Logistics of Noah's Ark

[Stripe]

@Jack Burton

To this day, I’m not sure what is the point in insisting on a young earth.

Evidence.

[zender]

I’ll bet half these people that claim they eat McDonald’s are only eating AT McDonald’s.

A Gallup poll from a few months ago says, “In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins.” Apparently this is little changed from 30 years ago (44%) when they first asked this question. I thought it would have been a lower percentage, but most of the people I know have university degrees and many studied the sciences.
gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold- … igins.aspx
If you read this it says that 67% of people who attend church weekly believe that “God created humans in present form within the last 10,000 years.”

Here’s a Gallup poll from last year that says, “In U.S., 3 in 10 Say They Take the Bible Literally.”
gallup.com/poll/148427/Say-B … rally.aspx

If you scroll down a bit you’ll notice that there’s a stong negative correlation between education level and belief in the literal interpretation. This makes me wonder if places like Africa have an even higher percentage of literalists than America. Does anyone know?

I remember hearing that 22 percent of Americans were certain that Jesus would come back within the next 50 years, and another 22 percent thought it was probable.

Here’s an older Gallup poll from 2009. It said, “On Darwin’s (200th) Birthday, Only 4 in 10 Believe in Evolution.”
gallup.com/poll/114544/Darwi … ution.aspx

In a 2004 ABC News poll, “Sixty percent believe in the story of Noah’s ark and a global flood.”
washingtontimes.com/news/200 … /?page=all

If these polls are to be believed, it’s not as “fringy” as I’d thought.

[the_chief]

@zender

I’ll bet half these people that claim they eat McDonald’s are only eating AT McDonald’s.

Sorry, I meant people who eat people named McDonald. Misplaced apostrophe.

[the_chief]

OK, well, there’s kind of two issues here, I’m not addressing the flood issues.
I’m talking about the goofballs who insist the earth is only, like, 6000 years old.

[quote=“zender”]A Gallup poll from a few months ago says, “In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins.”
…
If you read this it says that 67% of people who attend church weekly believe that “God created humans in present form within the last 10,000 years.”[/quote]

OK, first of all, I’d say there’s quite a difference between holding a “Creationist View of Human Origins” which simply means that one believes that a Supreme Being is responsible for the existence of life on the planet, and “G_d created humans in present form within the last 10,000 years.”, which simply means you’re a dumbshit.

Secondly, this is the US, which contains, apparently, 249,186,000 Christians, about 11% of the global total.
67% of 11%, well, you’re a clever guy, get out the calculator.
Hardly anything like a healthy majority.

[quote=“zender”]Here’s a Gallup poll from last year that says, “In U.S., 3 in 10 Say They Take the Bible Literally.”
gallup.com/poll/148427/Say-B … rally.aspx[/quote]

3 in 10?
Not much, really, and again, while I’ll grant you there’s some pretty good whoppers going on in the Bible, literal interpretation is STILL a ways off from the Young Earth hooha, which is the phenom I’m specifically addressing.

[quote=“zender”]Here’s an older Gallup poll from 2009. It said, “On Darwin’s (200th) Birthday, Only 4 in 10 Believe in Evolution.”
gallup.com/poll/114544/Darwi … ution.aspx[/quote]

Dude, you know I love you, man, but I can’t believe how misleadingly you presented that.

The actual poll:

What it REALLY says is that 25% of respondents DON’T believe in evolution.

and:

What it REALLY says is that, even among the least educated, only 27% DON’T believe in evolution.

Jeez Louise, more people than that think Elvis is alive.

[zender]

[quote=“the chief”]Dude, you know I love you, man, but I can’t believe how misleadingly you presented that.

The actual poll:

What it REALLY says is that 25% of respondents DON’T believe in evolution.
[/quote]
Yes, I know you love me, and that title is misleading, but you’re also misleading people a bit if you think it Really means that only 25 % don’t believe.
The amazing part of that poll to me is the huge number of people that have no opinion on the issue.

Do you believe in evolution?
39% believe 25% don’t believe 37% no opinion or answer

So, of the people who have an opinion,
61% believe and 39% don’t believe
Maybe that question was too hard for people. I would have answered, “Of course!”

[quote=“the chief”]

What it REALLY says is that, even among the least educated, only 27% DON’T believe in evolution.

Jeez Louise, more people than that think Elvis is alive.[/quote]
Well, hold on, for the least educated, the figures were
21% believe 27% don’t believe and 52% couldn’t talk into the right end of the phone.

So, saying that it Really says that 27% don’t believe is Really misleading because in, fact, most of those (56%) who could Really understand the question, don’t believe.

Elvis lives on in the same way I will, after I die.

[the_chief]

[quote=“zender”]
Well, hold on, for the least educated, the figures were
21% believe 27% don’t believe and 51% [strike]couldn’t talk into the right end of the phone.[/strike] were late for a job interview at HESS.[/quote]

Fixed it.

:roflmao:

[quote=“zender”]
Elvis lives on in the same way I will, after I die.[/quote]

With infinitely less style and panache.
Obviously.

[Gao_Bohan]

As always, Fortigurn is making a logical argument based on the best available scholarship, and his detractors, having their preconceived notions obliterated, are pissed off, acting like jackasses, rehashing debunked arguments, nitpicking, getting emotional and personal, and in general acting like pricks.

YOU LOST, gentlemen. Deal with it.

[the_chief]

[quote=“Gao Bohan”]As always, Fortigurn is making a logical argument based on the best available scholarship, and his detractors, having their preconceived notions obliterated, are pissed off, acting like jackasses, rehashing debunked arguments, nitpicking, getting emotional and personal, and in general acting like pricks.

YOU LOST, gentlemen. Deal with it.[/quote]

Be that as it may, sir, I’m afraid I still find myself unable to condone the cannibalisation of random Scotsmen.

But that’s just me.

[niaoahgin]

[quote=“the chief”]
I’m talking about the goofballs who insist the earth is only, like, 6000 years old.[/quote]

The earth looks pretty damn old to me. Six thousand vs. six billion years, who the heck am I to judge that difference. I can barely tell the difference between a smoking 40 year old Taiwanese MILF and her niece, truth be told.

As far as the correlation between “education level” and belief is concerned, I find this argument to be completely irrelevant. Ask the same groups of people about the concepts of “karma”, “immortality”, or “absolute truth”, and you would would likely find the same results. Although I’ve been “in school” for 24 years of my life I would never consider myself better equipped for comprehending the infinite and infinitesimal elements of existence than my grandmother who was formally educated a mere 8 years of her life.

[zender]

@niaoahgin

…The earth looks pretty damn old to me. Six thousand vs. six billion years, who the heck am I to judge that difference. I can barely tell the difference between a smoking 40 year old Taiwanese MILF and her niece, truth be told.

But six billion is a million times older than six thousand. Surely you could tell the difference between a smoking 20,000,000-year-old MILF and her 20-year-old niece.

@niaoahgin

…As far as the correlation between “education level” and belief is concerned, I find this argument to be completely irrelevant. Ask the same groups of people about the concepts of “karma”, “immortality”, or “absolute truth”, and you would would likely find the same results…

Right . . . in the sense that Grandma believed in love and knew as much about love as I’ll ever know.

@niaoahgin

…Although I’ve been “in school” for 24 years of my life I would never consider myself better equipped for comprehending the infinite and infinitesimal elements of existence than my grandmother who was formally educated a mere 8 years of her life.

Right again.

Speaking of grandmothers, mine was born in 1888 and spent her school years in a nunnery. At this nunnery, students were taught that it was bad to laugh or even smile. No mirrors were allowed because it would be vain to look at yourself. I’m not sure what she learned in science class, but I’m pretty sure someone with her education would be much more likely to believe in a young earth and worldwide flood than any of her grandkids.

The idea of non-overlapping magesteria (NOMA) only goes so far in my (good) book. If a religion makes claims that science can evaluate, I see overlap. Did a flood occur that matches what the Bible says? Did a person who lived 950 years and sired children after age 500, build an Ark that matches the description in the Bible and fill it with all those animals? Science has something to say about these questions, and my science is better than Grandma’s.

[the_chief]

@zender

[quote=“niaoahgin”]…The earth looks pretty damn old to me. Six thousand vs. six billion years, who the heck am I to judge that difference. I can barely tell the difference between a smoking 40 year old Taiwanese MILF and her niece, truth be told.

But six billion is a million times older than six thousand. Surely you could tell the difference between a smoking 20,000,000-year-old MILF and her 20-year-old niece.[/quote]

Not at a rodeo dance.

[Jack_Burton]

[quote=“niaoahgin”][quote=“the chief”]
I’m talking about the goofballs who insist the earth is only, like, 6000 years old.[/quote]

The earth looks pretty damn old to me. Six thousand vs. six billion years, who the heck am I to judge that difference. I can barely tell the difference between a smoking 40 year old Taiwanese MILF and her niece, truth be told.[/quote]

there are two points to be made here:

1. Chief: stop talking, no, stop writing like a valley girl. Like is a simile not a word to be tossed around willy-nilly.

2. “judge the difference”. That is why many people FAIL. You are not here to judge. or feel. or “looks” pretty old. It’s called evaluating the evidence. And the geological evidence, among others, demonstrate the earth is on the order of billions of years old. Orders of magnitude.

Btw, there are trees in California that are already over 4000 years old. how cool is that?

[Stripe]

@Gao Bohan

As always, Fortigurn is making a logical argument based on the best available scholarship, and his detractors, having their preconceived notions obliterated, are pissed off, acting like jackasses, rehashing debunked arguments, nitpicking, getting emotional and personal, and in general acting like pricks.YOU LOST, gentlemen. Deal with it.

Excuse me?

[the_chief]

[quote=“Jack Burton”]

1. Chief: stop talking, no, stop writing like a valley girl. Like is a simile not a word to be tossed around willy-nilly.[/quote]

Yeah, well, like I told my last wife, I says, “Honey, I never drive faster than I can see. Besides that, it’s all in the reflexes.”

[Jack_Burton]

[quote=“the chief”][quote=“Jack Burton”]

1. Chief: stop talking, no, stop writing like a valley girl. Like is a simile not a word to be tossed around willy-nilly.[/quote]

Yeah, well, like I told my last wife, I says, “Honey, I never drive faster than I can see. Besides that, it’s all in the reflexes.”
[/quote]

"Is this gonna get ugly, now? Huh? I hope not. Because I thought what we were here, racial differences notwithstanding, was just a couple of old friends. You know, just both of us Californians. "

[Zla_od]

So there was a Great Flood, then…?

[the_chief]

@Zla'od

So there was a Great Flood, then…?

I wouldn’t say “Great”…“Pretty Good”, maybe, but “Great”?

Nah.

Like, there weren’t any car chases or bar fights.

[Confuzius]

[quote=“Gao Bohan”]As always, Fortigurn is making a logical argument based on the best available scholarship, and his detractors, having their preconceived notions obliterated, are pissed off, acting like jackasses, rehashing debunked arguments, nitpicking, getting emotional and personal, and in general acting like pricks.

YOU LOST, gentlemen. Deal with it.[/quote]

I guess Gao Bohan is Fort’s personal cheerleader

Actually, we got his statements to change from:

@Fort

…the local interpretation (which is clearly indicated in the text)…

As early as the 1st century CE the Jewish expositors Josephus (in Judea), and Philo (in Alexandria of Egypt), both understood the Genesis flood narrative to be referring to a local flood not a global flood.

to

[quote=“Fort”]
I am not saying they believed it was local in the sense of being confined to a particular area, I am saying they didn’t believe it was universal. Call it ‘non-global’ if you wish. [/quote]

Which, are different things.

That’s what disagreeing with others does; it helps us sharpen our points and refine our definitions, all part of the academic process of inquiry.

NOW, we could return to the original idea of the video, but I suppose we could answer all the animals went and hoofed it to Israel and the Garden of Eden during the flood. But that seems just as bizarre as being in a boat, and requires waving the magic wand of “god did it” to make any sense.

But I was happy with the outcome and sharpening of the definition, though I appreciate your concern GB, and I am sure Fort appreciates your support, even if you misrepresent what happened. Adoration is still adoration I guess :serenade:

[Fortigurn]

@Confuzius

Actually, we got his statements to change from:

No you didn’t. I haven’t changed my position at all on what Josephus and Philo wrote. Nor have I changed my position on the fact that a number of the rabbis understood the flood to be non-global. As I have pointed out repeatedly, my aim in identifying these sources is not to ‘prove the flood happened’, or to ‘prove the flood was local’, but to demonstrate that the global interpretation is not the only natural reading of the text, and was not the product of modern Christian apologetics in response to advancing scientific knowledge.

And as always in these discussions, when commenting on a subject concerning which I’m not professionally qualified, I quote directly (and extensively), from the relevant scholarly literature, so what I write here is not simply me airing my opinion in ignorance.

[Confuzius]

@Fortigurn

[quote=“Confuzius”]Actually, we got his statements to change from:

No you didn’t. I haven’t changed my position at all on what Josephus and Philo wrote. Nor have I changed my position on the fact that a number of the rabbis understood the flood to be non-global. [/quote]

You originally said local…not “non-global”…yawn.

[quote]
And as always in these discussions, when commenting on a subject concerning which I’m not professionally qualified, I quote directly (and extensively), from the relevant scholarly literature, so what I write here is not simply me airing my opinion in ignorance.[/quote]

You also pick and choose what you quote.

A little bit of knowledge as they say…