The most ethically questionable thing to come along since the Creation Museum is a project to build a full sized replica of Noah’s Ark on an 800 acre site in Kentucky. The Governor, a Democratic, has already earmarked 40 million dollars to the project. Land is being acquired.
The only rational thing going on is that donations have not been coming in. They need over 20 million and have received less than five.
I read somewhere Kentucky’s donation of 40 million is more than its contribution to public education. Maybe they could put education into the Noah’s Ark.
They could do this by requiring the Ark have a science display that would explain why the Noah story did not happen. The display could explain there is not enough total moisture in our atmosphere to cover the earth with more than six or eight inches of water.
The display could also explain how many of the animals put into the fictional ark would have stayed alive by eating other animals on the ark. Thus, by the end of the cruise, only the predators would have been left.
To generate revenue, the park could include activities for children. They could learn how the Noah family fed the ark animals. Parents could buy little stuffed animals their little children could toss into the mouths of robotic bigger animals.
It could also be pointed out that in a real ark, Noah and his family would have been eaten as well.
Again, were you there?
Perhaps they could have fed the animals on Ham sandwiches; Ken not the son because that would have been a Shem and Joan would not like it.
ps. The real Joan did die at Orleans, the rest describes what is possibly the most ridiculous story since the invention of talking snakes.
entech 2:47 “Were you there.” As sort of a “scientific” exercise, we could have a discussion about, if we had been there, how would we have died. By a tiger or lion eating us, a python? It seems like there would have been a lot of competition over our bones–the vultures I think need already dead carcus’–would have been circling in the ark the entire time.
There is a kind of double conundrum here, We couldn’t have been there because only Noah and his immediate family were invited, no unbelievers allowed. So where did the next generation of unbelievers come from? Does this make the question some kind of rhetorical trick? Not possible because our Ken only tells the literal truth based on his literal interpretation of the literal, inerrant and infallible book of genesis. In genesis, according to Ham all the animals and people living in the garden were vegetarians so if we had been there we would have been safe, but of course we couldn’t have been there, for the aforementioned reasons. And then we have the physical limitations of the ark, so perhaps that means that one of every kind meant one canine and one feline and one flying kind, and the multitude of species evolved from the few, this would have happened very quickly, has there been enough time? Some kind of super-evolution. But this would mean that the potential was built in, the perfect design would involve pre-knowledge of this need. This pre-knowledge would be based on knowing that there would be a fall from grace and a descent to nastiness that would mean the necessity to drown all the evil doers but still allow for the multiplex life forms that we have today, probably also an idea that the descent would begin again. Oops, forgot something, only one flying kind can’t be right because we had different flyers been sent out to find land, after the waters had gone (where had the water gone, didn’t catch that bit).
Perhaps thinking about it is a bad thing, look at the convoluted mess I got into there, Just take it all as written and find your answers in genesis (but don’t do it with reason, just faith, remember as someone once said ‘reason is the enemy of faith’). Sorry Jon my scientific exercise got me a bit lost and circular, but circularity is probably part of it anyway.
Beyond my Ken, too complicated a good design would have made everything simple.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, Jon. That’s so funny. I’m Rofl-ing. (hoping I got that internet speak right)
I’ve got a bridge to sell ya!
Ha, ha, ha, lol
“the waters . . . increased greatly . . . and the mountains were covered” (Genesis 7:18-20).
Mt. Everest and the Himalayan range, along with the Alps, the Rockies, the Appalachians, the Andes, and most of the world’s other mountains are composed of ocean-bottom sediments, full of marine fossils laid down by the Flood. Mt. Everest itself has clam fossils at its summit. These rock layers cover an extensive area, including much of Asia. They give every indication of resulting from cataclysmic water processes. These are the kinds of deposits we would expect to result from the worldwide, world-destroying Flood of Noah’s day.
Or, simply the result of geological instability, you know, how we get earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis even now. Any one like a plate of tectonics, handy for feeding the gods, keep them happy.
The Resource for Answering the Critics of Noah’s Flood
http://www.icr.org/articles/view/402/307/
Interesting but “it does not compute”
from “What Initiated the Flood Cataclysm?”
Our study suggests it is plausible from a material science standpoint that the earth, as originally created by God, could have been close to the point of instability …
but from “what we believe”
Since the universe and its primary components were created perfect for their purposes in the beginning by a competent and volitional Creator …
From this I read that we have “a perfect earth that was created almost unstable”, it does not compute.
Again from “what we believe”
The universe and life have somehow been impaired since the completion of creation, so that imperfections in structure, disease, aging, extinctions, and other such phenomena are the result of “negative” changes in properties and processes occurring in an originally-perfect created order.
The ultimate cop-out, such a coverall excuse for any contrary argument demonstrates that by trying to explain everything you explain nothing, any exception can be explained away, just have faith. In science there is a simple rule if you find an exception then your theory is wrong, very simple wrong, you need to rethink the theory totally – you may finish up close to the original and demonstrate that a mistake had been made, but you start again. Creation science is not science you start with the answer and massage everything to fit.
Michael 6:34 “The Resource for Answering the Critics of Noah’s Flood.”
I read this but it seemed to skip over all kinds of details that would be important make the Noah story credible. Yes, eight people might be able to scoop the manure out for thousands of animals. Any, yes it might be possible for those eight people to breed and raise enough insects to keep alive all the birds that required live insects for their diet. I guess we have to buy his book to read about how they caputured the swallows and bats, determined the sex of thousands of species and well…I could go on with the practical omissions.
Jon…here is a random thought for you to ponder…….Is it worse for a Christian to not approve of two gays holding hands walking down a street, or for a freethinker to make fun of another “freethinker,” who believes in Christ, by comparing his beliefs to the equivalent of a flying spaghetti monster? It seems you have a very clear idea of how to pass judgment on others, but have little tolerance for others who pass judgment when those beliefs or judgments are contrary to yours? It kind of makes your whole concept or freethinking and acceptance seem a bit hypocritical? This is why most atheists do not support your freethinking…..you have a hard time understanding that we Christians, even in our 60′s, 70′s and 80′s……are content being free thinking….and believing. May you find peace.
Just wondering 6:37 Thanks for coming onto the site to comment. Your comments are welcome here.
You your point is an interesting one that is raised here often. Am I as rejudiced against religious ideas as religious people are against the ideas of those who do not believe?
What I like to think I am doing, though others like yourself are free to disagree with, is raising questions about incredible and unlikely events portrayed in the Bible. If the events so portrayed are, in fact, logical, reasonable and believible, I hope some evidence of that would be presented to counter what I have written about.
That being said, any other comments are welcome as well.
I often ask people to define their terms, so I was just wondering ‘just wondering’ how you would define “freethinker”, and how you would fit into your definition?
I am being presumptuous here in assuming that Jon would accept the Merriam-Webster definition
: one who forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority; especially : one who doubts or denies religious dogma.
Further that Jon would accept the words of philosopher and mathematician w. Clifford who put it succinctly when he said “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”. I would further assume that he would not accept words written long ago by unknown authors (biblical scholarship and textual analysis has difficult with authorship) as ‘sufficient evidence’.
So how do you describe your idea of a “Christian Freethinker” ?
Which is worse? The Christian (and other followers in belief in the words of writings said to derive from the same source, the same entity) lack of approval leads indirectly by driving towards suicide, or, directly by the death penalty, to the destruction of fellow human beings. I have not heard of anyone dying in the name of the ‘Flying Spaghetti Monster”, the “Tooth Fairy” or whatever fantasy figure people might dream up to describe a counter to you own idea of a “Supreme Being”. Which is worse mockery or murder?
This is why most atheists do not support your freethinking….. What do you mean by this strange statement, what is the basis? It appears that most Christian writers on this forum automatically conflate the two. The words are used virtually interchangeably.
entech 11:48 It is always wrong, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insuffienct evidence..” (W. Clifford.)
Thank you for an excellent post.
Atheists should have their own “Atheist Theme Park.”
Science is so wonderful, has so many questions, awe inspiring, it would be a great park. There could be a cosmology display with a roller coaster ride starting with what is known about the “big expansion” then through time to our own magnificent solar system, then through a black hole (scientists have recorded what a black hole sounds like) with a visual of how it gets really weird at the event horizon. Then you ride next to a pulsar, or an exploding super nova, perhaps end with how the universe is expanding and someday everything will go extremely cold and dark.
And evolution display, including what is known so far about our own primate journey.
There could be all kinds of wonderful reason orientated displays and rides and so on.
Science museums and centers are awesome.
If you are religious, religion is your personal business. Freedom is our collective and personal interests. What I don’t get is why people make it a lifelong hobby obbsessing over something they “don’t believe in”. As far as school goes, I’m pretty sure public education pulled the wool over my eyes and made me more or less stupid. You’re like a drunk off the booze addicted to AA meetings dwelling on what makes you miserable day in and day out.
Friend of Lubka 2:06 Thanks for the comment.
There are some folks who commmented about this blog who say it is too judgemental about those who believe.
In a perfect world, it would never occcur to me to blog about religion at all. I would not encounter it at public meetings or hear about faith from candidates for public office.
Religion does seems to come up a lot in these contexts. That’s why it comes up here.
The “Days of Noah”, the flood, and gay “marriage”:
http://gcmwatch.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/gay-marriage-the-days-of-noah-return/
Atheists, humanists, secularists, modernists hate the testimony of the flood. And what is that testimony? That God judges sin.
It gets better and better, never mind the ultra orthodox settlers in Israel and their Christian Zionists cohorts trying to fulfil some prophecy and bring on Armageddon it is the nerve of the Homosexuals that are going to bring on the wrath and the new flood because they want some kind of recognition that they too are human and children of the same imagination. Let’s bring on the end of this disgusting place and go to a life of pure, holy spirituality where there is no flesh to have the sins of the flesh.
Start a new movement “Gays for Armageddon”.
Or, perhaps, we could just try and give sanity a chance.
entech: Thought you might like this one:
A Must read for Christian warmongers. As you do consider Proverbs 28:10 “He who leads the upright astray in an evil way Will himself fall into his own pit, But the blameless will inherit good.”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30574.htm
You just got up and I am going to bed, will read properly and comment later.
But I will say I don’t really think your proverbs are relevant to the real world, that is not to say that many of them do not have an element of truth and commonsense just that I don’t think any scripture is of divine origin. I don’t have to accept what any man tells me what their god wants me to do, say or think is relevant, if such a being exists tell me directly.
Michael 12:23 While David sleeps I’ll pitch in. I see from the site you included a series of religious people, including former President W. Bush want to invade Iran to hasten the Second Coming. Then, there are those who think the time has been moved forward by the evil gay marriage.
So, Michael, are these the ones leading the “upright astray in an evil way”, or is it the peaceniks (like me) who think the wars we are in are folly and the ones promoted even more rediculous?
I think of myself as “the blameless (who) will inherit the good.” For some reason, everyone thinks this about themselves.
I think Jon covered it.
But which god/goddess Michael. And what about the babies and children and grandmas and other people of Noah’s time, who surely did not deserve what god did to them, which is kill them ahead of their time for other people’s crime.
That’s a sick god and story really.