however, many (perhaps the vast majority) were not any larger than current mammals.

So... what happened to those?

Bob Dutko, host of the daily radio show "Defending the Truth" out of Detroit, has used his infinite reasoning power to figure out what really happened. The dinosaurs on the ark were, of course, babies. Then they died out later. So the explanation cited in the OP is clearly heresy. Or blasphemy. One of those.

though (of course) he is simply putting into his children's book, as a sardonic aside, a criticism of biblical literalism which had already gained wide acceptance

The particular class of children's book purchasers, at which Smith's text aims, might be deduced from his attack on unions, several pages earlier

. . .we have Ken Ham who says the doors were wide enough. He's part of that movement bringing back biblical literalism that never really went away.

because "Noah couldn't get them on his boat"

In his Early life of Mr. Man before Noah, humans "arrived without warning, one bright tertiary day" --- which suggests a certain sympathy toward geological science. The ice ages also appear in that book

There's plenty of silly stuff in the book but it's just intended as a fun read for kids

But Ken Ham is serious. So is Kentucky.

perhaps you should not have posted this out of context silliness.

I consider the story of Noah to be the high watermark of silliness in the Bible. My OP shows there is no end to theists being silly.

that left the Noah story untenable as "fact" -- people asked themselves questions such as, "How did the kangaroos get from Mt Ararat to Australia?" and found no credible answers. And when George Smith in the British Museum by 1872 found fragments of the Noah story in more ancient, but somewhat different Gilgamesh cycle, this would have clinched the matter

From 1868 until 1883, there was only one mounted dinosaur skeleton available to the public, and it was not displayed in Europe until 1879

The story of Noah raised questions the first time the tale was told. Someone in the audience said "WTF, I'm supposed to believe that?"

You and G can't win this one. The Bible is responsible for some of the biggest lies in history. Picking on Elmer changes nothing. So here's my question for you two.

Is the story of Noah true or false?

If false, then the whole Bible fails the reality test.

you'd see quite a wide range of questions has been raised

Once we realize the ancient Hebrews took it from the ancient Sumerians and reworked it, even more interesting literary and cultural questions arise, such as, How do the two tellings differ and why?

You are destined to lead a culturally-impoverished life, if

Is this story true or false?

is the only question that interests you regarding literature

I like mysteries. Raymond Chandler, Dashiell Hammet, and Chester Himes are tops. I got no beef with literature. What I have a problem with is something that is pure BS being sold as the truth. And that's just what the Bible is.

No rabbi or priest has ever said the Bible is only literature. Even you won't cop to it.

By insisting on only a literal interpretation. Or are you claiming to be the definitive source of the only acceptable way of reading the Bible?

It is either or. You can not claim that the Bible is the word of god and then claim some of it should not be taken literally. Once you acknowledge that some of it is BS, then the credibility of the whole thing is called into question.

What other parts shouldn't be taken literally? Creation? Sodom and Gomorrah? The parting of the Red Sea? The virgin birth? The crucifixion?

How can you claim any part of the Bible is true if you keep on saying it shouldn't be taken literally? I'm cool with saying NONE of it should be taken literally. You with me on that?

you apparently see yourself as the definer of how the Bible must be read. Were you elected to this position, or did you self-appoint?

of the Bible. Your OP shows only this.

I see the Bible as fiction. How do you see it? You keep posting stuff that implies the Bible and other holy books should be treated with respect, not derision, for their claims of speaking "truth".

And you claim to like non-literal works. And, you obviously are confused as to the difference between scientific proof and philosophical discussion.

But if we must discuss Ham, I'd suggest that the appropriate issues to consider are the networks that fund and promote him

He says nothing interesting. His religious views are at least as idiotic as his pseudo-science

But he serves a particular structural role: namely, he distracts people from real issues by attempting to get them to yammer pointlessly about nonsense. There are people who support his efforts because it is somehow in their interest to distract people from real issues. Who those people are should interest us

Nothing else about Ham deserves much of our time

It isn't just a distraction, they really mean it and they want to teach it in schools. That makes it serious.

The court decisions are on our side, and so is a majority of the public

Put enough right wing judges in place, and we will lose. Hell, we could be just one drunken fratboy away from losing.

some fights about the schools!

There are people who want those rightwing judges, too -- and it's usually for reasons that go far beyond the schools!

And I think removing or diluting evolution in the public schools is among the worst consequences of those judges. We can't compete with the world in STEM if we stop teaching science.

They will disenfranchise a large portion of the population, prohibit effective organizing, and launch an attack against the environmemt and workplace health and safety in favor of the propertied interests. The rest is deliberately mere distraction

This is where people who have a high interest in this topic post. It is not a distraction for me. It affects the future of this country. It effects some of the very same topics you say are more important. It affects how I vote. On the other side, there are people who have the same interest but a different opinion. It is not a distraction for them either. It affects how they vote.

If you don't think science education is that important, why distract yourself by coming to a thread on that subject to tell people it is a distraction?

studied chemistry, and got a doctorate in mathematics. Evolution is a golden key for unlocking biological science: it unites everything from chemistry to morphology and provides real insight into the delightful quirkiness of biological mechanisms

This is a political board. Real politics really matter. Ham is a nitwit best ignored for most purposes. He and other pawns of more powerful interests are used to derail substantive discussions about who controls our institutions and to what advantage

then I asked why you would waste your time distracting yourself on a thread about evolution to tell people the subject is a distraction?

though a familiar politically-useless noisy self-righteous posturing has predictably attached itself to the thread

And congratulations on adding the 25th post, which allowed more people to see this worthless thread.

Irony is not dead.

Post your own thread. My OP is about the ridiculous story of Noah's Ark. The one story among many that proves the Bible to be a collection of lies.

Understood.

Only the original poster can claim his or her reason for posting.

The Saurus

So I've been told.

Anyway, the Bible does not say he married his sister. Maybe his brother married a sister, and they had a daughter (who would be Cain's double niece), and Cain married her.