ARK Encounter opens today!

[MongGrel]

Since when?

That's a joke, right ?

 

[justoh]

nope

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It's possible that you're some unicorn to which the typical rules of human interaction don't apply. If that's the case, then surely you can illustrate the uniqueness of your situation with examples of a routine where science trumps politics and authority and so on at every turn.

No, I'm sorry, you seem to have forgotten that I have called your claim into question for lack of evidence. Don't shirk your burden and try shifting it to me.

For the near totality of us rubes stuck in the irrational ages, life is largely a matter of following convention, abiding the bureaucracy, and toeing the party line. And you might notice that comes from someone who hardly favors that sort of thing.

I repeat: Speak for yourself.

The point of contention here is that the anti-religious believe they they're clearly distinguished from the religious. I'm glad you agree in this case they're no different.

The same thing that the previous sentence does.

Y'know, I've been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but now I feel quite comfortable saying the following:

Fuck you, I said no such thing. Your "arguments" are nothing more than pathetic misanthropic wallowing. Grow up.

 

[justoh]

Even the man who has the patience to debate Rob M can't handle this guy's nonsense...

 

[agent00f]

No, I'm sorry, you seem to have forgotten that I have called your claim into question for lack of evidence. Don't shirk your burden and try shifting it to me.


I repeat: Speak for yourself.

No, I'm pretty it's the anti-religious's contention that they're substantially distinct from the religious.

I'm also pretty sure that unicorns are not falsifiable, so you're asking for something you criticize the religious for.

Y'know, I've been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but now I feel quite comfortable saying the following:

Fuck you, I said no such thing. Your "arguments" are nothing more than pathetic misanthropic wallowing. Grow up.

To recap, my position is that empiricism/naturalism or whatever make relatively little difference between actual lives of the two groups, constrained as they are mostly by shared social constructs. You literally illustrate there's no difference at all in a sense, then get angry at me.

 

[dawp]

I'll just leave this here:

http://interactive.nydailynews.com/2016/07/liberal-redneck-trae-crowder-100m-noahs-ark/

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

No, I'm pretty it's the anti-religious's contention that they're substantially distinct from the religious.

I'm also pretty sure that unicorns are not falsifiable, so you're asking for something you criticize the religious for.

Ok you can just fuck right off with your bullshit dodging. Nobody is buying it. I responded to your unsupported claims, not the other way around. Suck it up, buttercup.

To recap, my position is that empiricism/naturalism or whatever make relatively little difference between actual lives of the two groups, constrained as they are mostly by shared social constructs. You literally illustrate there's no difference at all in a sense, then get angry at me.

If you think that, it is because you haven't the foggiest idea what I have argued, and that's probably because you have your head so far up your ass you're chewing your lunch a second time.

It isn't strictly empricism/naturalism that makes the difference. It's the absence of dogmatic belief in supernatural phenomena particular to religions that makes the difference. You've argued that secular ideologies treat empiricism the way that religions treat supernatural dogma, and that very idea is outright laughable.

I stand by my earlier assessment that your "arguments" are nothing more than hipster-esque misanthropic wallowing for the sake of "edginess." It's pathetic.

 

[agent00f]

Ok you can just fuck right off with your bullshit dodging. Nobody is buying it. I responded to your unsupported claims, not the other way around. Suck it up, buttercup.

I presented the most charitable case possible with a ivory tower scientist, but you ignored that so you can be expected to ignore anything else inconvenient.

If you think that, it is because you haven't the foggiest idea what I have argued, and that's probably because you have your head so far up your ass you're chewing your lunch a second time.

It isn't strictly empricism/naturalism that makes the difference. It's the absence of dogmatic belief in supernatural phenomena particular to religions that makes the difference. You've argued that secular ideologies treat empiricism the way that religions treat supernatural dogma, and that very idea is outright laughable.

I stand by my earlier assessment that your "arguments" are nothing more than hipster-esque misanthropic wallowing for the sake of "edginess." It's pathetic.

I think you should more carefully observe how decision making or such is done in religious institutions. Like the bishop or whoever has to pick candidates for a position, and I imagine you think he's literally consulting the bible or waiting for a sign from god to choose between them.

It's rather more like "god's will" imparted through these authority figures is akin to faith in the will of the invisible hand, or whatever else you want to believe, that ultimately produces the authority of your boss over you. Think that's rhetorical bullshit? Try empirically unending that authority, however rationally & righteously, then observe how the system excommunicates the nonbelievers.

 

[Meghan54]

I stand by my earlier assessment that your "arguments" are nothing more than hipster-esque misanthropic wallowing for the sake of "edginess." It's pathetic.

His spiel kind of reminds me of the scene in Animal House where Pinto gets stoned for the first time in his life while at Professor Jennings's house.



Pinto: I won't go schizo, will I?


Jennings: It's a distinct possibility.






Pinto: OK, so that means that our whole solar system could be like one tiny atom in the fingernail of some other giant being. This is nuts! That means that one tiny atom in my fingernail could be...

Jennings: ...could be one tiny little universe!


Pinto: Can I buy some pot from you?

 

[Eli]

I would support this attraction if they gave everybody free LSD at the door.

The folks who think this exhibit has any basis in reality are the ones who could use a nice trip the most.... 😀

 

[MongGrel]

I would support this attraction if they gave everybody free LSD at the door.

The folks who think this exhibit has any basis in reality are the ones who could use a nice trip the most.... 😀

:thumbsup:

 

[agent00f]

His spiel kind of reminds me of the scene in Animal House where Pinto gets stoned for the first time in his life while at Professor Jennings's house.

Pinto: I won't go schizo, will I?

Jennings: It's a distinct possibility.

Pinto: OK, so that means that our whole solar system could be like one tiny atom in the fingernail of some other giant being. This is nuts! That means that one tiny atom in my fingernail could be...

Jennings: ...could be one tiny little universe!


Pinto: Can I buy some pot from you?

I imagine it's about as difficult for life-long participants in other institutions to become aware of their artificial constrictions, as the religious find for theirs.

For example, numerous preeminent anti-religious fanatics like Hitchens or S. Harris rather blatantly worship at the alter of the state, ie will concoct any amount of intellectual dishonesty to protect institutions which dispenses some benefits to them. It's particularly interesting in Hitchens case because he was a late convert, born again into a largely similar kind of church.

What's interesting is they can't be accused of being particularly unintelligent, which infers it's a cognitive flaw inherent to the human condition.

 

[bshole]

No, I'm pretty it's the anti-religious's contention that they're substantially distinct from the religious.

I'm also pretty sure that unicorns are not falsifiable, so you're asking for something you criticize the religious for.

To recap, my position is that empiricism/naturalism or whatever make relatively little difference between actual lives of the two groups, constrained as they are mostly by shared social constructs. You literally illustrate there's no difference at all in a sense, then get angry at me.

I guess that would depend on what your definition of "relatively little difference" was.

Empiricism gives us TVs, cars, jets, computers, DNA analysis, pace makers, MRIs, ICs, tractors, etc.... and religion gives us a warm feeling. I would define the differences as cavernous but I accept that you don't. It is ironic is it not that you accept the fruits of empiricism while rejecting the reality of it?

 

[JulesMaximus]

I remember having a conversation with my Mom once about this program I watched about Mt Everest. They found the rock up there was once at the bottom of the sea floor and she chimed in, "Oh, is that because of the flood from the bible?"

Um, no Mom. It's because of plate tectonics.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I remember having a conversation with my Mom once about this program I watched about Mt Everest. They found the rock up there was once at the bottom of the sea floor and she chimed in, "Oh, is that because of the flood from the bible?"

Um, no Mom. It's because of plate tectonics.

:awe:

 

[agent00f]

I guess that would depend on what your definition of "relatively little difference" was.

Empiricism gives us TVs, cars, jets, computers, DNA analysis, pace makers, MRIs, ICs, tractors, etc.... and religion gives us a warm feeling. I would define the differences as cavernous but I accept that you don't. It is ironic is it not that you accept the fruits of empiricism while rejecting the reality of it?

I'm not arguing the merits of empiricism but rather the prevalence & power of authoritative social systems.

The central point is that anti-religious self-professed rationalists are drawing the battle lines entirely wrong. The reason why the church has/had power isn't due to particularly convincing fairy tales, but because they happened to be associated with an effective (ie evolutionarily advantageous) system of social organization. The nation state for example has many if not most of the same flaws that inspire true belief (see any number of devout jingoists as most obvious sign), but tend to be even better organized in much the same way thus pushing out a competitor.

It's very hard for those who grow up through these systems to recognize them for what they are.

 

[bshole]

I'm not arguing the merits of empiricism but rather the prevalence & power of authoritative social systems.

The central point is that anti-religious self-professed rationalists are drawing the battle lines entirely wrong. The reason why the church has/had power isn't due to particularly convincing fairy tales, but because they happened to be associated with an effective (ie evolutionarily advantageous) system of social organization. The nation state for example has many if not most of the same flaws that inspire true belief (see any number of devout jingoists as most obvious sign), but tend to be even better organized in much the same way thus pushing out a competitor.

It's very hard for those who grow up through these systems to recognize them for what they are.

The nation state provides tangible benefits. It pools resources to create roads, a military to protect from invaders, ensure safe food, protect property rights, etc.... without it you have anarchy.

 

[soundforbjt]

So have they actually got two of every animal, insects, etc. represented, even those that haven't been discovered yet?

 

[Puffnstuff]

I actually hope that an EF5 tornado sucks that ark up and turns it into kindling.

 

[bshole]

So have they actually got two of every animal, insects, etc. represented, even those that haven't been discovered yet?

Like I said before, they must have had a hell of time rounding up the all the nasty microscopic parasites. Where on the ark were these nasty fuckers stored?

Here is their explanation. They actually argue that God took special care to save the fucking parasites. Thank you God! You are so wonderful. Thanks for taking special care of the parasites (even though you didn't save them in pairs like you said you would)!

Notice that they don't believe in macro-evolution but use it as explanation for this. The cognitive dissonance...... the cognitive dissonance.....

(1) Specialization of the Pathogen
By this means, some disease-causing organisms may have been much less particular about their chosen host, and could thus have come through the Flood in some of the tens of thousands of animal species carried on board the Ark (just as today, tuberculosis carried in cattle can infect human beings), only later ‘devolving’ (specializing) into their present ‘human-only’ status. (See also the Appendix.) Alternatively, some which now only survive inside a human body may have been robust enough to survive outside of any host.

There are many disease-causing organisms today (for example, those causing tetanus and anthrax) which can form very hardy, durable spores, enabling them to survive a range of conditions outside the body. Many parasites of man such as tapeworms have intermediate host stages in various animals such as pigs and cattle, which could have carried the disease through the Flood. Those which do not now may have simply become too specialized, and may formerly have been capable of infecting an intermediate host. Also, the apparent dependence of some tapeworms on humans for the adult, egg-producing stage could be another case of specialization, as similar tapeworm species can use other hosts to complete their life-cycle.

(2) Mutational ‘Horizontal Evolution’
This is likely to be relevant for viruses in particular. Random changes (for example, mutations) have never been shown to generate significant amounts of new teleonomic (functional, project-oriented) information. Thus they do not create a new organism, or cause any true (uphill) ‘evolution’. However, it only takes an informationally insignificant accidental change in the protein coat of a virus to vary the way it is recognized by an immune system and cause a major shift in infectivity.3 Thus, a harmless green monkey virus may begin causing serious illness in humans.

A virus is nothing much more than a protein coat and a single packet of information (RNA or DNA). It has no complex cellular machinery, and should not really be called ‘alive’. It hijacks the machinery of an existing cell. In computer language, it is really analogous to a piece of ‘software’ which modifies the software of a living cell so that the ‘hardware’ of that cell can make copies of the virus ‘software’. It is a program for making copies of itself using machinery it does not possess. Since in evolutionary theory, fully fledged cells had to exist before viruses, the latter are not some evolutionary intermediate between life and non-life. Mutational shifts in viruses are not on the way up to a ‘higher’ form of life—a virus has never been observed to give rise to anything other than a virus. No informed evolutionist should use mutational change in viruses as a defence of molecules-to-man evolution.

Common viral diseases of today may well have ‘evolved’ from animal diseases. Thus, far from Noah’s family having measles, this affliction probably did not exist at the time. A recent New Scientist report states that:

‘Just as historians such as William McNeill, of the University of Chicago, and other researchers trace smallpox back to cowpox, so measles probably evolved from rinderpest or canine distemper, and influenza from hog diseases.’4

(3) Carriage by a Symptomless Host
Natural immunity in a particular host organism can mean that a disease organism can be carried without the host suffering any ill effects. Of course, this could only apply to a few diseases at most in such a small human population, but certainly adds one more option for survival of diseases. Virologists have speculated that the HIV-AIDS virus may have existed in a small, naturally resistant population for many years before clinical AIDS ever occurred.5 It also seems that monkeys can be born carrying four viruses in their brain without ill effect.6

A number of viruses are known to set up symptomless carrier states. For example, the chicken pox/shingles virus (herpes zoster) is generally carried to the grave after infection.

Furthermore, the declining lifespans of humans after the Flood may indicate an overall degeneration, such that Noah’s family may have had a lot more host immunity to diseases which now cannot be asymptomatically carried.

Some disease organisms today can be carried in one part of the body, but cause disease if in another (for example, the yeast which causes vaginal ‘thrush’ is usually carried harmlessly in the intestine.) Also, some organisms only cause disease when there is a reduction in the population of beneficial germs, for instance in the intestine. The effectiveness of this way of a person being protected from an organism they were carrying by means of a flourishing population of healthy ‘good’ germs may well have decreased after the Flood. The disharmony between man and his environment may have worsened as extinction of some plant species led to dietary restrictions.

(4)Survival Outside a Living Infected Organism
(i)Survival in insect vectors

Today, we know that some disease organisms (for example, the malarial parasite) are carried in, for example, mosquitoes. This raises other questions. Were flying insects part of the ‘creeping things’ which were all sent on board the Ark, or did they have their own ‘arks’ outside, such as huge rafts of matted, floating vegetation? Could the viruses survive within biting insect populations for long enough considering these insects’ life-spans? It should be remembered that not all humans would have perished in the first few weeks of the Flood. Many may have survived for some time, at first on high ground, then on makeshift rafts.

(ii)Survival in human corpses

This could apply especially to those dying in the late stages of the Flood, becoming bloated and floating to shore later. This seems conceivable for some moulds and bacteria—even some viruses have been known to last for decades.7 Of course, organisms then have to have an opportunity to again infect a living person.

(iii)Survival in the dried state

Though some viruses die readily when dry, others survive long periods in the dried state. For example, rabies virus in bat droppings can dry out to become airborne dust, which has infected cave explorers. How does anything stay dry in a worldwide Flood? Some of the floating clumps mentioned earlier may have had dry interior portions—also, some parts of the Ark itself would have provided a dry enough environment.

(iv)Survival through freezing in polar regions

The whole matter of apparent catastrophic snap-freezing of some mammoths in the Arctic circle is controversial as regards whether it was associated with the Flood or a post-Flood event, but it brings to mind the fact that many disease organisms survive well when frozen. In general, the Flood event was probably a warm one, but insufficient modelling has been done to establish what conditions could have been possible at the poles.

Summary

None of the possibilities discussed above is presented as an answer adequate by itself for all the different types of disease organisms. Taken together, however, they demonstrate that the common anti-creationist ‘betcha-can’t-answer’ jeer about a sickly family staggering off the Ark laden with every disease known to man is a caricature which does not do justice to the known facts. Further research and thought on the subject is encouraged.

http://creation.com/diseases-on-the-ark

 

[agent00f]

The nation state provides tangible benefits. It pools resources to create roads, a military to protect from invaders, ensure safe food, protect property rights, etc.... without it you have anarchy.

So did religion, which is why it prospered. This whole affair is like watching a christian calling a muslim a dumbass.

Similarly there's a common specious notion that all the religious are complete dumbfucks who praise be to empiricism were fortunately beaten down by the rise of almighty science. Consider again that the religious did and continue to do science, to see that it's not a technical limitation but ultimately a political one. For example, much of the complex arch of the past was built by the religious for religion which shows they knew how to put the smart nerds to work, and those might as well be moon rockets all glory to god if rockets were a thing back then.

To illustrate with another political example imagine the corp exec who made a bad decision, even fired people over their completely founded criticisms, but at some level recognizes the error and tries to turn the ship around, except slowly and under other pretenses to avoid losing face. That's what the church is doing on any number of "science" issues (and was doing for Galileo who had political support behind the scenes, but he was a stubborn mofo intent on mocking authority with predictable consequences, though I guess that's what made him particularly famous). These orgs are rather common and we work for them.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Actually the bible says that Noah took the animals on board the ark two by two as in male/female pairs. Lower life forms do not constitute animals so I don't believe that they were present. Too bad we can't just put all of the money grubbing preachers on board the ark and equip it with some heavy lift rockets sending it off to some far away off world destination. Let them preach their gospel of prosperity to some Martian rocks or perhaps send them to one of Jupiter's moons. We can even put their personal jets on the deck so they can fly them around once they get there.

 

[jman19]

So have they actually got two of every animal, insects, etc. represented, even those that haven't been discovered yet?

Don't ruin the creationist's trip to Disneyland.

 

[justoh]

Ricky Gervais' take on Noah's Ark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6omFJhKr6o

 

[Meghan54]

Actually the bible says that Noah took the animals on board the ark two by two as in male/female pairs. Lower life forms do not constitute animals so I don't believe that they were present. Too bad we can't just put all of the money grubbing preachers on board the ark and equip it with some heavy lift rockets sending it off to some far away off world destination. Let them preach their gospel of prosperity to some Martian rocks or perhaps send them to one of Jupiter's moons. We can even put their personal jets on the deck so they can fly them around once they get there.

But that's not the whole "story"; there were 7 pairs of every clean animal and 7 pairs of birds, not just one pair as most seem to think, which would substantially increase the number of animals required to be carried on the Ark.


Genesis 7:1-3
7 The Lord then said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation.

2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate,

3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth."