Noah's Ark

[dafydd]

Hi Dinwar,

So there have been actual ark-replica related deaths? Please tell us about them.

I would love to see those life insurance claims.

 

[ksfrogman]

The thing in question is whether a wooden ark that size could be seaworthy.

An actual ark that size, built of wood today, which is seaworthy, would be a fascinating piece of evidence that would require taking a new look at other evidence which indicates a wooden ark wouldn't be seaworthy.

An ark built with a steel frame is irrelevant. We already know that steel-framed ships that size (and larger) are seaworthy.

Exactly. All that had to be clarified.

 

[dafydd]

The term "fundie" is an insulting, mocking or derisive slang term at best that presupposes ones philosophical convictions, which is why I used the term "ambivalent" to describe my stance.

If they believe that the bible is literally true then they deserve all the derogatory epithets. Fundie is quite mild,the forum rules prevent me from expressing my true opinion of these nutters.

 

[caniswalensis]

If they believe that the bible is literally true then they deserve all the derogatory epithets.

I would tend to disagree with this. Would you mind very much explaining why this is?

Thanks, Canis

 

[Garrette]

My newbie status prohibits me from using html quotes?

Until you get to 15, yes.

For the issue regarding the presence of a steel frame I stand corrected.

Thank you. That admission in itself gains you tons of credibility points, regardless if you change your position or not. My initial point, though, refers directly to this. The information on the steel frame was very easy and very quick to find.

I can appreciate your frustration. Be that as it may, I hope you can equally appreciate that I am new to the forum, and stumbled upon it with great intrigue and curiosity from many perspectives, whether that be from the viewpoint of a Christian, a secularist, or other fundamentalist (which I am certainly not).

And you are welcome here. I mean that sincerely, and I mean it regardless if your positions agree with mine or are polar opposites. I mean it even if I get frustrated with you or you with me.

The term "fundie" is an insulting, mocking or derisive slang term at best

No. At best it is shorthand for those on the far end of the spectrum who tend to claim a more literal interpretation of the bible and a more strident prosyletization of it. At worst it is insulting, mocking, or derisive. My use of it here was somewhere in the middle, probably closer to the mocking end because the original poster (and, it seems, you) exhibited behavior worthy of mocking, i.e., making a claim without doing very very easy research first.

that presupposes ones philosophical convictions,

This part is true.

My intent was to interact and get feedback on a topic that has long waned in the back of my mind as a big question mark. This was done as I casually surfed the Internet during my brief time off to relax.

Excellent. We all do that, but do not presume that because your contact with the topic has been casual that everyone else's has been. Further, I suggest you re-read how you entered the thread and notice how it does not convey a casual position seeking input.

My intent was not frustrate anyone or to create an air-tight argument to support or refute a scientific thesis for publication. Should the latter be a mandatory criterion for future posts, I shall simply read and not contribute.

There are no such criteria, nor did I imply it. Nor are there criteria that others respond with kid gloves to post that fall short of their claims.

 

[SonOfLaertes]

I would tend to disagree with this. Would you mind very much explaining why this is?

Thanks, Canis

I can't speak for Dafydd, but from my perspective most literal interpretations of the Bible require the holder of these beliefs to attack various diverse branches of science - geology, physics (ie, light speed), biology, etc.

I am sure that there are many literalists out there who can somehow rationalize the age of the earth, Adam and Eve, evolution, etc. with modern scientific theory. However, these rational literalists are drowned out by the chorus of voices demanding that Creation Science, Young Earth geology, etc. be taught in our public schools.

Acknowledging the reality that the "face" of biblical literalism is anti-science, I personally must agree with Dafydd.

 

[dafydd]

I would tend to disagree with this. Would you mind very much explaining why this is?

Thanks, Canis

It's just my opinion. Some hard line bible literalists are trying to get their insane views taught in schools. Should I be praising these geniuses for their keen intelligence?

 

[caniswalensis]

It's just my opinion.

Hey, that's cool. I was just trying to understand a different viewpoint from my own.

 

[caniswalensis]

I can't speak for Dafydd, but from my perspective most literal interpretations of the Bible require the holder of these beliefs to attack various diverse branches of science - geology, physics (ie, light speed), biology, etc.

I am sure that there are many literalists out there who can somehow rationalize the age of the earth, Adam and Eve, evolution, etc. with modern scientific theory. However, these rational literalists are drowned out by the chorus of voices demanding that Creation Science, Young Earth geology, etc. be taught in our public schools.

Acknowledging the reality that the "face" of biblical literalism is anti-science, I personally must agree with Dafydd.

Hi SonOfLaertres,

Thanks for the well written answer. I do not disagree with anything here, but I still do not understand why biblical literalists are worthy of derogatory epithets. Why is it justified, and what does it acomplish?

Is the mere fact that a posisition is anti-science mean that it's adherants deserve to be called names?

(this is turning into a derail, sorry. I wouldn't mind one bit if it was split from the main thread)

 

[dafydd]

Is the mere fact that a posisition is anti-science mean that it's adherants deserve to be called names?

I am only speaking about creationists. Anyone who believes that the Earth and the universe were created six thousand years ago by a magic being is not fit to be let out alone. 'Fundie' does not even scratch the surface of my opinion of them.

 

[caniswalensis]

I am only speaking about creationists. Anyone who believes that the Earth and the universe were created six thousand years ago by a magic being is not fit to be let out alone. 'Fundie' does not even scratch the surface of my opinion of them.

I don't mean to pry,but this makes me even more curious.

What is it about creationists that make them so especially worthy of contempt in your eyes?

Why are they not fit to be let out alone? Does the average creation believer do harmful things?

I do not mean to put you on the spot. if you do not want to discuss it, that is fine, or you are welcome to PM me if that is better. I am just trying to get a handle on this issue and I fear I am missing something important.

Canis

 

[dafydd]

I don't mean to pry,but this makes me even more curious.

What is it about creationists that make them so especially worthy of contempt in your eyes?

Why are they not fit to be let out alone? Does the average creation believer do harmful things?

I do not mean to put you on the spot. if you do not want to discuss it, that is fine, or you are welcome to PM me if that is better. I am just trying to get a handle on this issue and I fear I am missing something important.

Canis

Just an idiosyncratic prejudice.

 

[caniswalensis]

Just an idiosyncratic prejudice.

OK.

We can leave it at that. I have 'em too.

For instance, with rare exception, I won't go to see a movie unless it has lazers, swords or monsters in it.

 

[davefoc]

I am only speaking about creationists. Anyone who believes that the Earth and the universe were created six thousand years ago by a magic being is not fit to be let out alone. 'Fundie' does not even scratch the surface of my opinion of them.

This is an issue that I have pondered a bit. In general, skeptics have a religious style belief that truth always matters. In fact, it often doesn't and vast numbers of people live happy successful lives that put a lower priority on the value of truth than most people who self identify as skeptics.

The difficulty here is that truth is very important sometimes and people who have low evidential requirements for opinion formation can struggle significantly because of the flawed decision making that results from that.

So does encouraging the application of critical thinking to things like Noah's ark assists people with the application of critical thinking on issues that are important to their lives or does it just provide an avenue for chest pounding by skeptics? I don't know the answer or have much of a well formed opinion about that. I see arguments for both sides.

What is the case, is that people, including skeptics, often form opinions based on what makes them happy (they allow their various biases to strongly affect the formation of an opinion). For a great number of people this is a process that they apply somewhat selectively. For the part of their life where choosing the correct course of action is critical they can fight hard to make a decision based on the best facts that are available to them and reduce the influence of confounding biases. For the rest of their lives they allow various biases to play a more important role in their decision making process and still achieve a reasonably happy successful life.

So who deserves ridicule in all this? The skeptics for acting like it's important to establish the truth about Noah's ark or the believers for making a reasonable decision to place a low priority on truth about Noah's ark when believing in it makes the happy and that belief does not cause a practical problem with the rest of their lives?

Being a skeptic, I think I can guess many of the arguments that my fellow skeptics might make about the importance for truth with regard to Noah's ark but I'm just not sure that those arguments arise to sufficient justification for the ridicule of people who just don't think the truth about Noah's ark is a significant enough issue in their own lives to spend effort to overcome biases that might allow for the formation of a more truth based opinion.

 

[ksfrogman]

Until you get to 15, yes.

...
And you are welcome here. I mean that sincerely, and I mean it regardless if your positions agree with mine or are polar opposites. I mean it even if I get frustrated with you or you with me.
...
Excellent. We all do that, but do not presume that because your contact with the topic has been casual that everyone else's has been. Further, I suggest you re-read how you entered the thread and notice how it does not convey a casual position seeking input.

Thank you for that. It is indeed difficult to jump onto a train once it has been set in motion, and up to speed. I should look before I leap.

As an aside, ever since I was a young kid, and read the story of Noah's ark, it left me with a lot of unanswered questions. As an adult, my curious questions were replaced with more reasonable ones. To make sense out of nonsense, I construed much of these biblical stories as parables.

Not a theologian or scientist, I am interested in what others have to say, since my rare occasion to attend church does little to quell my intellectual discontent with all of this. Of course being a proverbial "hamster on the wheel" that is busy from day-to-day affords me the convenience of not having to think too hard and long about important curiosities (age of the earth, the origin of species, dinosaurs, conflicting religions, space and time itself).

 

[caniswalensis]

This is an issue that I have pondered a bit. In general, skeptics have a religious style belief that truth always matters. In fact, it often doesn't and vast numbers of people live happy successful lives that put a lower priority on the value of truth than most people who self identify as skeptics.

The difficulty here is that truth is very important sometimes and people who have low evidential requirements for opinion formation can struggle significantly because of the flawed decision making that results from that.

So does encouraging the application of critical thinking to things like Noah's ark assists people with the application of critical thinking on issues that are important to their lives or does it just provide an avenue for chest pounding by skeptics? I don't know the answer or have much of a well formed opinion about that. I see arguments for both sides.

What is the case, is that people, including skeptics, often form opinions based on what makes them happy (they allow their various biases to strongly affect the formation of an opinion). For a great number of people this is a process that apply somewhat selectively. For the part of their life where choosing the correct course of action is critical they can fight hard to make a decision based on the best facts that are available to them and reduce the influence of confounding biases. For the rest of their lives they allow various biases to play a more important role in their decision making process and still achieve a reasonably happy successful life.

So who deserves ridicule in all this? The skeptics for acting like it's important to establish the truth about Noah's ark or the believers for making a reasonable decision to place a low priority on truth about Noah's ark when believing in it makes the happy and that belief does not cause a practical problem with the rest of their lives?

Being a skeptic, I think I can guess many of the arguments that my fellow skeptics might make about the importance for truth with regard to Noah's ark but I'm just not sure that those arguments arise to sufficient justification for the ridicule of people who just don't think the truth about Noah's ark is a significant enough issue in their own lives to spend effort to overcome biases that might allow for the formation of a more truth based opinion.

You have layed out the issue just beautifully here. Well done.

I couldn't quite find the words.

 

[Garrette]

This is an issue that I have pondered a bit. In general, skeptics have a religious style belief that truth always matters. In fact, it often doesn't and vast numbers of people live happy successful lives that put a lower priority on the value of truth than most people who self identify as skeptics.

The difficulty here is that truth is very important sometimes and people who have low evidential requirements for opinion formation can struggle significantly because of the flawed decision making that results from that.

So does encouraging the application of critical thinking to things like Noah's ark assists people with the application of critical thinking on issues that are important to their lives or does it just provide an avenue for chest pounding by skeptics? I don't know the answer or have much of a well formed opinion about that. I see arguments for both sides.

What is the case, is that people, including skeptics, often form opinions based on what makes them happy (they allow their various biases to strongly affect the formation of an opinion). For a great number of people this is a process that apply somewhat selectively. For the part of their life where choosing the correct course of action is critical they can fight hard to make a decision based on the best facts that are available to them and reduce the influence of confounding biases. For the rest of their lives they allow various biases to play a more important role in their decision making process and still achieve a reasonably happy successful life.

So who deserves ridicule in all this? The skeptics for acting like it's important to establish the truth about Noah's ark or the believers for making a reasonable decision to place a low priority on truth about Noah's ark when believing in it makes the happy and that belief does not cause a practical problem with the rest of their lives?

Being a skeptic, I think I can guess many of the arguments that my fellow skeptics might make about the importance for truth with regard to Noah's ark but I'm just not sure that those arguments arise to sufficient justification for the ridicule of people who just don't think the truth about Noah's ark is a significant enough issue in their own lives to spend effort to overcome biases that might allow for the formation of a more truth based opinion.

I don't want to go into a derail, particularly since my thoughts on it are ill-formed, but this touches on what I have begun to consider over the past year or two. Is there anything intrinsic to Fact that makes it de facto more valuable than Belief? Or is it rather merely what Fact can lead to which makes it more valuable, in which case anything which replicates the end point would be just as valuable?

Ah, well. Not expecting a response--just streaming consciousness here.

 

[SonOfLaertes]

Hi SonOfLaertres,

Thanks for the well written answer. I do not disagree with anything here, but I still do not understand why biblical literalists are worthy of derogatory epithets. Why is it justified, and what does it acomplish?

Is the mere fact that a posisition is anti-science mean that it's adherants deserve to be called names?

(this is turning into a derail, sorry. I wouldn't mind one bit if it was split from the main thread)

The short answer is that I have grown to use "fundie" as short-hand for Fundamentalist, and not as a derogatory epithet. I think there may be a context problem here - too often a "fundie" will identify his/herself with rationalizations so outrageous that they consistently tar the shorthand name with the quality of their assertions.

Plus, growing up here in the Northeast US name-calling is an evolved art. So when I see names like "Evo's" and "Fundies" being tossed by both sides it just makes me feel at home.

 

[Dinwar]

So there have been actual ark-replica related deaths? Please tell us about them.

Please re-read what I wrote. I never said "people have died from building arks". I said that the engineering errors that these ark builders perpetrate have killed people. There is a significant difference between those two claims.

 

[caniswalensis]

Please re-read what I wrote. I never said "people have died from building arks". I said that the engineering errors that these ark builders perpetrate have killed people. There is a significant difference between those two claims.

I see a difference as well, but I never implied the first claim. I only asked about ark-related deaths, which you brought up. I think 'ark related' could apply to either of the two claims.

I'm not trying to put you on the spot, I was just curious about the subject. Let me rephrase the question based on what you have said .

Can you give me an example of an engineering error perpetrated by an ark builder that has killed people? Or even just an engineering error that was made by an ark builder that did not result in death. Really I find the idea interesting.

Thanks, Canis