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: 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. :-(