Guest bob young Posted August 29, 2006 Posted August 29, 2006 Darrell Stec wrote: > After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 28 August 2006 9:01 pm > bob young perhaps from alaspectrum@netvigator.com wrote: > > > > > > > Darrell Stec wrote: > > > >> After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 28 August 2006 1:34 > >> am bob young perhaps from alaspectrum@netvigator.com wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > MarkA wrote: > >> > > >> >> I have seen a few documentaries that go something like this: an > >> >> anthropology professor comes up with a theory about how primitive > >> >> people > >> >> can build something amazing, like Stonehenge, or the Pyramids. To > >> >> test his theory, he takes a group of students, and, using only > >> >> the tools that would have been available to the civilization in > >> >> question , demonstrates > >> >> that a monolith can be erected, the stones can be moved, etc. > >> >> IOW, he actually builds something similar, using only primitive > >> >> technology. > >> >> > >> >> There are a depressing number of theists out there who believe, > >> >> among other things, that the biblical story of Noah is factually > >> >> correct. Rather than spending their time mounting expeditions to > >> >> climb mountains in the Middle East, looking for remains of the > >> >> Ark, wouldn't it make more sense to begin by demonstrating that > >> >> construction of the Ark would even be possible? > >> >> > >> >> The theists should collect a small group of people, and, using > >> >> only the hand tools that Noah had, actually build an ark the size > >> >> described in the > >> >> bible. Once built, they should put it in the water, and > >> >> demonstrate that > >> >> it can stay afloat for a few months. Then, they should put a pair > >> >> of every "kind" of animal aboard, close it up, and have no contact > >> >> with the outside world for about two months or so. > >> >> > >> >> Once that is done, they will have demonstrated that the story of > >> >> the ark > >> >> is possible , no matter how improbable. Right now, they don't > >> >> even have > >> >> a demonstration of the possibility. I believe that some church in > >> >> the midwest is building a replica of the ark, but using modern > >> >> construction > >> >> techniques (concrete, steel beams, etc). That doesn't count. > >> >> Build one the way Noah would have, then, we'll talk. > >> > > >> > Total waste of time, an ounce of common sense shows the whole story > >> > to be a primitive myth. > >> > > >> > How did kangaroos reach the ark? > >> > > >> > >> It was just a hop, skip and jump away. Stones can skip over water. > >> Why not kangaroos? > > > > Idiot > > > > That could also be said of someone who doesn't recognize humor and > sarcasm when he sees it, couldn't it? A WARM WELCOME TO "THE 4C's Club" [''The Clever Cynical Comments Club' Entry is free of charge] Our Charter: We are a select group and through our personal deprived upbringings [or some other detracting force such as an imagined god] we obtain our pleasure in life by being cynical to others. We believe our comments render us taller than the rest and, of course, smarter. Our common effort to create nasty jargon, comments, quips and sayings is bar none. We are justly proud that many of our members are some of the nastiest people on earth and this includes a good many hypocritical religionists as well. Remember our slogan "If intelligence can't beat 'em, cynicism could" > > > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> MarkA > >> >> (this space accidentally filled in) > >> > >> -- > >> Later, > >> Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com > >> > >> Webpage Sorcery > >> http://webpagesorcery.com > >> We Put the Magic in Your Webpages > > -- > Later, > Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com > > Webpage Sorcery > http://webpagesorcery.com > We Put the Magic in Your Webpages Quote
Guest Mike Posted August 29, 2006 Posted August 29, 2006 bob young wrote: > MarkA wrote: > > > Once that is done, they will have demonstrated that the story of the ark > > is possible , no matter how improbable. Right now, they don't even have > > a demonstration of the possibility. I believe that some church in the > > midwest is building a replica of the ark, but using modern construction > > techniques (concrete, steel beams, etc). That doesn't count. Build one > > the way Noah would have, then, we'll talk. > > Total waste of time, an ounce of common sense shows the whole story to be a > primitive myth. > > How did kangaroos reach the ark? There were no kangaroos on the ark. Obviously there are too many species in the world for two of each to have fit in the ark. It must be that Noah collected two of each kind from the animals in his immediate vicinity and since then the various species on the different continents have EVOLVED from those species. Oops! I used a naughty word! Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted August 29, 2006 Posted August 29, 2006 On 28 Aug 2006 20:01:02 -0500, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote: - Refer: <44F39158.89771AAE@netvigator.com> > > >Darrell Stec wrote: > >> After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 28 August 2006 1:34 am >> bob young perhaps from alaspectrum@netvigator.com wrote: >> >> > >> > >> > MarkA wrote: >> > >> >> I have seen a few documentaries that go something like this: an >> >> anthropology professor comes up with a theory about how primitive >> >> people >> >> can build something amazing, like Stonehenge, or the Pyramids. To >> >> test his theory, he takes a group of students, and, using only the >> >> tools that would have been available to the civilization in >> >> question , demonstrates >> >> that a monolith can be erected, the stones can be moved, etc. IOW, >> >> he actually builds something similar, using only primitive >> >> technology. >> >> >> >> There are a depressing number of theists out there who believe, among >> >> other things, that the biblical story of Noah is factually correct. >> >> Rather than spending their time mounting expeditions to climb >> >> mountains in the Middle East, looking for remains of the Ark, >> >> wouldn't it make more sense to begin by demonstrating that >> >> construction of the Ark would even be possible? >> >> >> >> The theists should collect a small group of people, and, using only >> >> the hand tools that Noah had, actually build an ark the size >> >> described in the >> >> bible. Once built, they should put it in the water, and demonstrate >> >> that >> >> it can stay afloat for a few months. Then, they should put a pair of >> >> every "kind" of animal aboard, close it up, and have no contact with >> >> the outside world for about two months or so. >> >> >> >> Once that is done, they will have demonstrated that the story of the >> >> ark >> >> is possible , no matter how improbable. Right now, they don't even >> >> have >> >> a demonstration of the possibility. I believe that some church in >> >> the midwest is building a replica of the ark, but using modern >> >> construction >> >> techniques (concrete, steel beams, etc). That doesn't count. Build >> >> one the way Noah would have, then, we'll talk. >> > >> > Total waste of time, an ounce of common sense shows the whole story to >> > be a primitive myth. >> > >> > How did kangaroos reach the ark? >> > >> >> It was just a hop, skip and jump away. Stones can skip over water. Why >> not kangaroos? > >Idiot Having an 'irony challenged day' today, are we, Robert? Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted August 29, 2006 Posted August 29, 2006 On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 21:58:32 -0400, Darrell Stec <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote: - Refer: <4lhla9F1vn81U1@individual.net> >After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 28 August 2006 9:15 pm >Michael Gray perhaps from fleetg@newsguy.spam.com wrote: > >> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:08:38 -0400, Darrell Stec >> <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote: >> - Refer: <4lgm8nF1qlmtU3@individual.net> >>>After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 28 August 2006 1:34 am >>>bob young perhaps from alaspectrum@netvigator.com wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> MarkA wrote: >> : >>>> How did kangaroos reach the ark? >>>> >>> >>>It was just a hop, skip and jump away. Stones can skip over water. >>>Why not kangaroos? >> >> Koalas and Wombats would have had a trifle more trouble joining in on >> the mythical mayhem! > >Koalas were cute and cuddly. They could travel in the kangaroo pouches. >The Wombats, I'm afraid would have had to hang onto the kangaroos >tails. I've never seen any of these animals up close so I don't know >whether they were clean or unclean. A disproportionate number of any >of them could lead to a problem with my scenario. > >Which way do the currents flow in the oceans there? Maybe some of them According to the latest research at the James Cook University of Queensland by Isobel Beasly for her PhD shows that not even snubfin Dolphins are able to pass across the barrier formed by the Straits of Indonesia from Australia. Quite how skippy can manage it with 714 koalas and .2 wombats attached is anybody's guess. I suppose I had better go back and re-read my bible. What is the Hebrew for "wombat"? >traveled by logs. I'm still working on the Tasmanian Devils. >According to the Looney Toon documentaries that appeared every Saturday >morning, they were speed demons, however I understand that some >zoologists (OK all of them) insist they are rather slow creatures, >nasty and nasty smelling. So I doubt they could hitch a ride easily. Oh, that's easily explained: They probably hired luxury steam-yachts, using their royalties from Warner Brothers. Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted August 29, 2006 Posted August 29, 2006 On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:11:50 -0400, MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote: - Refer: <pan.2006.08.29.02.11.47.587615@nowhere.com> >On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 09:43:02 -0400, ZenIsWhen wrote: > >> "MarkA" <toor@nowhere.com> wrote in message >> news:pan.2006.08.27.21.50.08.374038@nowhere.com... >>>I have seen a few documentaries that go something like this: an >>> anthropology professor comes up with a theory about how primitive people >>> can build something amazing, like Stonehenge, or the Pyramids. To test >>> his theory, he takes a group of students, and, using only the tools >>> that would have been available to the civilization in question , >>> demonstrates that a monolith can be erected, the stones can be moved, >>> etc. IOW, he actually builds something similar, using only primitive >>> technology. >>> >>> There are a depressing number of theists out there who believe, among >>> other things, that the biblical story of Noah is factually correct. >>> Rather than spending their time mounting expeditions to climb mountains >>> in the Middle East, looking for remains of the Ark, wouldn't it make >>> more sense to begin by demonstrating that construction of the Ark would >>> even be possible? >> >> The ark isn't the same as an immobile structure. Sure, it can be built - >> but it CANNOT hold the creatures claimed in the bible - and it cannot, >> sucessfully, float! > >I'm not convinced it could even be built. Let's see the fundies build one >first, THEN we'll worry about whether it is seaworthy, could hold the >animals, etc... They are going to have to 'tease' a lot of gophers... Quote
Guest MarkA Posted August 29, 2006 Posted August 29, 2006 On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:33:51 +0930, Michael Gray wrote: > On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:11:50 -0400, MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote: > - Refer: <pan.2006.08.29.02.11.47.587615@nowhere.com> >>On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 09:43:02 -0400, ZenIsWhen wrote: >> >>> "MarkA" <toor@nowhere.com> wrote in message >>> news:pan.2006.08.27.21.50.08.374038@nowhere.com... >>>>I have seen a few documentaries that go something like this: an >>>> anthropology professor comes up with a theory about how primitive >>>> people can build something amazing, like Stonehenge, or the Pyramids. >>>> To test his theory, he takes a group of students, and, using only the >>>> tools that would have been available to the civilization in question , >>>> demonstrates that a monolith can be erected, the stones can be moved, >>>> etc. IOW, he actually builds something similar, using only primitive >>>> technology. >>>> >>>> There are a depressing number of theists out there who believe, among >>>> other things, that the biblical story of Noah is factually correct. >>>> Rather than spending their time mounting expeditions to climb >>>> mountains in the Middle East, looking for remains of the Ark, wouldn't >>>> it make more sense to begin by demonstrating that construction of the >>>> Ark would even be possible? >>> >>> The ark isn't the same as an immobile structure. Sure, it can be built >>> - but it CANNOT hold the creatures claimed in the bible - and it >>> cannot, sucessfully, float! >> >>I'm not convinced it could even be built. Let's see the fundies build >>one first, THEN we'll worry about whether it is seaworthy, could hold the >>animals, etc... > > They are going to have to 'tease' a lot of gophers... It was made from "gopher wood", NOT "gopher woodies"! -- MarkA (still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different) Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted August 29, 2006 Posted August 29, 2006 On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:38:12 GMT, MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote: - Refer: <pan.2006.08.29.11.38.10.349776@stopspam.net> >On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:33:51 +0930, Michael Gray wrote: > >> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:11:50 -0400, MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote: >> - Refer: <pan.2006.08.29.02.11.47.587615@nowhere.com> >>>On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 09:43:02 -0400, ZenIsWhen wrote: >>> >>>> "MarkA" <toor@nowhere.com> wrote in message >>>> news:pan.2006.08.27.21.50.08.374038@nowhere.com... >>>>>I have seen a few documentaries that go something like this: an >>>>> anthropology professor comes up with a theory about how primitive >>>>> people can build something amazing, like Stonehenge, or the Pyramids. >>>>> To test his theory, he takes a group of students, and, using only the >>>>> tools that would have been available to the civilization in question , >>>>> demonstrates that a monolith can be erected, the stones can be moved, >>>>> etc. IOW, he actually builds something similar, using only primitive >>>>> technology. >>>>> >>>>> There are a depressing number of theists out there who believe, among >>>>> other things, that the biblical story of Noah is factually correct. >>>>> Rather than spending their time mounting expeditions to climb >>>>> mountains in the Middle East, looking for remains of the Ark, wouldn't >>>>> it make more sense to begin by demonstrating that construction of the >>>>> Ark would even be possible? >>>> >>>> The ark isn't the same as an immobile structure. Sure, it can be built >>>> - but it CANNOT hold the creatures claimed in the bible - and it >>>> cannot, sucessfully, float! >>> >>>I'm not convinced it could even be built. Let's see the fundies build >>>one first, THEN we'll worry about whether it is seaworthy, could hold the >>>animals, etc... >> >> They are going to have to 'tease' a lot of gophers... > >It was made from "gopher wood", NOT "gopher woodies"! Oops, sorry! A natural enough mistake to make when considering usual Christian Hieratic "moral" behaviour. Quote
Guest MarkA Posted August 29, 2006 Posted August 29, 2006 On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 21:47:10 +0930, Michael Gray wrote: > On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:38:12 GMT, MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote: > - Refer: <pan.2006.08.29.11.38.10.349776@stopspam.net> >>On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:33:51 +0930, Michael Gray wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:11:50 -0400, MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote: >>> - Refer: <pan.2006.08.29.02.11.47.587615@nowhere.com> >>>>On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 09:43:02 -0400, ZenIsWhen wrote: >>>> >>>>> "MarkA" <toor@nowhere.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:pan.2006.08.27.21.50.08.374038@nowhere.com... >>>>>>I have seen a few documentaries that go something like this: an >>>>>> anthropology professor comes up with a theory about how primitive >>>>>> people can build something amazing, like Stonehenge, or the >>>>>> Pyramids. To test his theory, he takes a group of students, and, >>>>>> using only the tools that would have been available to the >>>>>> civilization in question , demonstrates that a monolith can be >>>>>> erected, the stones can be moved, etc. IOW, he actually builds >>>>>> something similar, using only primitive technology. >>>>>> >>>>>> There are a depressing number of theists out there who believe, >>>>>> among other things, that the biblical story of Noah is factually >>>>>> correct. Rather than spending their time mounting expeditions to >>>>>> climb mountains in the Middle East, looking for remains of the Ark, >>>>>> wouldn't it make more sense to begin by demonstrating that >>>>>> construction of the Ark would even be possible? >>>>> >>>>> The ark isn't the same as an immobile structure. Sure, it can be >>>>> built - but it CANNOT hold the creatures claimed in the bible - and >>>>> it cannot, sucessfully, float! >>>> >>>>I'm not convinced it could even be built. Let's see the fundies build >>>>one first, THEN we'll worry about whether it is seaworthy, could hold >>>>the animals, etc... >>> >>> They are going to have to 'tease' a lot of gophers... >> >>It was made from "gopher wood", NOT "gopher woodies"! > > Oops, sorry! > > A natural enough mistake to make when considering usual Christian Hieratic > "moral" behaviour. I wouldn't even want to THINK about all the pissed-off female gophers you'd have to deal with.... -- MarkA (still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different) Quote
Guest ZenIsWhen Posted August 29, 2006 Posted August 29, 2006 > On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:11:50 -0400, MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote: > - Refer: <pan.2006.08.29.02.11.47.587615@nowhere.com> >>On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 09:43:02 -0400, ZenIsWhen wrote: >> >>> "MarkA" <toor@nowhere.com> wrote in message >>> news:pan.2006.08.27.21.50.08.374038@nowhere.com... >>>>I have seen a few documentaries that go something like this: an >>>> anthropology professor comes up with a theory about how primitive >>>> people >>>> can build something amazing, like Stonehenge, or the Pyramids. To test >>>> his theory, he takes a group of students, and, using only the tools >>>> that would have been available to the civilization in question , >>>> demonstrates that a monolith can be erected, the stones can be moved, >>>> etc. IOW, he actually builds something similar, using only primitive >>>> technology. >>>> >>>> There are a depressing number of theists out there who believe, among >>>> other things, that the biblical story of Noah is factually correct. >>>> Rather than spending their time mounting expeditions to climb mountains >>>> in the Middle East, looking for remains of the Ark, wouldn't it make >>>> more sense to begin by demonstrating that construction of the Ark would >>>> even be possible? >>> >>> The ark isn't the same as an immobile structure. Sure, it can be built - >>> but it CANNOT hold the creatures claimed in the bible - and it cannot, >>> sucessfully, float! >> >>I'm not convinced it could even be built. Let's see the fundies build one >>first, THEN we'll worry about whether it is seaworthy, could hold the >>animals, etc... They are in the final process of building one. It's in Texas - near the site where they (fraudulently) claim man walked along dinosaurs. Of course, it is hundreds of miles from any ocean. No doubt they will use the ark as evidence that the ark COULD be built, but when challenged to make it float, they will say it's just a display museum. Quote
Guest ZenIsWhen Posted August 29, 2006 Posted August 29, 2006 "MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message news:pan.2006.08.29.11.38.10.349776@stopspam.net... > On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:33:51 +0930, Michael Gray wrote: > >> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:11:50 -0400, MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote: >> - Refer: <pan.2006.08.29.02.11.47.587615@nowhere.com> >>>On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 09:43:02 -0400, ZenIsWhen wrote: >>> >>>> "MarkA" <toor@nowhere.com> wrote in message >>>> news:pan.2006.08.27.21.50.08.374038@nowhere.com... >>>>>I have seen a few documentaries that go something like this: an >>>>> anthropology professor comes up with a theory about how primitive >>>>> people can build something amazing, like Stonehenge, or the Pyramids. >>>>> To test his theory, he takes a group of students, and, using only the >>>>> tools that would have been available to the civilization in question , >>>>> demonstrates that a monolith can be erected, the stones can be moved, >>>>> etc. IOW, he actually builds something similar, using only primitive >>>>> technology. >>>>> >>>>> There are a depressing number of theists out there who believe, among >>>>> other things, that the biblical story of Noah is factually correct. >>>>> Rather than spending their time mounting expeditions to climb >>>>> mountains in the Middle East, looking for remains of the Ark, wouldn't >>>>> it make more sense to begin by demonstrating that construction of the >>>>> Ark would even be possible? >>>> >>>> The ark isn't the same as an immobile structure. Sure, it can be built >>>> - but it CANNOT hold the creatures claimed in the bible - and it >>>> cannot, sucessfully, float! >>> >>>I'm not convinced it could even be built. Let's see the fundies build >>>one first, THEN we'll worry about whether it is seaworthy, could hold the >>>animals, etc... >> >> They are going to have to 'tease' a lot of gophers... > > It was made from "gopher wood", NOT "gopher woodies"! Good thing ......... 'else there'd be one hell of a lot of totally pissed gophers out there! Quote
Guest William Wingstedt Posted August 29, 2006 Posted August 29, 2006 On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 17:50:13 -0400, MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote: >I have seen a few documentaries that go something like this: an >anthropology professor comes up with a theory about how primitive people >can build something amazing, like Stonehenge, or the Pyramids. To test >his theory, he takes a group of students, and, using only the tools that >would have been available to the civilization in question , demonstrates >that a monolith can be erected, the stones can be moved, etc. IOW, he >actually builds something similar, using only primitive technology. > >There are a depressing number of theists out there who believe, among >other things, that the biblical story of Noah is factually correct. >Rather than spending their time mounting expeditions to climb mountains in >the Middle East, looking for remains of the Ark, wouldn't it make more >sense to begin by demonstrating that construction of the Ark would even >be possible? > >The theists should collect a small group of people, and, using only the >hand tools that Noah had, actually build an ark the size described in the >bible. Once built, they should put it in the water, and demonstrate that >it can stay afloat for a few months. Then, they should put a pair of >every "kind" of animal aboard, close it up, and have no contact with the >outside world for about two months or so. > >Once that is done, they will have demonstrated that the story of the ark >is possible , no matter how improbable. Right now, they don't even have >a demonstration of the possibility. I believe that some church in the >midwest is building a replica of the ark, but using modern construction >techniques (concrete, steel beams, etc). That doesn't count. Build one >the way Noah would have, then, we'll talk. I'm sure they'll get right on it as soon as the god tells them to commence building. To do it just because we want them to would be testing their faith, and that's just not how they roll. When the god tells them to, it will provide the fixin's and cause the animals to gather, two by two. I question the method the god used to exterminate all the naughty people. Why not just have Noah wake up alone with his family and leave all the animal cruelty out of it? Better yet, why not just propagate a myth about having done just that, make people think it really happened (just to get them to straighten up and fly right) and forget all the fuss over a flood and everything? Oh...wait....never mind...that would mean that the myth itself would prove that the god exists, and having the god exist would be a test of faith...which brings us back to square one. >-- >MarkA >(this space accidentally filled in) > Quote
Guest Darrell Stec Posted August 29, 2006 Posted August 29, 2006 After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 29 August 2006 6:02 am Michael Gray perhaps from fleetg@newsguy.spam.com wrote: > On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 21:58:32 -0400, Darrell Stec > <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote: > - Refer: <4lhla9F1vn81U1@individual.net> >>After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 28 August 2006 9:15 pm >>Michael Gray perhaps from fleetg@newsguy.spam.com wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:08:38 -0400, Darrell Stec >>> <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote: >>> - Refer: <4lgm8nF1qlmtU3@individual.net> >>>>After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 28 August 2006 1:34 >>>>am bob young perhaps from alaspectrum@netvigator.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> MarkA wrote: >>> : >>>>> How did kangaroos reach the ark? >>>>> >>>> >>>>It was just a hop, skip and jump away. Stones can skip over water. >>>>Why not kangaroos? >>> >>> Koalas and Wombats would have had a trifle more trouble joining in >>> on the mythical mayhem! >> >>Koalas were cute and cuddly. They could travel in the kangaroo >>pouches. The Wombats, I'm afraid would have had to hang onto the >>kangaroos >>tails. I've never seen any of these animals up close so I don't know >>whether they were clean or unclean. A disproportionate number of any >>of them could lead to a problem with my scenario. >> >>Which way do the currents flow in the oceans there? Maybe some of >>them > > According to the latest research at the James Cook University of > Queensland by Isobel Beasly for her PhD shows that not even snubfin > Dolphins are able to pass across the barrier formed by the Straits of > Indonesia from Australia. > There you go, spoiling a perfectly good hypothesis (oops, I slipped out of fundie mode for a second, I mean theory) with pesky facts. I guess I'll now go down to our town's one and only coffee shop and drown my sorrows. > Quite how skippy can manage it with 714 koalas and .2 wombats attached > is anybody's guess. > > I suppose I had better go back and re-read my bible. > I'm taking mine to the coffee shop. Because: A) It'll impress all my fundie neighbors [about 99.99999% of the town) who don't know I'm reading it critically and B) the inspiration for my next theory will be there if I mumble the proper magic words and use incense [i kind of like the smell of incense anyway] > What is the Hebrew for "wombat"? Come on Michael, you know as well as I that there is no Hebrew word for "wombat" nor for "kangaroo". They are not in the Bible and therefore they do not exist. > >>traveled by logs. I'm still working on the Tasmanian Devils. >>According to the Looney Toon documentaries that appeared every >>Saturday morning, they were speed demons, however I understand that >>some zoologists (OK all of them) insist they are rather slow >>creatures, >>nasty and nasty smelling. So I doubt they could hitch a ride easily. > > Oh, that's easily explained: > They probably hired luxury steam-yachts, using their royalties from > Warner Brothers. Or Steamboat Willie from Disney Studios. Good thinking. Maybe we will be the first to solve this intriquing puzzle. Creationists seem to need other people to do their thinking for them. -- Later, Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com Webpage Sorcery http://webpagesorcery.com We Put the Magic in Your Webpages Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted August 30, 2006 Posted August 30, 2006 On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 13:01:07 -0400, Darrell Stec <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote: - Refer: <4lja6kF26mn1U1@individual.net> >After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 29 August 2006 6:02 am >Michael Gray perhaps from fleetg@newsguy.spam.com wrote: > >> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 21:58:32 -0400, Darrell Stec >> <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote: >> - Refer: <4lhla9F1vn81U1@individual.net> >>>After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 28 August 2006 9:15 pm >>>Michael Gray perhaps from fleetg@newsguy.spam.com wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:08:38 -0400, Darrell Stec >>>> <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote: >>>> - Refer: <4lgm8nF1qlmtU3@individual.net> >>>>>After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 28 August 2006 1:34 >>>>>am bob young perhaps from alaspectrum@netvigator.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> MarkA wrote: >>>> : >>>>>> How did kangaroos reach the ark? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>It was just a hop, skip and jump away. Stones can skip over water. >>>>>Why not kangaroos? >>>> >>>> Koalas and Wombats would have had a trifle more trouble joining in >>>> on the mythical mayhem! >>> >>>Koalas were cute and cuddly. They could travel in the kangaroo >>>pouches. The Wombats, I'm afraid would have had to hang onto the >>>kangaroos >>>tails. I've never seen any of these animals up close so I don't know >>>whether they were clean or unclean. A disproportionate number of any >>>of them could lead to a problem with my scenario. >>> >>>Which way do the currents flow in the oceans there? Maybe some of >>>them >> >> According to the latest research at the James Cook University of >> Queensland by Isobel Beasly for her PhD shows that not even snubfin >> Dolphins are able to pass across the barrier formed by the Straits of >> Indonesia from Australia. >> > >There you go, spoiling a perfectly good hypothesis (oops, I slipped out >of fundie mode for a second, I mean theory) with pesky facts. I guess >I'll now go down to our town's one and only coffee shop and drown my >sorrows. Coffee is the work of Devil, weren't you aware? It stimulates ladies to unseemly lubriciousness. >> Quite how skippy can manage it with 714 koalas and .2 wombats attached >> is anybody's guess. >> >> I suppose I had better go back and re-read my bible. >> > >I'm taking mine to the coffee shop. Because: >A) It'll impress all my fundie neighbors [about 99.99999% of the town) >who don't know I'm reading it critically and >B) the inspiration for my next theory will be there if I mumble the >proper magic words and use incense [i kind of like the smell of incense >anyway] Hare, hare, krishna krishna, hairy hairy nosed wombat... >> What is the Hebrew for "wombat"? > >Come on Michael, you know as well as I that there is no Hebrew word for >"wombat" nor for "kangaroo". They are not in the Bible and therefore >they do not exist. Then what are these things outside the door? Furry Demons with pouches, I guess. Look father, a giant mouse!! >>>traveled by logs. I'm still working on the Tasmanian Devils. >>>According to the Looney Toon documentaries that appeared every >>>Saturday morning, they were speed demons, however I understand that >>>some zoologists (OK all of them) insist they are rather slow >>>creatures, >>>nasty and nasty smelling. So I doubt they could hitch a ride easily. >> >> Oh, that's easily explained: >> They probably hired luxury steam-yachts, using their royalties from >> Warner Brothers. > >Or Steamboat Willie from Disney Studios. Good thinking. Maybe we will >be the first to solve this intriquing puzzle. I'll start gathering the gopher woodies to make a Steam-Ark. Except that we have no gophers here in Australia. I'll have to use Tasmanian Devil woodies. Oh no, I can't make a vessel for the Lard from Devil Dicks! Any suggestions for candidate indigenous boat-building materials? Is fibreglass mentioned in the Bible? Ah yes: Rev 15:2 will do! It has the sea in it too. This conversation was foretold by Revelations!! How spooky is that? That'll get the cretinists salivating. >Creationists seem to >need other people to do their thinking for them. Most of them have no other option but to do that. Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted August 30, 2006 Posted August 30, 2006 On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 15:37:09 GMT, MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote: - Refer: <pan.2006.08.29.15.37.08.350105@stopspam.net> >On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 21:47:10 +0930, Michael Gray wrote: > >> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:38:12 GMT, MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote: >> - Refer: <pan.2006.08.29.11.38.10.349776@stopspam.net> >>>On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:33:51 +0930, Michael Gray wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:11:50 -0400, MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>> - Refer: <pan.2006.08.29.02.11.47.587615@nowhere.com> >>>>>On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 09:43:02 -0400, ZenIsWhen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> "MarkA" <toor@nowhere.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:pan.2006.08.27.21.50.08.374038@nowhere.com... >>>>>>>I have seen a few documentaries that go something like this: an >>>>>>> anthropology professor comes up with a theory about how primitive >>>>>>> people can build something amazing, like Stonehenge, or the >>>>>>> Pyramids. To test his theory, he takes a group of students, and, >>>>>>> using only the tools that would have been available to the >>>>>>> civilization in question , demonstrates that a monolith can be >>>>>>> erected, the stones can be moved, etc. IOW, he actually builds >>>>>>> something similar, using only primitive technology. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There are a depressing number of theists out there who believe, >>>>>>> among other things, that the biblical story of Noah is factually >>>>>>> correct. Rather than spending their time mounting expeditions to >>>>>>> climb mountains in the Middle East, looking for remains of the Ark, >>>>>>> wouldn't it make more sense to begin by demonstrating that >>>>>>> construction of the Ark would even be possible? >>>>>> >>>>>> The ark isn't the same as an immobile structure. Sure, it can be >>>>>> built - but it CANNOT hold the creatures claimed in the bible - and >>>>>> it cannot, sucessfully, float! >>>>> >>>>>I'm not convinced it could even be built. Let's see the fundies build >>>>>one first, THEN we'll worry about whether it is seaworthy, could hold >>>>>the animals, etc... >>>> >>>> They are going to have to 'tease' a lot of gophers... >>> >>>It was made from "gopher wood", NOT "gopher woodies"! >> >> Oops, sorry! >> >> A natural enough mistake to make when considering usual Christian Hieratic >> "moral" behaviour. > >I wouldn't even want to THINK about all the pissed-off female gophers >you'd have to deal with.... If they are anything as dangerous as pissed-off female humans, then I will respect your cautionary advice. Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted August 30, 2006 Posted August 30, 2006 On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 12:37:31 -0400, "ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@MYOB.com> wrote: - Refer: <12f8ragao5ji60b@corp.supernews.com> >"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message >news:pan.2006.08.29.11.38.10.349776@stopspam.net... >> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:33:51 +0930, Michael Gray wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:11:50 -0400, MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote: >>> - Refer: <pan.2006.08.29.02.11.47.587615@nowhere.com> >>>>On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 09:43:02 -0400, ZenIsWhen wrote: >>>> >>>>> "MarkA" <toor@nowhere.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:pan.2006.08.27.21.50.08.374038@nowhere.com... >>>>>>I have seen a few documentaries that go something like this: an >>>>>> anthropology professor comes up with a theory about how primitive >>>>>> people can build something amazing, like Stonehenge, or the Pyramids. >>>>>> To test his theory, he takes a group of students, and, using only the >>>>>> tools that would have been available to the civilization in question , >>>>>> demonstrates that a monolith can be erected, the stones can be moved, >>>>>> etc. IOW, he actually builds something similar, using only primitive >>>>>> technology. >>>>>> >>>>>> There are a depressing number of theists out there who believe, among >>>>>> other things, that the biblical story of Noah is factually correct. >>>>>> Rather than spending their time mounting expeditions to climb >>>>>> mountains in the Middle East, looking for remains of the Ark, wouldn't >>>>>> it make more sense to begin by demonstrating that construction of the >>>>>> Ark would even be possible? >>>>> >>>>> The ark isn't the same as an immobile structure. Sure, it can be built >>>>> - but it CANNOT hold the creatures claimed in the bible - and it >>>>> cannot, sucessfully, float! >>>> >>>>I'm not convinced it could even be built. Let's see the fundies build >>>>one first, THEN we'll worry about whether it is seaworthy, could hold the >>>>animals, etc... >>> >>> They are going to have to 'tease' a lot of gophers... >> >> It was made from "gopher wood", NOT "gopher woodies"! > > >Good thing ......... 'else there'd be one hell of a lot of totally pissed >gophers out there! How would they get drunk? Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted August 30, 2006 Posted August 30, 2006 On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 12:36:14 -0400, "ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@MYOB.com> wrote: - Refer: <12f8r82sru4f9b8@corp.supernews.com> >> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:11:50 -0400, MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote: >> - Refer: <pan.2006.08.29.02.11.47.587615@nowhere.com> >>>On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 09:43:02 -0400, ZenIsWhen wrote: >>> >>>> "MarkA" <toor@nowhere.com> wrote in message >>>> news:pan.2006.08.27.21.50.08.374038@nowhere.com... >>>>>I have seen a few documentaries that go something like this: an >>>>> anthropology professor comes up with a theory about how primitive >>>>> people >>>>> can build something amazing, like Stonehenge, or the Pyramids. To test >>>>> his theory, he takes a group of students, and, using only the tools >>>>> that would have been available to the civilization in question , >>>>> demonstrates that a monolith can be erected, the stones can be moved, >>>>> etc. IOW, he actually builds something similar, using only primitive >>>>> technology. >>>>> >>>>> There are a depressing number of theists out there who believe, among >>>>> other things, that the biblical story of Noah is factually correct. >>>>> Rather than spending their time mounting expeditions to climb mountains >>>>> in the Middle East, looking for remains of the Ark, wouldn't it make >>>>> more sense to begin by demonstrating that construction of the Ark would >>>>> even be possible? >>>> >>>> The ark isn't the same as an immobile structure. Sure, it can be built - >>>> but it CANNOT hold the creatures claimed in the bible - and it cannot, >>>> sucessfully, float! >>> >>>I'm not convinced it could even be built. Let's see the fundies build one >>>first, THEN we'll worry about whether it is seaworthy, could hold the >>>animals, etc... > >They are in the final process of building one. >It's in Texas - near the site where they (fraudulently) claim man walked >along dinosaurs. > >Of course, it is hundreds of miles from any ocean. The melting Ice Caps will take care of that. >No doubt they will use the ark as evidence that the ark COULD be built, but >when challenged to make it float, they will say it's just a display museum. > Quote
Guest stoney Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:02:46 -0400, Darrell Stec <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote in alt.atheism >After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 28 August 2006 12:07 am >MarkA perhaps from toor@nowhere.com wrote: > >> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 10:19:00 +1200, Llanzlan Klazmon wrote: >> >>> MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote in >>> news:pan.2006.08.27.21.50.08.374038@nowhere.com: >>> >>>> I have seen a few documentaries that go something like this: an >>>> anthropology professor comes up with a theory about how primitive >>>> people >>>> can build something amazing, like Stonehenge, or the Pyramids. To >>>> test his theory, he takes a group of students, and, using only the >>>> tools that would have been available to the civilization in >>>> question , demonstrates that a monolith can be erected, the stones >>>> can be moved, >>>> etc. IOW, he actually builds something similar, using only >>>> primitive technology. >>>> >>>> There are a depressing number of theists out there who believe, >>>> among other things, that the biblical story of Noah is factually >>>> correct. Rather than spending their time mounting expeditions to >>>> climb mountains in the Middle East, looking for remains of the Ark, >>>> wouldn't it make more sense to begin by demonstrating that >>>> construction of the Ark would even be possible? >>>> >>>> The theists should collect a small group of people, and, using only >>>> the hand tools that Noah had, actually build an ark the size >>>> described in >>>> the bible. Once built, they should put it in the water, and >>>> demonstrate >>>> that it can stay afloat for a few months. Then, they should put a >>>> pair of every "kind" of animal aboard, close it up, and have no >>>> contact with the outside world for about two months or so. >>>> >>>> Once that is done, they will have demonstrated that the story of the >>>> ark >>>> is possible , no matter how improbable. Right now, they don't even >>>> have a demonstration of the possibility. I believe that some church >>>> in the midwest is building a replica of the ark, but using modern >>>> construction techniques (concrete, steel beams, etc). That doesn't >>>> count. Build one the way Noah would have, then, we'll talk. >>>> >>>> >>> Whether or not a boat could be built the the specifications of Noahs >>> Arc is beside the point anyway. The Egyptian old kingdom continued >>> right through the claimed global flood event. There is no evidence of >>> any global flood having actually occurred and direct evidence against >>> it. >>> >>> Klazmon. >> >> There are dozens of reasons why the myth of Noah's Ark couldn't be >> true. That being said, it would still be great fun to watch the >> fundies actually try to build one. >> > >They have actually. And they failed as many times as they tried. Still >they use as the excuse of their failure and pin their hopes upon >"gopher wood" an unknown substance that just had to have properties our >present and degraded wood just doesn't have. Just like some pixie dust will get you to neverneverland. -- Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters. Quote
Guest stoney Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 18:12:54 -0500, wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in alt.atheism >MarkA wrote: > >> I have seen a few documentaries that go something like this: an >> anthropology professor comes up with a theory about how primitive people >> can build something amazing, like Stonehenge, or the Pyramids. To test >> his theory, he takes a group of students, and, using only the tools that >> would have been available to the civilization in question , demonstrates >> that a monolith can be erected, the stones can be moved, etc. IOW, he >> actually builds something similar, using only primitive technology. >> >> There are a depressing number of theists out there who believe, among >> other things, that the biblical story of Noah is factually correct. >> Rather than spending their time mounting expeditions to climb mountains in >> the Middle East, looking for remains of the Ark, wouldn't it make more >> sense to begin by demonstrating that construction of the Ark would even >> be possible? >> >> The theists should collect a small group of people, and, using only the >> hand tools that Noah had, actually build an ark the size described in the >> bible. Once built, they should put it in the water, and demonstrate that >> it can stay afloat for a few months. Then, they should put a pair of >> every "kind" of animal aboard, close it up, and have no contact with the >> outside world for about two months or so. >> >> Once that is done, they will have demonstrated that the story of the ark >> is possible , no matter how improbable. Right now, they don't even have >> a demonstration of the possibility. I believe that some church in the >> midwest is building a replica of the ark, but using modern construction >> techniques (concrete, steel beams, etc). That doesn't count. Build one >> the way Noah would have, then, we'll talk. >> > >Problem is, a boat the size of the ark today would cost >tens of millions. That's their problem. They can put their God$$$$ where their mouths are. -- Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters. Quote
Guest stoney Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 04:47:24 GMT, Dave Oldridge <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in alt.atheism >wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in >news:12f49olqujn2q7d@corp.supernews.com: > >> MarkA wrote: >> >>> I have seen a few documentaries that go something like this: an >>> anthropology professor comes up with a theory about how primitive >>> people can build something amazing, like Stonehenge, or the Pyramids. >>> To test his theory, he takes a group of students, and, using only >>> the tools that would have been available to the civilization in >>> question , demonstrates that a monolith can be erected, the stones >>> can be moved, etc. IOW, he actually builds something similar, using >>> only primitive technology. >>> >>> There are a depressing number of theists out there who believe, among >>> other things, that the biblical story of Noah is factually correct. >>> Rather than spending their time mounting expeditions to climb >>> mountains in the Middle East, looking for remains of the Ark, >>> wouldn't it make more sense to begin by demonstrating that >>> construction of the Ark would even be possible? >>> >>> The theists should collect a small group of people, and, using only >>> the hand tools that Noah had, actually build an ark the size >>> described in the bible. Once built, they should put it in the water, >>> and demonstrate that it can stay afloat for a few months. Then, they >>> should put a pair of every "kind" of animal aboard, close it up, and >>> have no contact with the outside world for about two months or so. >>> >>> Once that is done, they will have demonstrated that the story of the >>> ark is possible , no matter how improbable. Right now, they don't >>> even have a demonstration of the possibility. I believe that some >>> church in the midwest is building a replica of the ark, but using >>> modern construction techniques (concrete, steel beams, etc). That >>> doesn't count. Build one the way Noah would have, then, we'll talk. >>> >> >> Problem is, a boat the size of the ark today would cost >> tens of millions. > >A WOODEN boat the size of the ark wouldn't. But that's because it >wouldn't work. A wooden hull that size would break in two in even a >small gale. Or outside of a normal breakwater. But then reality isn't part of these people's world. -- Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters. Quote
Guest stoney Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:06:00 -0400, Darrell Stec <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote in alt.atheism >After serious contemplation, on or about Sunday 27 August 2006 7:12 pm >wcb perhaps from wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com wrote: > >> MarkA wrote: >> >>> I have seen a few documentaries that go something like this: an >>> anthropology professor comes up with a theory about how primitive >>> people >>> can build something amazing, like Stonehenge, or the Pyramids. To >>> test his theory, he takes a group of students, and, using only the >>> tools that would have been available to the civilization in >>> question , demonstrates >>> that a monolith can be erected, the stones can be moved, etc. IOW, >>> he actually builds something similar, using only primitive >>> technology. >>> >>> There are a depressing number of theists out there who believe, among >>> other things, that the biblical story of Noah is factually correct. >>> Rather than spending their time mounting expeditions to climb >>> mountains in the Middle East, looking for remains of the Ark, >>> wouldn't it make more sense to begin by demonstrating that >>> construction of the Ark would even be possible? >>> >>> The theists should collect a small group of people, and, using only >>> the hand tools that Noah had, actually build an ark the size >>> described in the >>> bible. Once built, they should put it in the water, and demonstrate >>> that >>> it can stay afloat for a few months. Then, they should put a pair of >>> every "kind" of animal aboard, close it up, and have no contact with >>> the outside world for about two months or so. >>> >>> Once that is done, they will have demonstrated that the story of the >>> ark >>> is possible , no matter how improbable. Right now, they don't even >>> have >>> a demonstration of the possibility. I believe that some church in >>> the midwest is building a replica of the ark, but using modern >>> construction >>> techniques (concrete, steel beams, etc). That doesn't count. Build >>> one the way Noah would have, then, we'll talk. >>> >> >> Problem is, a boat the size of the ark today would cost >> tens of millions. >> >> > >And the fundies could sell half a block in downtown Orlando, Fl and >easily raise that kind of money. They don't put their money where >their mouth is, simply because they know deep down, the whole story is >unreasonable. Yet a few organizations have tried to make an ark, and >reportedly failed. > >Where is that gopher wood when you need it? Gopher broke/buried. -- Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters. Quote
Guest stoney Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 04:46:09 GMT, Dave Oldridge <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in alt.atheism >MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote in >news:pan.2006.08.27.21.50.08.374038@nowhere.com: > >> I have seen a few documentaries that go something like this: an >> anthropology professor comes up with a theory about how primitive >> people can build something amazing, like Stonehenge, or the Pyramids. >> To test his theory, he takes a group of students, and, using only the >> tools that would have been available to the civilization in question , >> demonstrates that a monolith can be erected, the stones can be moved, >> etc. IOW, he actually builds something similar, using only primitive >> technology. >> >> There are a depressing number of theists out there who believe, among >> other things, that the biblical story of Noah is factually correct. >> Rather than spending their time mounting expeditions to climb >> mountains in the Middle East, looking for remains of the Ark, wouldn't >> it make more sense to begin by demonstrating that construction of the >> Ark would even be possible? >> >> The theists should collect a small group of people, and, using only >> the hand tools that Noah had, actually build an ark the size described >> in the bible. Once built, they should put it in the water, and >> demonstrate that it can stay afloat for a few months. Then, they >> should put a pair of every "kind" of animal aboard, close it up, and >> have no contact with the outside world for about two months or so. > >You won't get permission for this step. It's cruelty to animals. You >could, of course, substitute an equivalent mass of creationists who would >then be in a position to terminate the experiment if they felt >uncomfortable. No termination as that would demonstrate a hefty lack of faith and trust in 'God.' >> Once that is done, they will have demonstrated that the story of the >> ark is possible , no matter how improbable. Right now, they don't >> even have a demonstration of the possibility. I believe that some >> church in the midwest is building a replica of the ark, but using >> modern construction techniques (concrete, steel beams, etc). That >> doesn't count. Build one the way Noah would have, then, we'll talk. > >With the above change, I'm all for it. But they must remain afloat for >one year and must not call for help. If they do, then the experiment is >a failure. 8 crew, one small window which must remain closed for the scriptureal period of time with all food and water stored in wooden barrels or crude pottery jugs. -- Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters. Quote
Guest stoney Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 21:15:30 GMT, MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in alt.atheism >On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:57:31 -0500, Denis Loubet wrote: > >> >> "Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message >> news:Xns982CDD7134FC4doldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159... >>> MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote in >>> news:pan.2006.08.27.21.50.08.374038@nowhere.com: >>> >>>> I have seen a few documentaries that go something like this: an >>>> anthropology professor comes up with a theory about how primitive >>>> people can build something amazing, like Stonehenge, or the Pyramids. >>>> To test his theory, he takes a group of students, and, using only the >>>> tools that would have been available to the civilization in question , >>>> demonstrates that a monolith can be erected, the stones can be moved, >>>> etc. IOW, he actually builds something similar, using only primitive >>>> technology. >>>> >>>> There are a depressing number of theists out there who believe, among >>>> other things, that the biblical story of Noah is factually correct. >>>> Rather than spending their time mounting expeditions to climb mountains >>>> in the Middle East, looking for remains of the Ark, wouldn't it make >>>> more sense to begin by demonstrating that construction of the Ark would >>>> even be possible? >>>> >>>> The theists should collect a small group of people, and, using only the >>>> hand tools that Noah had, actually build an ark the size described in >>>> the bible. Once built, they should put it in the water, and >>>> demonstrate that it can stay afloat for a few months. Then, they >>>> should put a pair of every "kind" of animal aboard, close it up, and >>>> have no contact with the outside world for about two months or so. >>> >>> You won't get permission for this step. It's cruelty to animals. >> >> Don't worry, the test would never get that far. >> >>> You >>> could, of course, substitute an equivalent mass of creationists who >>> would then be in a position to terminate the experiment if they felt >>> uncomfortable. >> >> That's a suitable change. >> >>>> Once that is done, they will have demonstrated that the story of the >>>> ark is possible , no matter how improbable. Right now, they don't >>>> even have a demonstration of the possibility. I believe that some >>>> church in the midwest is building a replica of the ark, but using >>>> modern construction techniques (concrete, steel beams, etc). That >>>> doesn't count. Build one the way Noah would have, then, we'll talk. >>> >>> With the above change, I'm all for it. But they must remain afloat for >>> one year and must not call for help. If they do, then the experiment is >>> a failure. >> >> I suspect the floating time would be measured in negative numbers. The >> thing would breakup before they got it all in the water. > >It seems that many theists are not familiar with the concept of "scaling >phenomena." Just because a small river barge works in a river, doesn't >mean that a really, really BIG river barge would work in an ocean. That's like gov't and small pilot programmes that fail when applied large scale. -- Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters. Quote
Guest stoney Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 On 28 Aug 2006 00:34:02 -0500, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote in alt.atheism > > >MarkA wrote: > >> I have seen a few documentaries that go something like this: an >> anthropology professor comes up with a theory about how primitive people >> can build something amazing, like Stonehenge, or the Pyramids. To test >> his theory, he takes a group of students, and, using only the tools that >> would have been available to the civilization in question , demonstrates >> that a monolith can be erected, the stones can be moved, etc. IOW, he >> actually builds something similar, using only primitive technology. >> >> There are a depressing number of theists out there who believe, among >> other things, that the biblical story of Noah is factually correct. >> Rather than spending their time mounting expeditions to climb mountains in >> the Middle East, looking for remains of the Ark, wouldn't it make more >> sense to begin by demonstrating that construction of the Ark would even >> be possible? >> >> The theists should collect a small group of people, and, using only the >> hand tools that Noah had, actually build an ark the size described in the >> bible. Once built, they should put it in the water, and demonstrate that >> it can stay afloat for a few months. Then, they should put a pair of >> every "kind" of animal aboard, close it up, and have no contact with the >> outside world for about two months or so. >> >> Once that is done, they will have demonstrated that the story of the ark >> is possible , no matter how improbable. Right now, they don't even have >> a demonstration of the possibility. I believe that some church in the >> midwest is building a replica of the ark, but using modern construction >> techniques (concrete, steel beams, etc). That doesn't count. Build one >> the way Noah would have, then, we'll talk. > >Total waste of time, an ounce of common sense shows the whole story to be a >primitive myth. 'Common Sense' isn't, as the number of superstitious theists demonstrates. >How did kangaroos reach the ark? Imaginarybuddydidit! -- Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters. Quote
Guest stoney Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 10:45:48 +0930, Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism >On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:08:38 -0400, Darrell Stec ><darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote: > - Refer: <4lgm8nF1qlmtU3@individual.net> >>After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 28 August 2006 1:34 am >>bob young perhaps from alaspectrum@netvigator.com wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> MarkA wrote: >: >>> How did kangaroos reach the ark? >>> >> >>It was just a hop, skip and jump away. Stones can skip over water. Why >>not kangaroos? > >Koalas and Wombats would have had a trifle more trouble joining in on >the mythical mayhem! Nah! They can ride poach class! -- Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters. Quote
Guest stoney Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 On 28 Aug 2006 22:12:59 -0700, "Mike" <matmzc@hofstra.edu> wrote in alt.atheism > >bob young wrote: >> MarkA wrote: >> >> > Once that is done, they will have demonstrated that the story of the ark >> > is possible , no matter how improbable. Right now, they don't even have >> > a demonstration of the possibility. I believe that some church in the >> > midwest is building a replica of the ark, but using modern construction >> > techniques (concrete, steel beams, etc). That doesn't count. Build one >> > the way Noah would have, then, we'll talk. >> >> Total waste of time, an ounce of common sense shows the whole story to be a >> primitive myth. >> >> How did kangaroos reach the ark? > >There were no kangaroos on the ark. Obviously there are too many >species in the world for two of each to have fit in the ark. It must >be that Noah collected two of each kind from the animals in his >immediate vicinity and since then the various species on the different >continents have EVOLVED from those species. Oops! I used a naughty >word! And the evolution speed broke the sound barrier. -- Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.