The Druidic Candidate: Can California deal with a Druid for governor?

The Orange County Weekly ^ | March 28, 2002 | Victor D. Infante

[BibChr]

Exactly right, and well-said. It's very much an Emperor's New Clothes situation. Priding themselves on their scientism, they approach any cometing religion with such a case-hardened hostile bias and loaded-deck agenda that the profession of objectivity would be laughable, if it didn't reap such a dire harvest.

Take the guy I'm talking to above. Maybe he has some area of specialty — I don't know, chemistry, genetics, physics. If I came up and threw around the sort of bloated, billowy off-base generalizations about his field of specialty that he's doing about the Bible (about which he clearly knows very little), he mightn't even take the time to respond. But here he's mouthing off to me — with earned degrees in the field and over a quarter-century experience studying in the original languages — and he can't imagine that he has one thing to learn.

It's at this point that one begins to suspect (if one hasn't already done so) that there's more to this than difficulty with facts and evidence. And indeed there is; there *always* is.

And BTW, if you haven't read my essay Why I Am (Still) a Christian, it ges right to what you're saying.

Dan

[Mark Bahner]

What cracks me up about the incredibly arrogant "scientists" (or "better" engineers) is that they fail to acknowledge that the profession (religion?)...

No, profession. Religion is what you Flood fans practice. You get your "science" from a book that NEVER changes. Bwaahahahahaha! "Science" that doesn't change! What a hilarious oxymoron!

...upon which they rely has been wrong so many times in so many ways it is laughable.

Sort of like the Church's goof on the Earth revolving around the sun? (It was soooooo swell of the Pope to recently acknowledge that the Church incorrectly tortured Galileo on that one. I'm sure that brought Galileo great comfort.)

The whole POINT of science--true science, as opposed to oxymoronic "Bible science" (or "BS" for short)--is that in TRUE science, hypotheses are advanced, and are then disproved or bolstered by experimental evidence. This can be contrasted with BS, where the answer is known FIRST ("what's in the Bible is correct") and then only evidence that props up that house of cards is contemplated.

Scientific / engineering failures, miscalculations and flawed observations have casued countless deaths and tremendous amounts of misery.

Interesting that you count failures, but don't seem to recognize that scientific/engineering progress has created more person-years of human life than previously existed from the time homo sapiens evolved (waayyyy more than 6000 years ago) to the dawn of the Enlightenment. Contrary to "Bible Science," the life expenctancy of homo sapiens averaged only 30 years, from the time homo sapiens evolved, to the beginning of the 20th century. Science and engineering have boosted the average life expectancy in the developed world to approximately 80 years (and rising). Science and engineering are also what 6+ billion (and rising) homo sapiens to live on Earth. Thank whatever-Gods-may-be that the Enlightenment broke through the Church-fostered ignorance of the Middle Ages!

Yet, they rely on and promote what they insist is an infallible "scientific method" with a fervor that can only be attrituted to a cult-like faith in their method for obtaining thier personal truth.

1) Who ever told you the scientfic method was infallible? Who but those blinded by religion (e.g., the heirarchy of the Catholic Church) were ever arrogant and ignorant enough to proclaim any man or document infallible?

"Personal truth" is for religion. ("I believe, therefore, it must be true.")

[Mark Bahner]

I hadn't realised until now that I had no right to complain about corruption in the Harry Browne campaigns or in his appropriation of Libertarian Party national office workers on their behalf when the party's nomination had yet to be decided finally, unless I had given money to either party or campaign.

Well, actually, I didn't bother to read farther in your post to see that you actually voted for Harry Browne. If you hadn't voted for Harry Browne, I can not see how you were possibly harmed by his alleged corruption. As it is, you at most wasted a trip to polls. Or if you were going to vote anyway, you were defrauded of your chance to vote for a dead man. Pardon me if I don't see the tremendous harm done to you.

But the fact that you could say that only having made such donations gives one the right to speak against any corruption in any political party says manifestly more about you than ever it can about me.

Yes, it says that: a) I don't have much sympathy for people who claim they are harmed, but can't really demonstrate how that is so, especially since, b) I gave money to both the Libertarian Party and Harry Browne, and still don't feel defrauded. (Though I definitely want Party leaders not to work for specific candidates before nomination, in the future.) (As far as a candidate taking money for personal benefit, I'd need to know the amount before I would comment.)

And, for the record, I am looking for no excuse not to vote for anything or anyone.

Yes, I apologize for writing that you were. I thought you were simply figuring out reasons not to vote Libertarian.

I still maintain that voting for a first class corpse...is a far more respectable vote than voting for live men or women...

It may be "respectable"...but you might just as well stay home, if you're going to vote for corpses. For one thing, as I wrote before, your vote probably won't even be reported to anyone. The whole point of voting is to show the country (anonymously) who you like best among the candidates in the race. If you write in a dead person, no one is going to say, "Whoa...there were 4 write-in votes for Thomas Jefferson...we need to adjust our party platform to match Thomas Jefferson's ideals!"

b) preach a doctrine which includes the precept that power corrupts, while practising a campaign which demonstrates that the quest for power can and does corrupt just as profoundly.

But that's the whole POINT--the whole PRINCIPLE--of the Libertarian Party! We don't WANT power! We want to RETURN power to The People! (Except, for the example of the federal government, where power is absolutely necessary for the DEFENSE of the United States.)

The standard you should judge the Libertarian Party by is whether their candidates FAITHFULLY espouse returning power to The People. (And if they actually carry out that pledge, if elected.) If Harry Browne had said, "You know, I really hate abortion, so I think I WOULD sign a federal law criminalizing partial birth abortion"...THEN Harry Browne would have failed as a Libertarian candidate. And the opposite is true, of course. If Harry Browne had said, "You know, I really support choice, so I think I WOULD support federal funding for abortion...at least in cases of rape or incest"...THEN he would have failed as a Libertarian.

But the fact that he knowingly encouraged Perry Willis to secretly work for him before nomination...or the allegation that he took Libertarian Party money for personal gain...those merely show that the Libertarian principle of getting as much power out of the federal government as possible is a very valid principle.

If Harry Browne was corrupt, that shows that libertarian distrust of government power is valid. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER have confidence in your government representatives (including the dead ones, as Jefferson himself). Once again, follow Jefferson's advice (approximate quote, too lazy to look up actual quote): "Let no more be said of confidence in men, but let them be bound from mischief by the chains of Constitution."

You're wrong to think that you should EVER have confidence in your President. Perpetual mistrust is the best attitude towards ALL elected officials.

[BluesDuke]

Well, actually, I didn't bother to read farther in your post to see that you actually voted for Harry Browne. If you hadn't voted for Harry Browne, I can not see how you were possibly harmed by his alleged corruption.

I suppose I'm not making my salient point clear enough: Any such corruption (it is not alleged, by the way, it is an actual fact; Mr. Browne in due course all but admitted to what he was up to, though from the look of it, based on my readings of the reportage relevant to the issue, he didn't yield it up without a somewhat protracted stall, which looks even worse for him), within any political party, injures every one of that constituency it would deign to try shaping as well as seducing.

I don't have much sympathy for people who claim they are harmed, but can't really demonstrate how that is so...

Please see above, my friend, and tell me which part of how it is that party corruption does inflict a stain upon both a party's membership and the constituency it would try to shape as well as seduce you cannot comprehend. How on earth can a party calling itself "the party of principle" permit if not abet the very kind of political corruption against which it stood honourably enough as part and parcel of its signature philosophy? We would not, one presumes, think lightly or skip benignly by such corruption within the Major Parties; what call or right have we, then, to gloss it over, excuse, or otherwise dismiss in think-nothing-of-it terms, when it appears in that party to which we repaired because the Major Parties betrayed the sociopolitical principles in which we believed so strongly? Without quite demanding Caesar's wife, it seems to me that at minimum this matter deserves far better scrutiny and treatment - and, that those who repair to such a "party of principle" have a minimum right to expect that said party will practise as it preaches in its operative affairs as well as in such affairs of government to which it may well in due course be entrusted.

(As far as a candidate taking money for personal benefit, I'd need to know the amount before I would comment.)

I recall, a very long time ago, Frank Serpico - the New York plainclothes police officer who exposed one of the worst patterns of corruption in the NYPD's history in the early 1970s - involved in a seemingly minor contretemps involving an extremely small amount of money grafted by a cop typical of the sort against which he battled. He was pounced upon post haste by other officers demanding, in effect, "How could you do that to other cops for a lousy two dollars?" "Oh, I see," he is said to have replied. "Just because it's a lousy two dollars, that makes it right?"

"I still maintain that voting for a first class corpse...is a far more respectable vote than voting for live men or women..."...It may be "respectable"...but you might just as well stay home, if you're going to vote for corpses. For one thing, as I wrote before, your vote probably won't even be reported to anyone. The whole point of voting is to show the country (anonymously) who you like best among the candidates in the race. If you write in a dead person, no one is going to say, "Whoa...there were 4 write-in votes for Thomas Jefferson...we need to adjust our party platform to match Thomas Jefferson's ideals!"

Perhaps not. But as I said in an earlier post, I should at least sleep the sleep of the just man who voted as his heart told him right and with no stain upon my hands through the victory of the remaining and perhaps predictable mountebanks. And if I vote for a first class corpse in the race, surely it says something of what I think of the live men and women running the race. And they will win - as if one man matters in the grand scheme of things - without me, surely enough, even as I am certain they lose no sleep by not having my vote.

But that's the whole POINT--the whole PRINCIPLE--of the Libertarian Party! We don't WANT power! We want to RETURN power to The People! (Except, for the example of the federal government, where power is absolutely necessary for the DEFENSE of the United States.)

My quarrel is not with that principle; my quarrel is with the idea that a party which so claims to stand for ennobling principle should yet abide corruption within its own house. Think of the man who crusades against child abuse, even to the point of terrorising families whether or not they have ever abused their children, and then turns out himself to be a child abuser - we should never trust such a man having any sort of authority or influence over our families. Why should we trust a corrupt politician to stand in office against the corruption of political power?

The standard you should judge the Libertarian Party by is whether their candidates FAITHFULLY espouse returning power to The People. (And if they actually carry out that pledge, if elected.)

And how am I to trust a man to carry forth that pledge when he cannot keep even his own political house uncorrupted?

But the fact that he knowingly encouraged Perry Willis to secretly work for him before nomination...or the allegation that he took Libertarian Party money for personal gain...those merely show that the Libertarian principle of getting as much power out of the federal government as possible is a very valid principle.

It shows that, too.

If Harry Browne was corrupt, that shows that libertarian distrust of government power is valid.

No, if Harry Browne is corrupt, it shows that Harry Browne is in no position on any grounds to be entrusted with the kind of responsibility required to address the problem of reducing State power back to its minimally prescribed Constitutional terms. And if the Libertarian Party cannot comprehend this, then neither should the Libertarian Party be entrusted with the parallel responsibility.

You're wrong to think that you should EVER have confidence in your President. Perpetual mistrust is the best attitude towards ALL elected officials.

Under the present, and improperly consecrated State, just so. Under a properly construed government, well, I suppose "confidence" isn't quite the right word. Maybe the better way to put it is, even if and when we get the dismantling of the improperly consecrated State and the restoration of properly construed government, trust your mother but cut the cards. But we are at least entitled to know that we are assigning the task to men and women of at least minimal integrity, if not deities in training...

[bluefish]

Religion is what you Flood fans practice...

Gee, for such a learned scientist, you would think that making assumptions and then drawing certain conclusions without first testing your hypothesis would be against your personal set of rules. For the record, I am not what you would call a "flood fan."

Like the poster to whom you originally started a debate said, most certainly there is some issue here for you. You are way too emotional with respect to your hatred of religion for it to be simply a matter of disbelief. Maybe somebody that claimed to be a Christian did something to you at one time and you are merely projecting your hatred back on the whole church or all who believe, I don't really can't be sure. I sure wish there was some way to test this hypothesis of mine but alas, there is not. Whatever it is, it sure is eating you up inside, isn't it? The evidence is obvious on that statement, as I've seen you launch your attacks on religion in multiple threads. It is a true passion of yours it seems, perhaps even more important than pursuing science (which is something I can very much appreciate, while still recognizing that it is not the final means to any kind of truth).

I'm merely an amused observer here. In your case, I can just see the vitriolic hate spewing from your keyboard. Care to share? What is it about religion and believers that gets you so worked up? Most certainly, science hasn't calmed your fragile state, or you would just smile at the believers and say "that's not for me."

[Mark Bahner]

For the record, I am not what you would call a "flood fan."

So you agree with me that the myth of 600-year-old Noah and his family gathering 2 of EVERY kind of animal onto a huge boat 4000 years ago...and a Flood that killed ALL the animals on earth, including ALL the humans, except for those on the Ark...is just that? A myth?

That was my only point. That Christianity has its myths, too. (Note that I NEVER said that the alleged Resurrection was a myth...I merely asked what evidence had "prooved" the alleged Resurrection to be true.)

"What is it about religion and believers that gets you so worked up? Most certainly, science hasn't calmed your fragile state, or you would just smile at the believers and say 'that's not for me.'"

What gets me "worked up" is:

1) When I think a person of one religion is disrespecting another person's religion. As in the case of a Christian saying, "...this modern version (of Druidism) is a complete fabrication churned up by fanciful, over-imaginative individuals with little theological or historical background, much like Wicca," or

2) When I see believers saying not simply unproven things (like the Resurrection, I've got no problem with that) but things that are so demonstrably false. Like the idea that 4000 years ago, Noah and his family got on a boat with 2 of EVERY kind of animal in the world, and stayed on that boat while ALL the animals (including humans) on earth were drowned in a Flood. But this second item doesn't really get me "worked up." It's just that "a mind is a terrible thing to waste." It saddens me to see such a waste of a rational mind, believing such things in the 21st century.

[Mark Bahner]

I frustrates me when people don't answer MY questions (like, "what were the races of the people on the Ark"?)...so I'll try to answer your questions: :-)

1) "How much storage space would the Ark have required?"--->This depends what was on the Ark, which you'll have to tell me. I read some places that dinosaurs were on the Ark, whereas other places say that the dinosaurs went extinct before The Flood. (About 65 MILLION years before the Flood is the best scientific estimate. :-))

2) "How much storage space did the Ark contain?"---->The Good Book says the Ark was 300 cubits by 50 cubits by 30 cubits, according to some witnesses. That would be about 135 meters long, 23 meters wide, and 13.5 meters high. Total volume: 41,900 cubic meters.

3) How long did Noah have to collect the animals?--->Again, I think the Good Book says 120 years to build the Ark. (God told Noah when Noah was 480 YEARS OLD that a hard rain was gonna fall in 120 years. Why didn't Noah say, "Well, 600 years of life is enough for any man?") But apparently, the Good Book gives Noah an "out" even for this. Apparently, God supernaturally directed the animals to COME to the Ark! :-) What a sight THAT must have been! American bison (aka buffalo) swimming across the Atlantic Ocean! Not to mention what a hassle it must have been for the penguins to cross half the globe.

At this point, I have to ask: Why would any rational adult believe this to be the absolute truth? Why not accept that this was simply a story told a long time ago, with elements of truth--somewhere there was a flood, that killed lots of animals and people--without blindly accepting that ALL the animals were killed, except for those supernaturally directed to the Ark?

4) To gather two each of every species, how many animals would Noah have had to gather, and again of what size and age?---->First of all, the Bible says, "kind" not species. But again, this is your fantasy, not mine. I read one account that said the dinosaurs were on the Ark...but there were really only 30 "kinds" of dinosaurs. (Forget all the species of dinosaurs...only 30 "kinds.")

Reading that account (of how there were really only 30 "kinds" of dinosaurs) reminds me of a Peanuts cartoon. Lucy was teaching Linus "science." Lucy told Linus, "See all the leaves, Linus...they're flying south for the winter." Charlie Brown asked what she was talking about. Lucy said, "When you look at a map, south is down, right? Huh, smartypants? See, Linus, these leaves are flying south for the winter..." Charlie Brown: "Good grief."

5) How did Noah get the animals?---->Again, apparently the animals supernaturally decided to come to the Ark. But why would any rational adult accept that sort of nonsense? Why is it necessary to accept that nonsense in order to believe in Christ's resurrection?

6) What have tests of the seaworthiness of the Ark as described in the Bible (alone) disclosed?--->No one has built a FULL SIZE replica of the Ark. That's what *I* want to see. Build a full size replica of the Ark, using just the tools and materials that were available 4000 years ago in the Middle East (if that's where the Ark was constructed).

Back to real work.

[ZULU]

I might consider it - if he promised to sacrifice Democrats, Liberals and Hollywood stars.

[conserve-it]

TRUE ENOUGH. BARELY GOT A CHANCE TO GET HIS FEET WET.

[BibChr]

I mean to give a more detailed response when I'm online at home, which would be Wed or Thur night at the soonest. But I wanted to say in the meanwhile that you did some really good work there, I appreciate it, and here at my work I am now visibly and symbolically doffing my hat {pause} to you. Shame about your sucky attitude and philosophical bias, but the work you did, I respect, and intend to give you a fuller response ASAP.

Dan

[Mark Bahner]

I mean to give a more detailed response when I'm online at home, which would be Wed or Thur night at the soonest.

No rush. It's not like I have a life. ;-)

But I wanted to say in the meanwhile that you did some really good work there, I appreciate it, and here at my work I am now visibly and symbolically doffing my hat {pause} to you.

Thanks.

Actually, I didn't even include hyperlinks to all the sites that I looked at, because it would have taken too much time. So it could have been even better. Shame about your sucky attitude...

That's pretty much de rigueur for Free Republic, isn't it? ;-) In fact, isn't it for all Internet discussion boards? ;-) It's why no respectable people (present company excluded) post on Internet discussion boards. ;-)--->Except about the "present company excluded".

...and philosophical bias,

No, as I said before, I have no beliefs. Of any kind. I don't "believe" in SCIENTIFIC explanations of why the world looks the way it does, any more than I believe in any of the hundreds of religious/mythological explanations for why the world looks the way it does.

What I DO have is a very strong tendency to apply Occam's Razor to explanations of the world:

Occam's Razor explained and discussed

The principle states that "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily."

Or, in the even stronger versions:

Occam's razor is often cited in stronger forms than Occam intended, as in the following statements...

"If you have two theories which both explain the observed facts then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along"

"The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations."

"If you have two equally likely solutions to a problem, pick the simplest."

"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."

In this case, if Occam's Razor is applied to figuring out why we have white people, black people, brown people, red people, yellow people...it seems to make much more sense that they evolved that way after being separated for a long, long time...rather than coming from a single family only 4000 years ago.

I respect, and intend to give you a fuller response ASAP.

As I said, no rush. I respect YOUR attempt at giving a fuller response. A friend of mine is a young-earth, Flood, Genesis-exactly-as-written creationist. He never seems to get around to answering my specific questions, such as "What races were the people on the Ark? Were they all one race, and if so, which one?"

Best wishes, Mark

P.S. As I've noted before, I don't really have a serious problem with the alleged Resurrection. I don't see that question as being amenable to being answered by science...and is therefore legitimately a matter for religion, if that's the way one's tastes run.

[BibChr]

In sum, you did a pretty good job of showing that there is nothing inherently incredible about the Ark narrative, unless elements are ruled out due to philosophical bias — of which you claim to be free.

1) "How much storage space would the Ark have required?"--->This depends what was on the Ark, which you'll have to tell me.

Well, no, you'll have to tell me, if you're going to make challenges such as you did, such as "then why the hell don't you and your nutty friends get together and build another Ark, and put 2 of EVERY ANIMAL on earth into that Ark." Why is EVERY ANIMAL in caps, if you're not implying that there is some storage problem? If you're implying a collection problem, then you must have been much comforted when you answered your own objection later on.

2) "How much storage space did the Ark contain?"---->The Good Book says the Ark was 300 cubits by 50 cubits by 30 cubits, according to some witnesses. That would be about 135 meters long, 23 meters wide, and 13.5 meters high. Total volume: 41,900 cubic meters.

Sounds like a good deal of space to me. (I've read of a total available floor space of over 95,000 square feet, and a total volume of 1,396,000 cubic feet.) Another way I've seen it put is that the volumetric carrying capacity was at least equal to 522 railroad stock cars. A stock car can hold 240 sheep, I've read, so the ark could have carried at least 125,000 full-grown sheep.

By the way, this contains a response to an objection you raise, namely: why not set the record aside and guess that there was just a local flood? In response, if there were simply a local flood, whyever build such a large Ark?

3) How long did Noah have to collect the animals?--->Again, I think the Good Book says 120 years to build the Ark.

Okay, so he had plenty of time. Storage capacity isn't a point of incredibility, time isn't a point of incredibility. What's next?

Well, next you interrupt yourself to set aside the evidence reveal your own philosophical and psychological biases:

At this point, I have to ask: Why would any rational adult believe this to be the absolute truth? Why not accept that this was simply a story told a long time ago, with elements of truth--somewhere there was a flood, that killed lots of animals and people--without blindly accepting that ALL the animals were killed, except for those supernaturally directed to the Ark?

That's another question, not hard to answer. But you're making the case (consciously or not) that a person who adopts this position is adopting a credible position.

4) To gather two each of every species, how many animals would Noah have had to gather, and again of what size and age?---->First of all, the Bible says, "kind" not species.

You are right yet again. So we're not talking two poodles, two Labs, two German Shepherds, two Pekingese... but two dogs. And so forth. Nothing incredible there. Next?

5) How did Noah get the animals?---->Again, apparently the animals supernaturally decided to come to the Ark. But why would any rational adult accept that sort of nonsense? Why is it necessary to accept that nonsense in order to believe in Christ's resurrection?

Three unrelated items. First, that's right: God said the animals would come to Noah (Genesis 6:20), and the narrative confirms that they did (7:9). Who would believe this? I don't know; who would believe that salmon would travel miles upon miles upstream, through rivers and creeks and culverts, to reach their spawning grounds? Who would believe tiny little birdbrains could carry such a map as to sustain regular and detailed migratory patterns? You? Me, too. The God who hardwired the one hardwired the other. My question is, what's difficult to believe about it? And as to the resurrection, for my money you've got it backwards. But they're not unrelated.

6) What have tests of the seaworthiness of the Ark as described in the Bible (alone) disclosed?---

This one you don't answer, you just lay down your own demands. You said you're an engineer? I wonder what kind. Most engineers I know of understand the value of models. And both models and comparison of this 6X1 length-to-width ratio to large modern vessels have indicated that the Ark, build not for speed by simply to float, was perfectly seaworthy and stable. (This compares favorably to actual myths, such as the Babylonian tale of a cube-shaped vessel that would have spun around and around.)

So let's sum up again. In detail after detail, assuming that you are not consciously lying when you say you've no bias, there is nothing inherently incredible about the history of the Ark. You've made a nice case for it, in fact — against your will, from the sound of it.

And it certainly is related to the Resurrection. Because by the Resurrection, which occurred within a context and not as an isolated, so-called "brute fact," the claims of Jesus to be God incarnate were vindicated. And He in turn validated the Old Testament as God's very own self-revelation, true in all it affirms.

I gather you have not actually read Why I Am (Still) a Christian. You should. It could open your eyes to the whole issue of philosophical bias and epistemologically loaded decks, as well as how to approach and assess evidence.

Thanks and kudos again for the good work you did. I doff a symbolic hat once again.

Dan

[Dataman]

Excellent response, Dan. From what I've read, the ark had about 3 times more space than was actually needed.

Another note of interest (at least to me): There were 9 types of dog at the time of Christ. It is estimated that there were only 5 at the time of Noah.

Ultimately, critics have not been able to demonstrate that the ark was not large enough. It would be easy enough to prove that the ark was too small so where is the proof? Rather, the "intellectual" unbelievers resort to calling the story incredible without producing any incredible elements.

[William Terrell]

California could deal with a bowl of peas and carrots for governor.

[Mark Bahner]

In sum, you did a pretty good job of showing that there is nothing inherently incredible about the Ark narrative,...

:-) Ho, ho, ho! Ha, ha, ha! Heh, heh, heh! Good one, Dan!

There is nothing "inherently incredible" about:

1) A man, 4000 years ago, who is 480 years old?

2) Is told by God to build an Ark for a Flood that will come in 120 years?

3) Builds such an Ark, over that 120 years, with his family?

4) The Ark they build--4000 years ago--is larger than ANY ship built up to 1885? And since ships from 1885 onward have not been built of wood, that Ark is several times larger than ANY wooden ship EVER built? (In fact, it's probably 10 times the size--except for the mast--of any wooden sailing ship ever built?)

5) Two of ALL the "types" of animals in the world hear a call from God, and come from all over the entire planet, to be passengers on the Ark?

6) For example, American bison swimming across the Atlantic ocean?

7) The animals (because they are commanded by God, no doubt!) decide that, on their journey and while on the Ark, they will forgo their natural tendencies (as in tigers eating all other meaty Ark passengers, including humans)?

8) The Ark sails for almost one year...all the while, the 8 human passengers are able to feed and remove the wastes from ALL the animal passengers?

9) Few or NO sets of 2 animal passengers dies--either during the voyage--or after coming out from the voyage, such that the "type" of animal goes extinct? (Do you realize how incredibly difficult it is to establish a line of--for example, Pandas--based on only TWO individuals?)

10) After coming out of the Ark only 4000 years ago, the animals disperse such that polar bears are ONLY at the North Pole (and are NOT at the point where the Ark landed), and American bison are ONLY in North America, and NOT where the Ark landed?

11) After coming out of the Ark only 4000 years ago, the humans disperse such that people in China look Chinese, whereas people in Africa look African, and people in Scandanavia look Scandanavian? (Once again...what WERE THE RACES of Noah and his fellow passengers????)

NONE of those 11 aspects of the Ark myth--or about 1000 more--is "inherently incredible"? If NONE of those 11 aspects (and about 1000 more) are "inherently incredible" to you, you'll never be a good scientist...you're simply not skeptical enough. (When have you seen a man who's 480 years old? When have you seen animals traveling in pairs 1000's of miles to get on a ship? When have you seen tigers--fresh from the wild--tame enough that they wouldn't eat a gazelle that happened to be standing around waiting to get on the same boat?)

[Mark Bahner]

Another note of interest (at least to me): There were 9 types of dog at the time of Christ. It is estimated that there were only 5 at the time of Noah.

What were the 9 "types" of dog at the time of Christ, and what were the suspected 5 "types" of dog at the time of Noah?

Is a wolf a "type" of dog, or not?

How about jackals, foxes, and coyotes? Are those "types" of dogs? "Types" of wolves? "Types" of "non-dog dog-type creatures"?

[BibChr]

Okay, so the known facts support the Ark narrative, but you want to adduce a list of guesses to counter your own previous good work. Now your bias starts to show itself.

1. Can you prove how long Noah lived?
2. Can you prove that God programs animals to migrate all the time, but never once programmed them to come to a given spot?
3. Can you prove that the animals were all full-grown?
4. Can you prove that the animals did not hibernate?
5. Can you prove that the shape of the continents before the universal Flood would require any land-animal to swim?

And so we end up where I feared we would, I just hoped you'd see it: the facts aren't the problem. You are the problem. Your bias and ignorance and presumption are the problem.

And are we learning that you're a racist, too? See, because most evolutionists (and I'm just guessing you're wed to that fad) keep talking about how all humans came from one mother. So that means that all human races came from one mother. But you seem to be in gastric distress over the thought that all human races could have come from eight parents. So which races do you think aren't really human, since you think they're all separate and unequal? Which ones are superior races? Let me guess: yours, right?

Pity you still haven't learned not to scoff in areas where you are ignorant.

And pity you clearly still have not given a thoughtful read to Why I Am (Still) a Christian. I guess this all — truth, knowledge, the meaning of life and your place in it — must not be very important to you.

Pity.

Dan

[Mark Bahner]

1) "Can you prove how long Noah lived?"---->I certainly can't prove how long one particular person lived, who lived 4000 years ago, wasn't royal, and who may even have been apocryphal. But look at it this way: Of all the people who have lived in the last 2000 years--some 10 BILLION people--has ANY person been proven to live even HALF of 480 years? No, of course not! Even ONE QUARTER of that long is right at the limit of what anyone has been documented to live. So don't you think it would qualify as "incredible" to talk about a man who lived 600 years...the last 120 of which he was building the biggest wooden boat that ever existed?

2) "Can you prove that God programs animals to migrate all the time, but never once programmed them to come to a given spot?"---->No, of course not. In fact, the SOME of the same swallows return to the monastery at Capistrano every year. But when is the last time you or anyone else has ever seen a buffalo swim across the Atlantic Ocean? (Or even Lake Michigan...as a warm-up?) Doesn't it seem "incredible" to you that a pair of buffalo could do that? (What would they eat? What would they DRINK, for that matter? Why would they be stupid enough to swim out into the ocean in the first place?)

3) "Can you prove that the animals were all full-grown?"--->In the final analysis, who really cares? For example, the average lifespan of an American bison is 23 years. (Maybe they lived alot longer in Noah's day? ;-)) We're talking about bison swimming 3000 miles. Even at 5 miles a day, that's 600 days--almost 2 YEARS--in the water. And I can't even imagine how many lifetimes it would take a penguin to cover a couple hundred or thousand miles on land, since penguins only live about 7 years. Doesn't it seem "incredible" to you to talk about 2 American bison swimming the Atlantic ocean, or 2 penguins swimming/walking all the way from the South Pole to some spot in the Middle East (or wherever you think the Ark launched)? Why in the world wouldn't some of the evil people (that God was about to wipe out) kill the penguins or bison during the journey? (Did God also cast a spell on all the people, to protect all the animal pilgrims from harm?)

4) "Can you prove that the animals did not hibernate?"--->There are very few animals that hibernate...and NONE (to my knowledge) that hibernate for almost a full year. Of course, as long as you have God making the bison swim the Atlantic Ocean, I'm sure it's no problem for Her to make the bison hibernate for as long as She wants them to hibernate! But don't you think that's just a little "incredible"? (That bison that have never hibernated, in the recorded history of their species, would suddenly hibernate for almost a full year?) (By the way, bears that come out of "only" a few months hibernation are ravenously hungry. How long do you think two penguins would would last, while there were two tigers, two lions, two wolves, two bears, etc. etc. around that hadn't eaten in a year...and with no other living prey on the face of the earth?)

5) "Can you prove that the shape of the continents before the universal Flood would require any land-animal to swim?"---->Again, this is YOUR fantasy, not mine! Are you saying (in opposition to all know science concerning continental drift) that the continents were shaped differently before the Flood? If so, when did the shape of the continents change to what we see today (and HAVE seen, for as long as there have been maps to provide records)?

You are the problem.

No, YOU are the problem! To my knowledge, you have yet to answer even ONE of my questions! You haven't even answered my very first question:

How did human beings get to looking the way they do? (What were the races of the human passengers on the arc?)

And are we learning that you're a racist, too?

No, we're learning you're getting desperate. And we're learning that Christian conservatives like you, when they get desperate, bring up racism, just like cornered liberals! (Y'all really have quite a lot in common! Including complete disregard of science, when science doesn't support your pre-existing conclusions.)

So that means that all human races came from one mother.

To my knowledge, that's not a requirement of evolutionary theory. At least it's not a requirement of evolutionary theory that all human races come from a single HUMAN mother. An analogy would be for dogs. Not all dogs (canis familiaris) come from the same dog (canis familiaris) mother. Originally dogs (canis familiaris) are thought to have evolved from grey wolves (canis lupus)...but their is no requirement that ALL dogs have evolved from the same grey wolf. It's quite possible that different breeds of dogs were developed from different grey wolves (canis lupus). All dogs have share an ancestor that is a "wolf-like creature"...but not necessarily a single grey wolf (canis lupus).

In fact, as I recall, the latest scientific evidence is that homo sapiens interbred with Neaderathals (homo neanderthalensis). That would mean that all homo sapiens do NOT have a common homo sapiens mother...only that all homo sapiens share a homo-something mother. Homo sapiens interbred with Neaderathals?

But you seem to be in gastric distress over the thought that all human races could have come from eight parents.

I'm only in "gastric distress" that all races could come from 8 parents OF THE SAME FAMILY...ONLY 4000 YEARS ago! Because that would mean that, in only 4000 years, those 8 people's descendents: a) spread out over the entire earth (except for the South Pole), and b) evolved such that ALL Scandanavians look Scandanavian, ALL Chinese look Chinese, ALL Africans look African, etc.

And like I said before, it doesn't particularly bother me that you choose to be so irrational and deliberately unthinking. I just think it's a waste of the mind whatever-Gods-may-be may have given you.

I don't understand why you have been so deliberately unthinking as to not ask someone in your church to show you a map and timeline of human and animal evolution evolution since those alleged 8 people alleged animals stepped off the alleged Ark allegedly 4000 years ago. Why don't you ask, "Could you draw me a map and a timeline...showing when Chinese people got to China, and when they turned into looking Chinese?" Or why don't you ask, "When did polar bears reach the north pole, from the Ark? Or if polar bears were NOT on the ark, when did some other type of bear evolve into polar bears?"

So which races do you think aren't really human, since you think they're all separate and unequal? Which ones are superior races? Let me guess: yours, right?

Once again, ALL races are homo sapiens. But that does NOT mean that all homo sapiens evolved from the same HOMO SAPIENS mother.

Personally, I know virtually nothing about my mothers side of the family (because of obvious difficulting in tracing the changing names). On my FATHER'S side of the family, the earliest ancestor I know of was a Hessian (German) soldier, who became a POW while fighting in the U.S. Revolutionary War...and decided to stay on in America (Pennsylvania, to be exact). Now, IF my ancestors all the way back for >10,000 years were in Germany, that would mean that *I* may have some Neaderathal blood in me. I haven't noticed. It's irrelevant. We're ALL homo sapiens now.

Pity you still haven't learned not to scoff in areas where you are ignorant.

What I've scoffed at is your lack of intellectual curiosity...that you can attain adulthood without questioning the ideas that: 1) ALL humans can have descended from only 8 members of a family 4000 years ago, 2)animals could make 1000+ mile pilgramages across the world to get on a huge boat, 3) that 4000 years ago, a 480 year old man and his family could spend 120 years building a boat that is larger than ANY wooden boat that's ever been built.

And pity you clearly still have not given a thoughtful read to Why I Am (Still) a Christian.

I've read (well, skimmed, really ;-)) it several times. It deals with matters of religion. Why you think that Jesus really was resurrected. I must confess to a lack of intellectual curiousity of my own: I don't particularly care why you think Jesus was resurrected, and is the only true "Son of God." That's a matter of religion, and not open to scientific scrutiny...at least that I can see. So your webpage bores me a bit. You consider yourself a Christian. Fine. Whatever makes you happy.

Now, let's return to why polar bears only exist at the North Pole, penguins only exist at the South Pole, all the people in China look Chinese, all the people in Scandanavia look Scandanavian... :-)

[Dataman]

And the purpose of your questions is...?

Since you are splitting hounds, I assume you grant the fact that the ark was 3x larger than needed. If you do, your questions about dogs is irrelevant. If you do not, we need first to deal with your objection.

[Dataman]

More excellence in posting (#177). The main problem with the handfull of FR skeptics is their refusal to concede a point no matter how well made or no matter what the evidence. Even the Jesus Seminar guys will concede certain points about His existence and resurrection. But the materialist missionaries will not back down no matter how foolish they look.