Where's the birth certificate

Free and Strong America

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Creation Science to the Rescue in Japan





It seems that in the wake of the recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan, that one company is taking quite literally what God is said to have instructed Noah...




" ISE Industry of Japan has designed something not seen in 4400 years: a lifeboat for the land. The designer took his inspiration from Noah’s Ark, and gave specific credit to God as the Best Naval Architect that ever was...

ISE Industry used Noah’s Ark as the model for their largest rescue vessel. That vessel is not nearly as large as the original Noah’s Ark. But its proportions are very close to Noah’s proportions..

This is the most spectacular instance on record of an industrialist using insight from the Bible record to develop a product. (ISE has taken 20 orders thus far for its various models.) One of the most common criticisms of creation theory is that it has yielded no practical scientific insight or invention. That criticism is no longer valid."



Should anyone like to check out a great article on the Noahic Flood, just click here.






10 comments:

GentleSkeptic said...

1. If Intelligent Design is not religion, what does the Biblical legend of Noah's Ark have to do with "Creation Science"?

2. Why the tag "Junk Science" for this entry?

GentleSkeptic said...

Oh Lord, JD.

Once again, three clicks into your link and the contradictions are flowing like a Noahic Flood.

The second sentence of the Conservapedia entry on the Great Flood reads:

Virtually nothing historical, from writings to civilization to long-living organisms like trees, has survived from before about 3000 B.C., an approximate date given to the Great Flood.

This didn't really sound right to me—I live near the Redwoods of California, and I know about the Bradshaw painting of Australia, the Jiahu artifacts from China, and the Vinca artifacts of Southeastern Europe—so I followed the Conservapedia footnote notation [1] that leads to a pdf download of a publication called Strut and Axle, Volume XX, No. 2, Summer/Fall 1999.

Here is the opening sentence from the linked pdf:

Our ancestors came down from the trees about six million years ago, marking the first giant step on the long convoluted path to our present day lifestyle of jet planes, computer chips and space travel.

Here's one from the second page:

In the New Stone Age, after the retreat of the ice, we find beautiful polished stone weapons, instruments of flint, domestication of animals, pottery, agriculture (7000 BC) and stone oil lamps burning animal fat.

I dunno: sounds pretty historical to me.

I ran a search inside the pdf for the words "Noah" and "flood." I found only one instance of "flood" in a caption that reads "Canoeing on Broad Street, Bangor, Maine, during the 1902 flood." and no Noah. As the title of the pdf suggests, it's a history of transportation technology.

Let's recap: your "great article on the Noahic Flood" opens with a dubious claim, "supported" by a link that actually flatly refutes the claim, supports the ToE, and then goes on to say absolutely nothing about Noah or Great Floods.

Can we please agree that Conservapedia is NOT a reliable source of information?

JD Curtis said...

If Intelligent Design is not religion, what does the Biblical legend of Noah's Ark have to do with "Creation Science"?

The term "creation science" is from the linked article. Perhaps the design of the Ark may be more appropriatly argued under the heading Biblical Foreknowledge?

GentleSkeptic said...

Ah, I see. It's you that made the connection between 'creation science' and your tag 'Intelligent Design.' Noted.

It seems to me that ISE's alleged leveraging of the Ark design could be argued under the header of Biblical Foreknowledge… IF anyone at ISE had had Biblical Foreknowledge, or any kind of foreknowledge, of the Japanese tsunami. Or if no-one had ever invented any kind of floating submersible capsule before.

I guess we're not agreeing that Conservapedia is biased and unreliable.

All that aside, I am having a hoot and a holler over at your link. Second paragraph reads: "Bible deniers—such as atheists and evolutionists—engage in liberal denial about the many truths in the Bible. Their irrational closed-mindedness against the Bible obstructs the advancement of science."

Wow! I had no idea. I had actually thought that closed-mindedness against the Bible actually eventually forced the Church to abandon the scripturally sound geocentric model, thereby advancing, not obstructing, scientific progress, but I guess that's just liberal, atheistic bias.

Curious about this liberal denial, and certainly not wanting to be guilty of it, I clicked through to find a list of "top common instances of liberal denial are the following:" (emphasis from Conservapedia). Now really concerned, I continued reading. Do you know what the NUMBER ONE, MOST COMMON instance of liberal denial is?

1. Liberals deny that human intelligence inevitably and demonstrably declines from generation to generation, and that if there were another 100 generations into the future the people would not be able to understand simple concepts.

Holy shit! Who knew? How do they know? I guess we'll never know, and we'll just have to take Conservapedia's word for it, because there's no citation, link or evidence of any kind offered for what amounts to a prophecy. Which is weirdly appropriate, come to think of it. Personally, I could swear that the last 100 generations took us from stone buildings to the the Internet and the Large Hadron Collider, by way of the printing press, germ theory, general relativity, etc. and that such a progression was predicated on increasing human intelligence over time, but… wow. To learn that this whole time we've all been getting stoopider… well it came as quite a shock. All I know is that Jesus had better come back before 100 more generations pass, or we'll be too stupid to understand the simple concept that He's back!

Unless, of course, it's the self-righteous, isolationist, alternate-reality conservatives whose intelligence is demonstrably declining from generation to generation… that could explain it too.

But what would I know? I'm in liberal denial.

On a brighter note, you might be interested in Gobekli Tepe. I know that your Great Flood article says that "Virtually nothing historical, from writings to civilization to long-living organisms like trees, has survived from before about 3000 B.C…" but, well there it is. Historical artifacts of civilization 11,000 years old. How many generations is that? They must have been freaking geniuses.

Theological Discourse said...


1. If Intelligent Design is not religion, what does the Biblical legend of Noah's Ark have to do with "Creation Science"?


How can you define intelligent design as a religion but not atheism as a religion?

GentleSkeptic said...

How can you define intelligent design as a religion but not atheism as a religion?

Well, it isn't really me that defines ID as religion.

And personally, I don't really care if others think of atheism as a religion, if it helps them get their heads around it. It's probably better for atheists, legally speaking, if it is considered a religion, since that would afford atheists the same suspect-class American legal protections that Christians enjoy.

But I don't experience atheism as religion. I was Christian for the first 3/4 of my life, and that really felt like religion to me. Atheism just doesn't. It's a religious position, in that it's a rejection of specific claims of other religions, but for me, it just ain't religion.

But really; you call it what you like. It can only help protect us.

JD Curtis said...

I was Christian for the first 3/4 of my life, and that really felt like religion to me. Atheism just doesn't. It's a religious position, in that it's a rejection of specific claims of other religions, but for me, it just ain't religion

I'll tell you what. Email me a synopsis of your deconversion experience and I'll make it a thread all on it's own. I'll offer up my thoughts and you can offer up, your's. What do you say?

GentleSkeptic said...

: )

I say that if I was really interested in your thoughts about my deconversion experience I would have sent you the link a loooong time ago!

GentleSkeptic said...

Sorry, JD: that was snarky, I apologize. I appreciate the offer, if it was extended in sincerity. It's ultimately a fairly personal thing you're asking for… I'll consider it.

I'm leaving early Sunday morning to ride my bike from SF to LA over seven days and 565 miles to raise money for HIV/AIDS services—California AIDS LifeCycle—so… don't miss me too much. lol

GentleSkeptic said...

Hey: I thought you might find this article interesting.