What’s the deal with Noah’s Ark? And Why Does the Word “Evolutionist” Exist?

When reading fundamentalist Christian literature, or watching/listening to fundamentalist speakers, you often come across the word “Evolutionist.” Now, to clarify, they have often stated that evolution is a faith-based religion, and I don’t think I stand a chance of capturing even one percent of the body of evidence that stands against this statement in this medium. I am not here to restate all of the papers written by reputable scientists. I am here to appeal to your reasoning; think for yourself, if you will. If not, well, I had fun writing and researching this anyway. I will present some cases, mind, but I will try to keep from having to rely on “Things I have not seen first hand.” I know how many fundamentalist Christians do so love to state “You weren’t there.” To see this in (frightening) action, watch any video of Ken Ham speaking to Christian children. He trains them, like dogs, to reply “You weren’t there!” on command, and it feels a little… Cult-y. Like… Even more cult-y than the usual cult-y-ness that I have come to expect from Mr Ham.

Now, when defending the Old Testament account of Noah’s Flood, YECs rely on the math of “Created Kinds”. There are some varying estimation on how many “kinds” were taken. Creation Today (which I’ve referenced in the past), suggests there are 8000 “kinds”, therefore there are 16000 animals (we shall allow them to gloss over Genesis 7:2-3, where it commands 7 pairs of all clean animals be taken [even though that would include things such as cattle and sheep, which would, one suspects, bloat the number]). Apparently Creation Today got their math from Answers in Genesis (which is, admittedly, the definitive apologetics source of our time), so I’ll skip the AIG math. (It is worth reading their work, it is quite the fascinating piece of apologetics, to be sure [https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/how-could-noah-fit-the-animals-on-the-ark-and-care-for-them/]) Another source, CARM (the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry), has a much larger number of “kinds”, though they balance the math by having a smaller average animal size (Sheep for AIG, cats for CARM). [http://carm.org/could-noahs-ark-hold-all-animals] They record 21,100 kinds, and DO account for Genesis 7:2-3, so while I hate to go against the word of the venerable AIG, these guys are at least *trying* to get the math correctly. Mind, they use 7 pairs of birds only, and completely ignore the “clean animals” math. In any case, there are 72,700 animals on the ark, averaging the size of a cat. I have not done the exact math on this, mind, but I feel like they are averaging in the insects for size, but ignoring them for ark content; their math breakdown shows that “Insects can be ignored due to their small size”.

So now we’ve got math! We’ve got the math according to … Ummm… Reputable(?) YEC sources. Let’s look at it a bit more deeply. First, why is there such a wide range in the value presented for “kinds”? Well, that one is simple enough; when you are making your own rules, you can call whatever you want a kind (or not a kind, as the case often is). So each Creationist source does their own “Created Kinds Mathematics”. This problem has gone by the wayside recently, somewhat, in that people are all just leaning on the math provided by Answers in Genesis (Google search: How many boxcars could the ark hold? [You might think that is arbitrary, but you will get thousands of claimants stating objectively that it could hold 569 boxcars]), so 8000 is migrating towards the generally accepted number, but even in today’s age, anyone who tries to do their own math ends up with an arbitrary number. Even though it is a number that is researched, in great depth, by Baraminologists. Oh, you’ve never heard of Baraminology? I would try to link to a respectable dictionary that contains the word, but it is largely unlisted. The definition supplied by http://yourdictionary.com (A wiki dictionary, which means its definitions are supplied not by scholars, but by end users) is as follows:

baraminology

Noun(uncountable)

  1. The classification of organisms based on the Biblical doctrine of Special Creation done mainly by Creationists; the study of the created kinds.

So they made up an entire branch of science to basically count the number of animals on Noah’s ark… And even then, can’t fully agree on the math. I’ll let you chew on that one for a while.

Now, to my second point regarding “kinds” mathematics is that it is considered accepted… Ugh… It hurts me to write this sentence, even as a description of someone else’s beliefs… Alright. Deep breath. Starting over. It is considered generally accepted fact that dinosaurs were on the ark by YECs (and, specifically, AIG). They have reasoned, though, that God sent baby dinosaurs, as (direct quote, copied and pasted) “Even the largest dinosaurs were relatively small when only a few years old.” And now it is my turn to “You weren’t there.” This example, though, does point out the truly fundamental flaw in all of this: They (in their heads) already have the answer they are looking for, they just need to show their work. Oh, fully grown animals wouldn’t have fit? Then we use babies. The math works now!

So I am going to levy their own refrain against them; where’s the evidence?

Through all of this, I have to read that, in only 4,000 years, 16000 animals of 8000 species have created the biodiversity and populations we see today. WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF EVOLUTION. Every bird, reptile, amphibian, cow, cat, dog, moose, deer, every sheep, gopher, squirrel, (presumably) every insect, arachnid… They can all (somehow) trace their roots back to 8,000 species, and a population of 16,000. If you want to include humans in there, you have 8 humans who have birthed every race (Race, as a word, is racist, as Creation Today so lovingly informed me. Just so you know, we can’t call them races)… So, sorry for my racism. Every “people group” came from those 8, within the last 4,000 years. To add to that, they came to their current living space through migrations from Mount Ararat, again in the last 4,000 years. Effectively–and this is important–according to YECs, everything on the Earth is under 4,000 years old.

I am guessing they had some kind of seed saving mechanism, too, as I can’t figure how trees would survive the flood. In any case, I did a search for “Tree” or “Trees” in the Answers in Genesis article, and came back with nothing. Never mind the fact that tree ring counting allows us to trace trees back further than the age of the Earth (Read: 6,000 years), we can ignore that for now. They have expertly dodged the tree ring counting by stating “you weren’t there” and following it with “How are you to know that trees have ALWAYS grown one ring per year? What if, pre-flood, the seasons were much faster and they grew XX rings per year?!” They use the same logic for Antarctic ice layers, for which we can count into the tens of thousands of years easily. “Something, something, compacted freeze/thaw season.”

Again, we come up with “We know the answer, so we craft the data to fit.” Creation Today (I believe it was a scientist they were interviewing, though I cannot recall the exact episode) stated that, during the flood, radioactive decay was hyper-accelerated. I chose that wording, they would not have used such terminology — it would have confused too many people. Long story short, they say, all element-based dating methods (lead, carbon, uranium, etc) are effectively worthless because during the flood, the half-life of these elements was changed drastically by a factor of we have no idea so you can’t prove us wrong! Funny how that is.

What’s the point of all of this? Well, this is my stream of consciousness, I just wrote this down as it came to me. I have done some research, to be fair, so I have a solid starting point — but by reasoning through this and asking questions, I feel like any fair minded individual would come to the conclusion that forcing all of the math to fit an answer that has no apriori evidence is disingenuous, at best. The worst part is that the counter argument is “We totally did the science,” while supplying very little (to nothing) that would actually count as science at the best of times. If you read through the linked Answers in Genesis article, for example, you will see a host of fuzzy math or statements without proof. They state that they know the diet of the dinosaurs, and what they would eat on the Ark (Because… Because they were there? And we weren’t…?).

Now, we can move on to more claims they make as to the engineering of the ark. Again, from the AIG page linked, they reason that “Since Noah was over 500 years old, it would make sense that he would had the knowledge to build automatic feeding and water systems.” That claim in itself is so absurd on so many levels, I barely know where to start. Never mind the fact that we are now assuming he, of course, would have (clearly) come across advanced knowledge of engineering. He built the ark (in some 75 years, AIG reasons, which would have been easily possible since he was over 500. The blink of an eye!), therefore he knew all of the engineering required to work every system in it. A natural conclusion. Go and ask a modern shipwright if they could, given their knowledge, build an entire ship. You can give him 3 helpers (as Noah had three sons, and one assumes his sons’ wives did not do the heavy carpentry), but the workers are young and inexperienced. And you don’t get any tools, other than what you can manufacture yourself, that part is important (sort of. I think they’d fail even without this handicap, but the full picture is a better illustration). Check back in 10 years and see what they’ve come up with. It’s ok, I’ll wait. You can come back and read once you are done that experiment.

So why did I open this whole post by talking about Evolutionists? Well, that wraps around to how everything in the YEC worldview wraps so tightly around Noah’s Ark. God could have created a frajillion different species of animals before the flood, and only saved 8,000 kinds, so the “math” of evolution has to start after Noah’s Ark. That is why it is so easy for YECs to discount evolution; how could a “slow and gradual” process that only started 4,000 years ago create what we see today?

It all boils down to the fact that, no matter the evidence presented (YEC geologists… Now there’s an interesting bunch of people) regarding the age of the Earth, many will never recant on an Earth that is 6,000 years old and, for all practical calculations, only 4,000 years old.

You know what that means? Ignore everything you just read and stick with the advice that was given me years ago, “Don’t argue with a rock, you just look silly.”

And then, when we all stop fighting, YECs will TRUMPET TO THE HEAVENS that they won the debate, because the non-YECs stopped fighting.

“Well, Chad, why don’t you just ignore the YECs, then?” Oh, you play a dangerous game, reader. The deadliest game. Currently in the States, for example, YECs in government are pushing for Creation (sorry, sorry, sorry… Intelligent design, the… The “Science” of Creation) to be taught in schools across the nation. If we stop fighting, if we roll over and ignore them, they will grow. It’s sometimes been said that to ignore the vocal minority is to invite peace, but I have to look at it another way. To ignore the vocal minority is to invite the silent many to believe that is the company they must keep. The vocal minority and the silent majority then begin to overlap. As moss over a tree, it creeps until all you can see is moss. It is dangerous to just let that happen.

I may be arguing with a rock, but this battle is not about winning. I know I won’t win, and I know we won’t win, not in this generation. I believe the war will end in time, a war of information and education and thought, but it won’t be now. To me, I just feel like I need to remind the world that the battle is happening, because many of my close friends and family had no idea that Creation in the Classroom was a thing. The World is won or lost through information, so here I am. Information.

You Can’t Win Politics

So I was playing Democracy 3 last night (computer game that [this’ll blow your mind] simulates a democracy).

I was going whole hog on Socialism; 90% income tax, but all services provided for, from cradle to grave. My approval rating was over 80%, and I ended up getting more than quadruple the votes of the opposition government. My credit rating was AAA, I was the healthiest and best educated country in the whole world, unemployment was nonexistent, homelessness was nonexistent, crime was nonexistent, and I had slowly replaced all of my cabinet ministers with people who shared my political views…

And then I got assassinated by rich capitalists.

This is why we can’t have nice things.

SO BAD AT BLOGGING RIGHT NOW!

So I added a whole bunch of blog posts that are new to the very bottom of the list, because I am new at this. I have successfully reordered everything to reflect the order it was posted… So if you are just casually reading, you might find a bunch of new stuff that was invisible until just a second ago.

Cheers.

This Was so Topical! (When I wrote it. In December.)

(Original posting date: December 16, 2013). Sorry, still catching up with a backlog of things I have already written that deserve a home here.

So I mean.. Fox News is expected to be ‘special’, but this was a new low for me, it really was. In a discussion about Santa, they said “Santa is white, you just don’t argue with facts.” Given tradition, I can’t even fight with that, but St. Nick was from Turkey, so he wouldn’t really be white (Maybe close to white). Whatever, we move on.
The follow up was “Just like Jesus was white. You just don’t change history.”
Wait. What. (That what was a statement from me, not a question)
Jesus was born in the middle east. I mean… How self centered do you have to be to steal Jesus like that? Ugh. My soul hurts.
I am going to try scrubbing it clean after hearing that, and I will scrub until I bleed if I have to.

To quote John Stewart (Or was it Colbert? I can’t recall): “Nobody tell [them] that Jesus was a Jewish socialist born in the middle east. I think it would really bum [them] out.”

More Philosophy

So I woke up early this morning and went for a 2km run. People always tell me that working out in the morning will wake you up, or whatever, but I feel like a donkey kicked me in the head. “Oh, but it’ll get better! You’ll get in shape and feel awesome, you just have to keep doing it.”
Forgive me, hypothetical reader, but isn’t the definition of insanity “doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?”
Checkmate, people who like to work out.

I Really Ought to Mention…

I think 66% of the stuff on this blog is religious in nature, so I would be remiss if I did not mention one person who has had a huge influence on my religious leanings.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?319745-1%2Fdepth-reza-aslan

That is a very lengthy interview with Reza Azlan, a religious historian who has written books on Islam and on Christianity. He is incredibly well spoken, and is worth a watch (and definitely worth reading his books) if you are interested in Religious History. He also speaks about contemporary religion today, and his views are very eloquently stated. If all religious people were as full of understanding and spirituality as this man, there would be no war, and we’d all be friends forever.

Social Commentary

http://www.leasticoulddo.com/comic/20140819/

While passed off as comedy on a comedy site, I think it is certainly something that people need to *Expletive Deleted* THINK ABOUT! SHIT!
If you wouldn’t say it in person, why is it ok to tweet it? Would you deliver death threats to someone who made fun of <childhood cartoon> if they were right there in front of you? No? Then why tweet it at them.

I don’t understand, personally, why people think that being a dick is ok if the person isn’t right there in front of them.

There are people behind that keyboard, and if the world remembered that, the Internet would be a better place…

On (More) People Slightly Crazier Than Me

Young Earth Creationists (YEC from here on in) make me so sad for the state of humanity, but not even for the reasons you might be thinking.

I do a lot of research on a wide variety of topics, and often I will watch or listen to YEC videos or podcasts. I used to do it because they are funny to me (hahaha, these guys know less about science than a 7th grader! [that kind of thing]), but lately I can’t laugh at them any more. Their disingenuous attitude towards those that don’t share their view is dangerous.

Their vacuous arguments are cruel, and I would say they may even violate many tenets of the Bible (I am aware that the more literally you take the Bible, the more laws of the Bible you are breaking just because many are, as a technicality, impossible to follow since they contradict each other — but for the sake of fair play, I will say they are [as a general rule] following their own religious doctrine). They lie, or change evidence to fit their goals. They engage in ad hominem attacks on scientists. They ignore evidence that disagrees with them, and praise evidence that can be used for their side (even if they have to remove context, change the wording, lie about the source of the data, or just straight up bend it until the square evidence fits into the circular theory [SEE WHAT I DID THERE?! HAHAHA! Jokes!]).

I could forgive them for cherry picking evidence if they weren’t so cruel about it. One of my favorite YEC podcasts is Creation Today (www.creationtoday.org)
I enjoyed their videos until the Bill Nye vs Ken Ham debate. After that debate, they spent two full episodes discrediting, berating, and making fun of Bill Nye. If your message of love, peace, and acceptance has to come at the expense of someone, if you can’t say you can love Bill Nye, then how does your message work? “We love and accept EVERYONE! Except those that we don’t, whom we list here, as well as any sins we could dig up over the course of their entire life!”

I have no problem with Christianity, when it does not hurt those around it. Many people have found solace, solidarity, and happiness in the embrace of God. I would never want to take that from them. But as soon as you use your religion to actively exclude or harm another person or group of people, I think you have gone astray. I think Ken Ham, Eric Hovind, and his ilk have officially tripped the line from scientifically ignorant (not an insult; they just don’t know, and that is [for the most part] ok) to actively harmful.

I am not here to campaign against them. Or maybe I am. The hashtags I am going to use are kind of inflammatory, I won’t lie. But still.

I will leave you with this last bit of bad science that did actually make me laugh. Reading the body language of the lecturer, one notes that he doesn’t even seem comfortable with his own message — it does take a bit of intellectual dishonesty to get a PhD in a scientific field, then ignore all of the science in that field. Perhaps he has not gotten over his conscience just yet.

https://answersingenesis.org/media/video/science/ice-age-bible-explains/

‪#‎YEC‬ and ‪#‎CreationToday‬ ‪#‎AreKindOfAssholes‬
‪#‎ReadTheNewTestament‬
‪#‎ReadTheWholeOldTestament‬
Once you’ve read both, and decided that the Bible is perfect and consistent and without contradiction, get back to me. If you still believe that there are no faults in that book, go read it again. Please.

Answers in Genesis
Creation Today
Why do you have to denigrate others to argue your side?

On People (Slightly) Crazier Than Me

So due to tripping over a link I never should have clicked, I have been introduced to Radical Feminism. I mean, I knew it existed, as a general thing — but to read their articles, their ideas, their opinions, in great detail (WHY MUST MY CURIOSITY ALWAYS OVERPOWER MY BETTER JUDGMENT?!)… One finds oneself in a very confusing state of wondering if they have any idea about the long term repercussions of their ideas.

I just read what I will call a manifesto, proclaiming that males are going extinct, and cherry picking a ton of scientific articles to ‘prove’ her idea. Now, ignoring the fact that the data she used is, largely, open to interpretation, she has said that males will be gone very soon. Males will be an extinct species, leaving the female species (best you know that males and females are completely separate species, and they get really damn militant towards anyone that proclaims otherwise) to live on in bliss and paradise. Now, we aren’t off the rails yet, we are merely tipping the train a bit — she does go on to quote some genetic literature that suggests that we may be able to graft (for lack of a better term) Y chromosomal genes onto other chromosomes, leaving the Y chromosome useless, and males no longer required.

Now, I did say we are at least sort of on the rails, but only if you don’t think any further. What about every other species on the planet? If human males are somehow going completely extinct, are insect males immune? Bird males? Other mammals? How is this ecosystem going to work? Are we going to genetically resplice every other species on the planet? Of course, they are going to have to go against over 100 million years of evolution and instinct, and just know that females are supposed to (somehow) breed with females now?

Look, lots of men are jerks. I get that. But Radical Feminists do not blame living men for the issues they perceive; they blame the existence of men completely on men. In fact, to them, the fact that I was born a male is a PERSONAL INSULT.

They are not open to the idea of cooperation and solving problems. In fact, the more I read, the more I have discovered that many of them do not even have an end game — their articles are just expounding the issue of the existence of men. Aside from “This is the problem in the world,” there is no content, no substance. No solution (aside from killing all men, which TWO of the radical feminists I have read have suggested so far). Well, perhaps that is a bit dramatic, they just want all men to die. Somehow. They are never super clear on that point. They are also never super clear on what happens when all men are gone; they just seem to think that part will work itself out.

Anyway, I find the whole thing both entertaining and frustrating. This is to say nothing against feminists in general; I respect your cause to the utmost. Just that some Radical Feminists work hard enough to be heard that the vocal minority, as so often happens, makes the feminist movement sound crazy.

One of the Radical Feminists whose blog I read said this:
“We live in male bullshit stories. Male bullshit stories are simplistic and monotonous dude-delusions dudes repeat incessantly.”
Her lack of self-awareness is almost stunning… If indeed I could be stunned by anything I read on RadFem blogs at this point.