posted.
I just posted 1 more time to give this thread the magic number of "70" Lunkhead :-)
Post a Comment