Ark Park

[RonO]

Pandas has a thread up on the new Ark Park in KY.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2016/07/ark-park-on-ope.html#comments

It took Noah a hundred years to build this thing. He had to pack it
with all the food for the animals to survive for a year floating around
in the flood waters. The Park's Ark is supported by concrete and rebar.
For this effort they didn't bother with the pitch. The Ark is
supposed to have only one door with a single window above the door that
could be opened to let the crow and dove out. It looks like they have
taken a lot of artistic license in designing their version. They have a
giant toilet designed along with a lot of other junk that wasn't
mentioned in the Bible. They have juvenile stegasaurus in one model
pen, but in a year these little guys would likely more than double in
size so how big should their cage be? Juveniles also eat more per body
weight than adults, so they would have to store more food for them.

So what is the take of the IDiots on TO. Kalk likely believes that it
is just a myth because he has the Vedas and other religious texts to
draw from. What about Glenn, Eddie, Jonathan, Dale, stargazer, Passer,
and Grasso?

Dembski was forced to apologize to his students for claiming that the
flood might have only been local. Behe and Denton believe that
biological evolution is fact and that life has been evolving on this
planet for billions of years, so no dinos need to be on the ark because
they were extinct millions of years before humans existed. Denton just
came out with his claim that God just got the ball rolling and it all
unfolded as expected. There likely is no global flood in Denton's
alternative because there isn't any evidence for a global flood ever
occurring. His model has the advantage that nothing we will ever
discover will counter it because everything would have happened just
like science has figured out so far.

So can there be any rational discourse about IDiocy? If the flood is
part of your IDiot alternative how does it work in your model? What
evidence is there to claim that the ark ever existed and that there was
one global flood and the only survivors were on the ark?

Ron Okimoto

[Rolf]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:nlthj3$ao0$1...@dont-email.me...

Asking for evidence is futile. Creationists have no respect for evidence,
that just is Atheist lies.
Faith is all it takes, faith can move mountains - so they believe. Let's see
them move a coin by the power of faith.
There's a tradition of faith in miracles, the Bible is full of documented
miracles. What more do we need?

Rolf





>
> Ron Okimoto
>

[eridanus]

with faith they can move millions of dollars towards the bank account of
some priest that had accumulated enough money to buy a private Jet for
missionary purposes. As all of you, and me, have not any faith, this
feat of asking money people to buy a private jet is not feasible. Many
had been able to earn so much money as own big and expansive houses,
this is a miracle that we, unbelievers, cannot afford.

Eri

[jillery]

A question relevant to True Believers (c): For people like Jimmy
Swaggart, and Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, did they lose their faith
before or after they committed the crimes which led to their downfall?
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Jonathan]

On 7/10/2016 9:12 AM, RonO wrote:
> Pandas has a thread up on the new Ark Park in KY.
>
> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2016/07/ark-park-on-ope.html#comments
>
> It took Noah a hundred years to build this thing. He had to pack it
> with all the food for the animals to survive for a year floating around
> in the flood waters. The Park's Ark is supported by concrete and rebar.
> For this effort they didn't bother with the pitch. The Ark is supposed
> to have only one door with a single window above the door that could be
> opened to let the crow and dove out. It looks like they have taken a
> lot of artistic license in designing their version. They have a giant
> toilet designed along with a lot of other junk that wasn't mentioned in
> the Bible. They have juvenile stegasaurus in one model pen, but in a
> year these little guys would likely more than double in size so how big
> should their cage be? Juveniles also eat more per body weight than
> adults, so they would have to store more food for them.
>
> So what is the take of the IDiots on TO. Kalk likely believes that it
> is just a myth because he has the Vedas and other religious texts to
> draw from. What about Glenn, Eddie, Jonathan, Dale, stargazer, Passer,
> and Grasso?
>

Mainstream religion is clear the Bible talks of a local flood, not
global. And floods have two properties that tend to make them
the stuff of myths.


1) THEY HAPPEN ALL THE FLIPPIN' TIME

2) THEY ARE USUALLY DEVASTATING


I mean, what's the mystery or controversy over an ancient flood myth?

Oh, of course unless one wishes to create a massive strawman
to knock down by taking religious writing literally, like
terrorist groups such as ISIS. THEN one might have something to
talk about. But such bouts of literal idiocy usually says more
about the person espousing such simple-minded interpretations
than it does about religion.

No thinking religious philosopher takes the Bible literally, only
such as children, the uneducated, extremists and atheists do
and generally for self serving reasons.


Which are you, and why do you need to chase windmills?



s

[Jonathan]

There is so much work to do here~


Miracles! Let's take a closer look at the religious
concepts of miracles and see if they make scientific
sense. I will attempt to place the concept of miracles
in purely mathematical form beyond dispute.

Quoted text are all the Catholic Encyclopedia, circa 1908...


"The wonder of the miracle is due to the fact that
its cause is hidden, and an effect is expected other
than what actually takes place. Hence, by comparison
with the ordinary course of things, the miracle is
called extraordinary. In analyzing the difference
between the extraordinary character of the miracle
and the ordinary course of nature, the Fathers of
the Church and theologians employ the terms
....above, contrary to, and outside nature."

"These terms express the manner in which the miracle
is extraordinary."


Miracles:

Above, outside and contrary to nature.



1) Above nature


"A miracle is said to be above nature when the effect
produced is above the native powers and forces in
creatures of which the known laws of nature are
the expression, as raising a dead man to life."


a) Resurrection:


Characteristics of the risen body

"All shall rise from the dead in their own, in their
entire, and in immortal bodies; but the good shall rise
to the resurrection of life, the wicked to the resurrection
of Judgment.

"But there is a difference between the earthly and the
risen body; for the risen bodies of both saints and
sinners shall be invested with immortality.


In conclusion resurrection is the essence of the soul
living on for eternity such as how Newton, Plato or
Christ 'live on' and have tangible effects in
perpetuity.

Or, a disturbance to a system that never settles down
such as spring that continues bouncing an extraordinary
amount of time. Or an idea so interesting that once
created continues to effect humanity throughout history.

The mathematical representation of this effect takes
the form of...a transient of nearly infinite length.



Self-Organized Pattern Formation in a
Swarm System as a Transient Phenomenon
of Nonlinear Dynamics


6 Summary and Outlook

In this paper, a self-organized system was reported
that generates a variety of complex patterns.
At least for small system sizes these patterns
are transient. A lower bound of the transient time
was shown that suggests an exponential increase
in the average transient time with increasing
system size.
http://heikohamann.de/pub/hamannMCMDS11a.pdf




2) Outside nature


"A miracle is said to be outside, or beside, nature
when natural forces may have the power to produce
the effect, at least in part, but could not of
themselves alone have produced it in the way it
was actually brought about. Thus the effect in
abundance far exceeds the power of natural forces,
or it takes place instantaneously without the
means or processes which nature employs."



Butterfly effect
From Wikipedia,

The butterfly effect is the concept that small causes can
have large effects.

In chaos theory, the butterfly effect is the sensitive
dependence on initial conditions in which a small change
in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result
in large differences in a later state. The name, coined
by Edward Lorenz for the effect which had been known
long before, is derived from the metaphorical example
of the details of a hurricane (exact time of formation,
exact path taken) being influenced by minor perturbations
such as the flapping of the wings of a distant butterfly
several weeks earlier.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect




3) Contrary to nature


"Again, the term contrary to nature does not mean "unnatural"
in the sense of producing discord and confusion. The forces
of nature differ in power and are in constant interaction.
This produces interferences and counteractions of forces.
This is true of mechanical, chemical, and biological forces.
So, also, at every moment of the day I interfere with and
counteract natural forces about me. I study the properties
of natural forces with a view to obtain conscious control
by intelligent counteractions of one force against another.
Intelligent counteraction marks progress in chemistry,
in physics — e.g., steam locomotion, aviation — and in
the prescriptions of the physician. Man controls nature,
nay, can live only by the counteraction of natural forces.
Though all this goes on around us, we never speak of
natural forces violated. These forces are still working
after their kind, and no force is destroyed, nor is any
law broken, nor does confusion result."

"The introduction of human will may bring about a
displacement of the physical forces, but no
infraction of physical processes."



Emergence


Strong emergence describes the direct causal action of a
high-level system upon its components; qualities produced
this way are irreducible to the system's constituent parts
(Laughlin 2005). The whole is other than the sum
of its parts. An example from physics of such emergence
is water, being seemingly unpredictable even after an
exhaustive study of the properties of its constituent
atoms of hydrogen and oxygen.[9] It follows then
that no simulation of the system can exist, for such
a simulation would itself constitute a reduction
of the system to its constituent parts (Bedau 1997).

Non-living, physical systems

In physics, emergence is used to describe a property,
law, or phenomenon which occurs at macroscopic scales
(in space or time) but not at microscopic scales,
despite the fact that a macroscopic system can be
viewed as a very large ensemble of microscopic
systems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence




Jonathan




God made no act without a cause,
Nor heart without an aim,
Our inference is premature,
Our premises to blame.





Catholic Encyclopedia

Miracle
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm





s




















>
>
>
>
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>>
>
>

[Jonathan]

Since their bible was the Tax Code, their faith lasted
until they got caught.



s

[eridanus]

you are improving a lot, Johnathan.
eri

[eridanus]

I did not know those had become rich. Well perhaps not much.
Anyway, asking for money in big amounts transform them in "incredulous
monsters". They started with some amount of faith and lost it as
they were making themselves rich.
The money or the devil hijacked their soul, to use a biblical language.
eri

[jillery]

On Sun, 10 Jul 2016 12:21:32 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Your assertions of strawmen and windmills would be more credible if
Creationist websites didn't say exactly what you say they don't:

<https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/global/worldwide-flood-evidence/>

"When the Bible refers to a worldwide Flood in Genesis 7–8, that’s
exactly what it means. Not local, not metaphorical, not some crazy
dream—the waters covered the whole earth."


<https://www.awesomesciencemedia.com/floodgeologyseries/>

"This series takes leading scientists in the field of geology,
chemistry, and meteorology and explores evidence for the global Flood
around the world."


<http://creationwiki.org/Flood_geology>

"Creation geology is based on the assumption that the Biblical flood
described in the book of Genesis was a real and historical event of
global magnitude, and is therefore also known as flood geology."

[eridanus]

do not corral the poor Johnathan, he is nearly a scientists. He just needs
a degree of something. That's all. He presents as argument the catholic
encyclopedia and thus catholic church is to several light years of distance
from the evangelicals of the US.

[Rolf]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:brq4obpo3ndv4t823...@4ax.com...

Seriously, how much faith do you think they had before?

[eridanus]

not sure. They were probably cynics. But this question derives to another,
how many intelligent men that become pastors really believe in god or in
the message of Jesus like portrayed in the sermon of the mountain? Or
how many pastors believe in the Jesus speaking about the Dooms day? "For
I was poor and hungry and you do not feed me. I was in prison and you do
not come to visit me," etc?

eri

[Jonathan]

Judging the whole by the opinions of the fringe is
called things like biased and racist. There will
always be extreme opinions on any subject, how
does that negate the mainstream view?

This site says Jews are all evil, so the Jewish
religion must be too...

http://bit.ly/KdI0ht

By your logic democrat and republican policies are all wrong
because of the socialists and fascists in their camps.



straw man
noun

a sham argument set up to be defeated.

[jillery]

On Sun, 10 Jul 2016 19:42:33 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>

>> <https://www.awesomesciencemedia.com/floodgeologyseries/>
>>
>> "This series takes leading scientists in the field of geology,
>> chemistry, and meteorology and explores evidence for the global Flood
>> around the world."
>>
>>
>> <http://creationwiki.org/Flood_geology>
>>
>> "Creation geology is based on the assumption that the Biblical flood
>> described in the book of Genesis was a real and historical event of
>> global magnitude, and is therefore also known as flood geology."
>>
>
>
>Judging the whole by the opinions of the fringe is
>called things like biased and racist. There will
>always be extreme opinions on any subject, how
>does that negate the mainstream view?
>
>This site says Jews are all evil, so the Jewish
>religion must be too...
>
>http://bit.ly/KdI0ht
>
>By your logic democrat and republican policies are all wrong
>because of the socialists and fascists in their camps.
>
>
>straw man
>noun
>
>a sham argument set up to be defeated.

BZZT! By your logic, the only religions that qualify as "mainstream"
are the ones you agree with. Can you say "no true Scotsman"? I knew
you could.

Whether Fundamentalists are a majority of the religious is arguable,
but you can't reasonably deny they're a significant, recognized,
vocal, and organized percentage. It's why politicians kiss their
collective ass during elections. You can't <poof> them away just by
calling them fringe. Sarah Palin is as mainstream as Jorge Bergoglio

And while I provided three examples to document my claim, you
provided.... wait for it.... ummm.... ZERO examples to document your
claim. I can easily provide more, but based on your post, it wouldn't
make any difference. Once again, your mind is made up, I won't bother
confusing you with facts.

[RonO]

So Jonathan has put in his two cents and he thinks that those who don't
agree with him do not have his type of true religious belief just people
on the fringe with extreme opinions. They aren't "mainstream" if they
believe in the Biblical flood.

It is just weird that these non mainstream fringe religious dolts form
the most vocal support base for the ID scam, and are the driving force
for getting the switch scam implemented after they bend over and take
the switch scam from the ID perps.

He likely has it wrong in his first paragraph, because the "mainstream"
Judeo-Christian religions likely do not claim to know if the flood ever
happened. He should likely poll the clergy that signed the clergy
letter project in order to get some idea of if he could be correct or
not. The flood could have been local (who can tell?) or it could just
be metaphorical.

Does anyone else think that Jonathan is wrong? Jonathan is admitting
that the Bible cannot be taken literally, and that it isn't much of an
historical document at all. He can't tell you when the flood occurred,
where it was or things like how many animals were saved along with how
many families? What happened in the next county that wasn't affected by
the flood? My guess is that if a local flood did occur and is the basis
of the story, that it occurred some time after agriculture was invented.
There were likely people on all the major habitable continents by that
time. Mammal like reptiles, dinos, and the Eocene mammalian megafauna
were all extinct by that time.

http://www.theclergyletterproject.org/

Ron Okimoto

[eridanus]

of course, only mental retarded Christians can believe the Flood was
something real and not a simple metaphor. Of course, when I was a kid,
the Flood was a real one, covering the whole world over the tallest
mountains. And that is every knew that Noak's ark had landed in
the mount Ararat in Turkey. Some American tourists come to visit the
petrified Noak's Ark in Mount Ararat.
You can google for Noaks Ark

When I was a kid, the Flood was the Flood. Since them, the Flood had become
barely a polluted brook. This means that science advances really in spite of
some US creationists.
Eri

[eridanus]

El lunes, 11 de julio de 2016, 12:38:44 (UTC+1), Ron O escribió:

I think if you look for the Ark with faith you would find it.
eri

[Rolf]

"eridanus" <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:32ba4a3a-b7e6-462c...@googlegroups.com...

You probably mean the recent ridiculous attempt at building a replica?

But if you mean THE Ark, it doesn't exist and never did.
.



> eri
>

[jillery]

Been there, done that, bought the gopher wood:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Searches_for_Noah%27s_Ark>


The miracle of Faith here is that anybody believes someone found the
Ark.

[jillery]

You're kidding, right?

>Jonathan is admitting
>that the Bible cannot be taken literally, and that it isn't much of an
>historical document at all. He can't tell you when the flood occurred,
>where it was or things like how many animals were saved along with how
>many families? What happened in the next county that wasn't affected by
>the flood? My guess is that if a local flood did occur and is the basis
>of the story, that it occurred some time after agriculture was invented.
> There were likely people on all the major habitable continents by that
>time. Mammal like reptiles, dinos, and the Eocene mammalian megafauna
>were all extinct by that time.
>
>http://www.theclergyletterproject.org/
>
>Ron Okimoto

[eridanus]

QED
with faith you can find the earth is the center of the universe, and
everything turns around the earth in 24 hours.
eri

[Earle Jones27]

*
Our Jonathan? Wrong?

God forbid!

Clearly, you don't understand complexity.

earle
*

[Jonathan]

Problem with that is a scholarly examination of the Bible shows
taking it literally is a mistake. The assertion that language
should be interpreted in the context with which it was written
is not redefining the evidence in order to win a debate, but
is the better conclusion.

It's no more 'Scotsman'-like than rejecting contaminated
fossil evidence in favor of more accurate samples.

> Whether Fundamentalists are a majority of the religious is arguable,
> but you can't reasonably deny they're a significant, recognized,
> vocal, and organized percentage. It's why politicians kiss their
> collective ass during elections. You can't <poof> them away just by
> calling them fringe. Sarah Palin is as mainstream as Jorge Bergoglio
>

If you want to debate philosophy as a popularity contest
then let me go see how many people reject neo-Darwinism
which isn't a very hard science either.

Those fundamentalists can't win an honest debate
on this subject and are generally pandering to
the lowest common denominator for self serving
reasons. To consider them equals in terms of
the level of reason or logic is a faulty assumption.

> And while I provided three examples to document my claim,

They all make the same erroneous assumption. Instead of
just reading what the fringe has to say, you should
try opening a ...real textbook on religious philosophy
before embarrassing yourself. My assertion that the
flood in considered local is about as basic to
religious philosophy as the inverse square law
is to gravity.

One assumes a certain level of education whether debating
philosophy or physics.

Here is my reference book, and it's as good as it
gets, the Catholic Encyclopedia. And here is what
is says on this subject. Please notice the term
"Till about the seventeenth century" to see
how far behind the 'state of the art' you are.



Universality of the Deluge

The Biblical account ascribes some kind of a universality
to the Flood. But it may have been geographically universal,
or it may have been only anthropologically universal.
In other words, the Flood may have covered the whole earth,
or it may have destroyed all men, covering only a
certain part of the earth.

Till about the seventeenth century, it was generally
believed that the Deluge had been geographically
universal, and this opinion is defended even in our
days by some conservative scholars.

But two hundred years of theological and scientific study
devoted to the question have thrown so much light on it
that we may now defend the following conclusions:

The geographical universality of the Deluge may be
safely abandoned

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04702a.htm




QED!~

[Jonathan]

For crying out loud no serious religious philosopher has
believed the flood was /universal/ since the 17th century.

It's like if you were to go into a religious ng to defend science
to people that don't how to multiply and divide, and they won't
bother to find out how.

Fer chrissakes it makes me mental.

> Clearly, you don't understand complexity.
>

This ng, and the vast bulk of the scientific community, still
believe nature and evolution is understood by a constructionist
approach. Reduce to the simplest parts and use that as a
building block to reconstruct the whole.

That's fine for buildings, but for understanding the true simplicity
of reality and nature, for fundamental law, that is ass-backwards.

That's the main discovery of complexity science, all you thought
you knew has to be set aside for now, and start over from scratch
where one /expands to ever greater emergent wholes/ instead
of the flippin' caveman method of bashing everything into
itty-bitty tiny little parts to see what's inside.

If you still have a scientific mindset that asks 'what came first'?
Or 'facts' are all that matter, you are living in the Dark Ages
of science with a world view just as backwards as those that
believe the Earth is flat.

Your whole reductionist science is built upon an equally erroneous
and monstrous frame of reference error.

What emerges from the present reality is the defining knowledge
not what happened in the past.



> earle
> *
>

[czeba...@gmail.com]

To Rolf re: Eri

With Eri one must consider his love of irony, sarcasm and his sense of humor. And his almost command of English.
He may be many things but a creationist he is not.

gregwrld

[jillery]

Earle: I don't know why you give me credit for other people's posts,
but none of the above quoted text is from me.

[jillery]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 18:41:11 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>

Apparently you're as incapable of understanding written English as
your strange bedfellow Steadly. One can only wonder how it is that
T.O. managed to attract two contemporaneous and equivalently
cognitively challenged posters.

>Those fundamentalists can't win an honest debate
>on this subject and are generally pandering to
>the lowest common denominator for self serving
>reasons. To consider them equals in terms of
>the level of reason or logic is a faulty assumption.
>
>
>

>> And while I provided three examples to document my claim, you

>> provided.... wait for it.... ummm.... ZERO examples to document your
>> claim. I can easily provide more, but based on your post, it wouldn't
>> make any difference. Once again, your mind is made up, I won't bother
>> confusing you with facts.

>They all make the same erroneous assumption.

Whether Fundamentalists are as you say is utterly beside the point you
made. There are lots of people who hold to that opinion, and you
can't pretend they don't exist just because you don't agree with them.

[Dexter]

eridanus wrote:

> El domingo, 10 de julio de 2016, 15:33:45 (UTC+1), Rolf
> escribió:
> > "RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:nlthj3$ao0$1...@dont-email.me...

> > > Dembski was forced to apologize to his students for
> > > claiming that the flood might have only been local.
> > > Behe and Denton believe that biological evolution is
> > > fact and that life has been evolving on this planet
> > > for billions of years, so no dinos need to be on the
> > > ark because they were extinct millions of years
> > > before humans existed. Denton just came out with his
> > > claim that God just got the ball rolling and it all
> > > unfolded as expected. There likely is no global
> > > flood in Denton's alternative because there isn't any
> > > evidence for a global flood ever occurring. His
> > > model has the advantage that nothing we will ever
> > > discover will counter it because everything would
> > > have happened just like science has figured out so
> > > far.
> > >
> > > So can there be any rational discourse about IDiocy?
> > > If the flood is part of your IDiot alternative how
> > > does it work in your model? What evidence is there
> > > to claim that the ark ever existed and that there was
> > > one global flood and the only survivors were on the
> > > ark?
> >

> > Asking for evidence is futile. Creationists have no
> > respect for evidence, that just is Atheist lies.
> > Faith is all it takes, faith can move mountains - so
> > they believe. Let's see them move a coin by the power
> > of faith. There's a tradition of faith in miracles,
> > the Bible is full of documented miracles. What more do
> > we need?
> >
> > Rolf
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Ron Okimoto
> > >
>
> with faith they can move millions of dollars towards the
> bank account of some priest that had accumulated enough
> money to buy a private Jet for missionary purposes. As
> all of you, and me, have not any faith, this feat of
> asking money people to buy a private jet is not feasible.
> Many had been able to earn so much money as own big and
> expansive houses, this is a miracle that we, unbelievers,

> cannot afford. Eri
______________________________________________

Just FYI, Creflo Dollar is not a priest. He's a preacher.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creflo_Dollar

[jonathan]

Huh? The point I made is that they are wrong.

> There are lots of people who hold to that opinion, and you
> can't pretend they don't exist just because you don't agree with them.

Can I wish them away instead?

[jillery]

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 22:36:28 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

BZZT! The point immediately above is where you moved the goalposts.
Your original claim, which you surprisingly haven't deleted yet from
the quoted text, is that they're fringe groups unqualified to be
considered religious, and therefore references to them are strawmen
arguments.

Like your strange bedfellows, apparently you have no idea what you're
talking about.

>> There are lots of people who hold to that opinion, and you
>> can't pretend they don't exist just because you don't agree with them.
>
>
>Can I wish them away instead?

Here's a clue for you. Wishing doesn't make it so. Just sayin'.

[Jonathan]

Oh please, in the debate science v religion, deliberately
representing the religious side with extremist views
is most certainly a strawman tactic.

Just as if I decided to show science is hooey by
exalting some quack to represent the views of
science.

If truth and accuracy means nothing to you, only
public opinion polls, then this isn't a debate just
a waste of time.

I'm interested in the better idea or answer, you
seem to only want to chase a boogeyman.

[jillery]

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 19:52:56 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>

False equivalence. A quack is not representative of the scientific
community. An equivalent analogy would refer to a POV supported by
many scientists and scientific organizations.

>If truth and accuracy means nothing to you, only
>public opinion polls, then this isn't a debate just
>a waste of time.

Your posts are almost always a waste of time.

>I'm interested in the better idea or answer, you
>seem to only want to chase a boogeyman.

It's your boogeyman. If you don't want people chasing it, don't post
it in the first place. If you want to change the subject, just admit
you were wrong, and move on. That's what grownups do.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Sun, 10 Jul 2016 19:42:33 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>

Sometimes it is people assuming that the US Bible Belt is
representative of the whole world.

[...]

[jillery]

...but not this time. My impression is there are far more
Fundamentalist Christian and Muslim believers than there are Roman
Catholics, which by jonathan logic makes your preferred dogma the
fringe religion.

An irony here is there are plenty of Fundamentalist Christians who
claim Roman Catholics aren't Christian. I suppose turnabout is fair
play, but fingerpointing doesn't really address the original point
jonathan hijacked.

[Robert Carnegie]

3) The survivors usually aren't people who stopped
to rescue elephants.

[Ernest Major]

According to official numbers Roman Catholics number over 50% of
Christians. If wasn't for the substantial number of Catholic
fundamentalists we could comfortably conclude that Catholics outnumber
fundamentalist Christians by a fair margin. How Catholics stack up
against Christian and Muslim fundamentalists combined is not so clear -
data on Muslim views is not as easily obtained.

>
> An irony here is there are plenty of Fundamentalist Christians who
> claim Roman Catholics aren't Christian. I suppose turnabout is fair
> play, but fingerpointing doesn't really address the original point
> jonathan hijacked.
> --
> This space is intentionally not blank.
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On what basis are you claiming "substantial" ?

[Ernest Major]

Surveys finding significant numbers of YEC Catholics. Anecdotes of
people being taught creationism in Catholic schools. (A more recently
seen anecdote has someone being fired from a Catholic university for
supporting the Documentary Hypothesis.)

The US Bible Belt is not representative of the whole world. Nor is Ireland.

>
>> we could comfortably conclude that Catholics outnumber
>> fundamentalist Christians by a fair margin. How Catholics stack up
>> against Christian and Muslim fundamentalists combined is not so clear -
>> data on Muslim views is not as easily obtained.
>>
>>>
>>> An irony here is there are plenty of Fundamentalist Christians who
>>> claim Roman Catholics aren't Christian. I suppose turnabout is fair
>>> play, but fingerpointing doesn't really address the original point
>>> jonathan hijacked.
>>> --
>>> This space is intentionally not blank.
>>>
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 15:47:24 +0100, Ernest Major

Cite?

>Anecdotes of
>people being taught creationism in Catholic schools. (A more recently
>seen anecdote has someone being fired from a Catholic university for
>supporting the Documentary Hypothesis.)

In other words, nothing of substance.

>
>The US Bible Belt is not representative of the whole world. Nor is Ireland.

Where did I suggest otherwise?

[jillery]

For the record, I have personally rescued all elephants that ever
asked me for help.

[jillery]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 17:00:59 +0100, AlwaysAskingQuestions

Where did anybody suggest you suggested otherwise? See how your
gibberish cuts both ways?

[jillery]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 14:49:05 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:

According to this:

<http://www.gallup.com/poll/170834/three-four-bible-word-god.aspx>

"Twenty-eight percent of Americans believe the Bible is the actual
word of God and that it should be taken literally."

Of course, that doesn't directly address your comments, but I see no
point in being the only one whose trying to stay on-topic.

[Jonathan]

13% of voters think Barack Obama is the anti-Christ
37% of voters believe global warming is a hoax
21% of voters say a UFO crashed in Roswell
15% of voters say the government or the media adds
mind-controlling technology to TV broadcast signals

[jillery]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 20:55:17 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>

You still don't get it. It doesn't matter to your original claim what
they think. What matters is that they exist. There is no reasonable
definition that describes such large percentages as fringe elements.
--

[Oxyaena]

On 7/10/2016 9:12 AM, RonO wrote:
> Pandas has a thread up on the new Ark Park in KY.
>
> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2016/07/ark-park-on-ope.html#comments
>
> It took Noah a hundred years to build this thing. He had to pack it
> with all the food for the animals to survive for a year floating around
> in the flood waters. The Park's Ark is supported by concrete and rebar.
> For this effort they didn't bother with the pitch. The Ark is supposed
> to have only one door with a single window above the door that could be
> opened to let the crow and dove out. It looks like they have taken a
> lot of artistic license in designing their version. They have a giant
> toilet designed along with a lot of other junk that wasn't mentioned in
> the Bible. They have juvenile stegasaurus in one model pen, but in a
> year these little guys would likely more than double in size so how big
> should their cage be? Juveniles also eat more per body weight than
> adults, so they would have to store more food for them.

Giant toilet? That's not mentioned anywhere in the Bible! Besides, with
the sheer number of species on Earth, they'd have to keep shoveling
waste products at a continuous rate 24/7, while taking care of
themselves, feeding the animals, and a ton of other processes to keep
the ship up and running. I mean, were there drains in the Ark that all
the animals shat and pissed through that led to the flood waters? Most
of the animals presumably aren't smart enough, or just didn't care where
they shat and pissed, so how would all of the animals' waste products
get collected and taken care of, presumably by throwing off the ship,
which they would have to keep doing and doing and doing ad infinitum, if
all the excretory products couldn't have been taken care of, since let's
face, there's no way anyone could take care of the sheer amount of shit
emanating from the animals, disease would've piled up, and that doesn't
count how all of the parasites and pathogens would've survived, since
they need hosts to survive, some pathogens can only survive on people,
so did all the people become hosts to numerous pathogens and parasites
along the way?

How did the fish survive, surely with all that water fresh and salt
water would've mixed which is fatal to a lot of fish, as well as the
dirt and mud being sifted up from the bottom, even water that's 30% dirt
and mud, tends to clog up fish gills and suffocate them. Also, the
torrential winds and currents would've doubtlessly caused thousands upon
thousands of aquatic organisms to crash upon rocks, mountains, and other
geological structures, doubtlessly killing them, and how did delicate
geological structures such as arches survive?

How did all the animals eat once off the ark? All the available meat for
the carnivores would've been buried under tens of meters of mud and
rock, and none of the plants could've withstood such forces, so how did
the herbivores survive? How did the carnivores survive once they'd eaten
up all the herbivores that had died due to starvation, doubtlessly
they'd start eating each other to avoid starvation.

How come various cultures across the world survived with no mentioning
of a global flood, such as the Ancient Egyptians, how come the Ancient
Egyptians weren't wiped out? If we examine the Egyptian records, life
goes on as usual, with no mention of a flood other than the ordinary
Nile floods.

>
> So what is the take of the IDiots on TO. Kalk likely believes that it
> is just a myth because he has the Vedas and other religious texts to
> draw from. What about Glenn, Eddie, Jonathan, Dale, stargazer, Passer,
> and Grasso?

I`m not sure if Dale is a creationist, since he bounces back and forth
on matters regarding science and maintains and ambiguous position.
Jonathan doesn't believe in YEC (as far as I am aware of).

> [snip]

>
> So can there be any rational discourse about IDiocy? If the flood is
> part of your IDiot alternative how does it work in your model? What
> evidence is there to claim that the ark ever existed and that there was
> one global flood and the only survivors were on the ark?
>

> Ron Okimoto
>
Shhh... Remember, IDiots don't like it being mentioned that ID is
nothing more than creationism in disguise, and a bad disguise at that.