SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the you-both-get-dirty-and-the-pig-likes-it dept.
McGruber writes:
"Following up on the Bil Nye and Ken Ham debate on Creationism, Creation Museum founder Ken Ham announced Thursday that a municipal bond offering has raised enough money to begin construction on the Ark Encounter project, estimated to cost about $73 million. Groundbreaking is planned for May and the ark is expected to be finished by the summer of 2016. Ham credits the high-profile evolution debate he had with "Science Guy" Bill Nye on Feb. 4 with boosting support for the project.
After learning that the project would move forward, Nye said he was 'heartbroken and sickened for the Commonwealth of Kentucky,' lamenting that the ark would eventually draw more attention to the beliefs of Ham's Young-earth Creationist ministry. 'Voters and taxpayers in Kentucky will eventually see that this is not in their best interest.' Nye hopes."
(Score: 4, Insightful) by EventH0rizon on Saturday March 01 2014, @08:15AM
It really is going to be built.
In retrospect, this may be seen as a turning point in the sad descent into idiotic magical thinking that has gripped the US.
I am so sorry that why of my countrymen is doing this to you guys...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by LaminatorX on Saturday March 01 2014, @08:21AM
What blows my mind is that they're using municipal bonds for it. That seems like red letter state establishing religion.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Saturday March 01 2014, @09:06AM
That was my initial thought as well.
My second thought, as an atheist, is that this is a salient example as to why one should never try to use logic in an attempt to dislodge irrational belief. I mean, that should be self-evident -- just like no amount of rationality will convince a foilhatter that the government isn't using mind reading satellites. As an example, I once had a potential client come into my office, toss a tooth on my desk (and no, I'm not a dentist, IAAL), and say "look at that." I said "okaaay?" He said "you see that?" pointing to discoloration on the base of the tooth. I said "yes??" He said "That's the residue from the mind reading powder and I want you to do something about it." I most definitely did not engage in a rational discussion with him about plaque and how silly the notion of mind reading powder on his tooth was, because really, exactly where would that go? He would redefine my rational arguments into an attempt by a covert government agent, i.e. me (which I really am not), to trick him into thinking it was poor hygiene rather than what he knew it to be, specifically, mind reading powder. Needless to say, I didn't take the case and instead gently focused on getting him to leave.
Religionists are like this potential client -- but it is no use pointing that out. Now, I'm not saying atheists should be silent, it's just wiser to refuse to engage in this type of debate. It is better to be known as an atheist and leave it at that because those who come to their doubts about religion on their own, will find you, and there will be actual conversation. It may lead them to recommit to faith, or to abandon it -- it doesn't really matter -- what matters is that there will be an honest exchange of ideas. However, no such exchange is possible with those wholly committed to an irrational belief system, and any such exchange is just a waste of breath. Sometimes, as seen here, it ends up being more than a waste of breath and instead results in a mammoth waste of resources.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Ezber Bozmak on Saturday March 01 2014, @07:16PM
It is better to be known as an atheist and leave it at that because those who come to their doubts about religion on their own
I think what you wrote is an irrational belief rooted in confirmation bias. The problem here, as in much of life, is that there are no easy answers. Frequently there is no choice available that will have a perfect outcome. As you recognized, Nye's engagement with Ham was never going to change the minds of the fanatics. That option wasn't even on the table. But what was on the table was the potential to influence fence-sitters and anyone else who simply hadn't though very deeply about the issue because that's all the heard growing up. Mainly kids and teens who may be per-disposed to doubt and just need a means to make that doubt more concrete.
You know the saying, "Two steps forward, one step back?" People tend to say that in frustration, but that ignores the fact that the net is still one step forward. This bond issue is the "one step back" and the kids - who have no say in bond issues - are the two steps forward. You just won't see their impact for years.
Besides, who is to say that this ark bond won't turn into a boondoggle and end up getting Ken Ham drummed out of town? That he hasn't bit off more than he can chew? As the bible says, "pride comes before the fall."
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Saturday March 01 2014, @02:27PM
It is, but this is an area of the country where "not establishing a religion" means that they'll accept any path to accepting Jesus as your personal lord and savior. And they know they don't have a leg to stand on, but they'll talk about it in terms of bringing business and tourism to their city and try to get away with it that way. If the project gets shut down, Ken Ham and his crew will generate even more cash with their cries that those evil secularists in Washington are oppressing them (by making them follow the same rules as everyone else).
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by bill_mcgonigle on Tuesday March 04 2014, @05:04PM
Indeed. This seems like an awesome archeo-engineering undertaking and I'd buy tickets to see it. Yet I find the use of citizen bondage completely unacceptable.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by RobotMonster on Saturday March 01 2014, @08:26AM
It should nicely demonstrate practical problems with the myth. :-)
I somehow doubt the ark will be self-sufficient with regards to food for the animals or the staff.
Indeed, some of the animals will apparently be robotic, which is pretty funny as they want to build the thing with wooden pegs instead of nails....
The number of animals they're able to fit in the thing should nicely demonstrate a lack of variety.
Only two of each animal should lead to serious genetic problems with subsequent generations.
Seems to me this project is a brilliant example of irony in action.
Personally I prefer Ned Flander's ark, where he had two of each animal, but only boys, to prevent any hanky-panky
(Score: 3, Funny) by nobbis on Saturday March 01 2014, @08:28AM
Ned turned out to be a Gay rights activist ? who would have thought it.
It's easy to look up when your mind's in the gutter
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Saturday March 01 2014, @09:49AM
Presumably they won't try to move it on the ocean as it would deform and probably break in two like previous very large wooden ships have. I expect it will get hosed down in chemical preservatives that obviously would not have existed back in Noah's time, lest it rot away in short order. Are they going to build it without modern machinery like cranes? Considering the technology and number of labourers available to Noah that would be a quite incredible feat, in the literal sense of the word.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by lubricus on Saturday March 01 2014, @10:48AM
Creationists simply adapt their story.
For example, in regards to the lack of variety, creationists no longer claim 2 of each species, now they simply claim 10,000 "kinds" whatever that means. This is because they will always claim a monopoly on the interpretation of the bible.
I think the only way to address this is at the educational level, which is why it's so important to fight bad textbooks and non-scientific science curricula at the state level.
... sorry about the typos
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Pslytely Psycho on Saturday March 01 2014, @11:15AM
"Creationists simply adapt their story.
For example, in regards to the lack of variety, creationists no longer claim 2 of each species, now they simply claim 10,000 "kinds" whatever that means. This is because they will always claim a monopoly on the interpretation of the bible."
Beautiful....just beutiful. So now rather than letting people think of zoology in terms of "what fauna is local to my area and the zoo" they can give an example more like "imagine the largest zoo on earth, and then multiply it by 10 and you have the minimum size of Noahs Ark."
I don't think that helps their case much....
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Pslytely Psycho on Saturday March 01 2014, @11:32AM
I wasn't too far off for numbers I just pulled out of my ass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoologischer_Garten_B erlin [wikipedia.org]
20,500 animals but only 1500 species.
So since it is 84 acres, lets see, minimize the space down to cruel as fuck, make it four levels deep, maybe the 10K worth of animals could fit into an ark of maybe 30 or 40 acres...an aircraft carrier is about 3.5 acres.....and made of steel...so, uh, yeah, even make it more cruel and say 20 acres...oh shit, I forgot about food storage for 40 days at sea and a few years to desalinate the soil and grow food, even if the salinity was reduced by volume and you could use the soil, a full season to plant and harvest. Damn, I forgot to add seed storage as well.....
Yeah, fuck all! This is totally doable! (pulls groin from laughing)
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Pslytely Psycho on Saturday March 01 2014, @11:42AM
Damn, I forgot WATER. Noah must of had a nuclear powered de-salination system.
Excuse me, GOD powered de-salination system.
Water brings in a whole new problem unless the dilution was enough to render it passebly potable. (Math whiz problem of the week!)
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Ryuugami on Saturday March 01 2014, @04:13PM
Of course, the other problems still stand...
(GNPS [Grammar Nazi PS]: "Must've". Not "must of".)
If a shit storm's on the horizon, it's good to know far enough ahead you can at least bring along an umbrella. - D.Weber
(Score: 1) by monster on Wednesday March 05 2014, @11:30AM
Well, if he was capable of sustaining a whole nation in the desert for years just by raining manna and no word of water, sure he would be able to support the animals in the ark for 40 days without any food or water. Even more, that way the ark also wouldn't need sanitaries (otherwise keeping the ark clean would be a hell of a job!).
I mean, once you put an all-capable being in the story, why limit your options?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bucc5062 on Saturday March 01 2014, @01:02PM
I have this problem with the story of Noah. Let's skip over the salient facts and look at hwhat was going on in the first place. God is really pissed off at mankind. SO upset that he decides to exterminate the whole population, but for one pious family. Okay, I'm down with that for it sure is easy to get that pissed off and human beings and let's face it, there are one or two diamonds in the sully pile.
But what I don't get is why kill off the animals. God instructs to take two of each, according to their kind then what, he commits general extermination of the rest? What did those animals do? Are they not a part of God's creatures (and creation). Since this is God he clearly could have taken steps to save all the animals, let Noah build his ark for the family and then start on the great washing machine.
This is why the story is unbelievable. It is a story that actually reduces the power of God, not enhances it. A more acceptable version is that Noah and his family were taken up into a space ship. A very large ship that housed samples of animals from Earth. They were taken for the ares where they lived was prone to flooding and predicting the event, the Aliens had time to only rescue Noah. Once the flood receded they were dropped back down to earth where in short time they came across other survivors. With no reference point at all, they could only describe their experience as then told in the story. How does God fit in...he sent the Aliens to be there at just the right time. Now that is more God like.
The more things change, the more they look the same
(Score: 3, Funny) by Pslytely Psycho on Saturday March 01 2014, @03:30PM
Hehehehe. I like. (;
Funny, my problem with the story is it's utter complexity.
The way I see it...
God is all powerful.
Man is not.
God has a bad hair day, decides to commit genocide because he's a petulent 4 year old at heart. Decides he likes a few and won't kill them because they make a great beer or something...
choice A: flood the world, drown everything, major cleanup, wasted resources, big headache arranging for it all OR
choice B: God snaps fingers. everyone he doesn't like dies. The lions are fed well tonight.
If he picks choice A, it proves he is a psychotic sadist.
If he picks choice B, it proves he a compassionet psychopath.
But he loves you!!!
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 01 2014, @03:33PM
With regard to animal well-being, animal rights wasn't really a concept back then. Exterminating untold trillions of animals perhaps wasn't viewed as having any moral downside. It's only modern people, who have internalized the notion that animal's have some rights, that would view God's actions in that story as being immoral. (This is of course just the tip of the iceberg in terms of how God's ancient actions, viewed modernly, are evil.)
With regard to the power of God, I don't think the christian God was viewed as omnipotent back in the day. For one thing, the world was polytheistic; religions were fighting about whose God/Gods were better, but they often accepted that the other Gods were real. (Even some bible passages suggest that the other Gods were real, just not 'the right God'.) In this context, Gods were not viewed as omnipotent: merely extremely powerful. So the ancient version of the Christian God actually could not just magically make every human on Earth disappear. He could only use things like floods and volcanoes to enact his fury (or try to persuade humans into waging the wars he wanted, etc.).
The religion has evolved over time, and has been converted into a monotheistic faith that claims God to be omnipotent and omnibenevolent, even though these assertions are directly contradicted by the supposed holy texts.
All of this of course bolsters the case that the story is ludicrous, and that believing in it doesn't make sense. But it additionally calls into question the internal consistency of the whole religion. The modern version of Christianity (even the version of literalists and Creationists) bears little resemblance to what was practised back when the religion was founded.
(Score: 1) by Ezber Bozmak on Saturday March 01 2014, @07:22PM
> But what I don't get is why kill off the animals.
Animals don't have souls, for the purposes of old testament theology they aren't any different from rocks.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by RobotMonster on Saturday March 01 2014, @11:30AM
I'd like to seem them get anywhere near 10,000 "kinds" into a self-sufficient ark. That would be quite impressive!
A quick internet search reveals that the Berlin Zoological Garden (Zoologischer Garten Berlin) has the largest collection of animal species in the world. They have 1,500 different species and around 17,000 animals the zoo. The zoo covers 34 hectares, and is unlikely to grow all its own food.
I think that any attempt to recreate Noah's Ark can only help to highlight the fantastical nature of the tale.
You're right that it is important to fight bad textbooks and non-scientific science curricula, but I think that arming children with the skill of critical thinking attacks the problem at a more fundamental level.
(Score: 1) by Pslytely Psycho on Saturday March 01 2014, @12:22PM
"I think that any attempt to recreate Noah's Ark can only help to highlight the fantastical nature of the tale."
As a poster above pointed out, the will just adapt their story. When it fails it just "proves" man needed God to pull it off. While wasting Millions of public dollars.
That last line is what really disturbs me. Thank (insert favorite diety, demigod, demon, political figure here) I don't live in KY. (hmmm....no...I won't go there.....K...Y....KY....NO, NO, NO, NO!)
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by RobotMonster on Saturday March 01 2014, @12:32PM
Many will adapt their story, hopefully others will become unconvinced.
Yes, this project is an offensive use of public money --unfortunately misusing public money is fairly typical these days. Kleptocracy is almost ubiquitous. :-(
(Score: 2, Interesting) by crAckZ on Saturday March 01 2014, @11:14AM
According to the debate it is animal "kind" which means 2 dogs to cover all k9. 2 feline to cover any cat type animal and so on. I guess 2 mice to cover elephants since they are of the same family as well
(Score: 3, Funny) by SpallsHurgenson on Saturday March 01 2014, @03:07PM
IF only they would continue that train of thought and take it to the logical extreme, they would save a lot of money.
Instead of the 500-foot, $30 million monstrosity, we can get something a lot more manageable:
Noah in a small rowboat with two small mice (mammals), a couple of newts (reptiles, well okay amphibians but this isn't Science), a sack of waterlogged grain (vegetable) and all covered in mold (fungus).
Not as exciting to look at, but an even more impressive example of God's omnipotence. After all, from this limited genepool He will develop all of life's current diversity. It's also much more believable (well, except for that God bit but that was a major flaw in the original concept too).
In fact, for a mere $15 million dollars - half what they are current paying - I am willing to deliver this more realistic interpretation of this divine miracle. Not only will it be a huge savings, but it will silence many of the critics of the project. It's win-win! Ken Ham, please contact me as soon as possible to follow up on this amazing offer! I'll even throw in the mice for free!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by similar_name on Saturday March 01 2014, @11:42AM
(Score: 4, Informative) by RobotMonster on Saturday March 01 2014, @11:58AM
I'm not a religious scholar, but I never got the impression that it was supposed to be a miracle. IIRC God told Noah about the impending flood, and instructed him to put his family to work building and populating the ark so they might survive while God cleansed the world with his mighty flood.
You could argue that the warning was miraculous, and the flood itself, but the Ark itself I thought was supposed to be a "divinely inspired" but otherwise "mundane" creation of the "righteous".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 03 2014, @02:35PM
I believe the miracle involves finding a righteous Jew to build your ship.
(Score: 1) by mrider on Saturday March 01 2014, @03:53PM
The carnivores would have plenty of food... :)
Doctor: "Do you hear voices?"
Me: "Only when my bluetooth is charged."
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 01 2014, @09:05AM
Yeah, but will it run Linux?