Open Response to Bill Donohue, part 2.

Picking up right where we left off.

Stephane Charbonnier, the paper’s publisher, was killed today in the slaughter. It is too bad that he didn’t understand the role he played in his tragic death. In 2012, when asked why he insults Muslims, he said, “Muhammad isn’t sacred to me.” Had he not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive. Muhammad isn’t sacred to me, either, but it would never occur to me to deliberately insult Muslims by trashing him.

The first part is tantamount to saying he asked to be executed because he drew a cartoon.   This is exactly the same as saying that a woman asks to be raped because she dresses less than modestly in the opinion of someone. 

Bill says he would never have the thought to deliberately insult Muslims by trashing them, implying he would never deliberately trash anyone he doesn't agree with, or who has ideals he doesn't happen to hold sacred.  This is clearly not the case.  He reminds us that he favors blasphemy laws, and he trashes people he doesn't agree with as 'clueless.'  He even reminds us he doesn't hold free speech as sacred (that is, any speech that doesn't agree with what he says).  He even holds that firing a member of it's editorial staff over internal editorial standards (which aren't even related to this) is exactly the same as killing people over a comic.  It isn't, Bill.

Further in that same article, he conflates workplace harassment and discrimination (on the basis of sexuality - illegal here in the states) with posting a cartoon critiquing one of the major motivators of such divisive practices in the first place.  This is intellectually dishonest, ethically reprehensible, and really just not a good thing to do.  If the right to offend should be condemned, then Bill really needs to re-evaluate how offensive it is telling people that they are 'clueless' or 'phonies.' 

Clearly, I think Bill isn't saying that the people he offends have the right to kill him, those 'phonies' who are 'clueless,' the people who should be whipped for offending his god, the people who should be killed for blaspheming his particular sacred thing while he traipses over whomever else's sacred things he feels like.  Then again, as Bill says, that's a pretty damned narcissistic view to take.

Killing is bad.  This response to his words is appropriate.  Any further action should not happen, and will not happen.  It is important to note that Donohue also agrees with the pope's notion that offending someone's faith is okay to meet with violence - you know, as long as it isn't HIS faith.  Keep in mind, the pope said it was okay to punch someone who insults one's mother (bearing in mind that my mother was a real person - an important distinction).

To use Donohue's own words, why they would want to be associated with a man like the pope anymore defies rational explanation.

Anti-Catholic artists in this country have provoked me to hold many demonstrations, but never have I counseled violence. This, however, does not empty the issue. Madison was right when he said, “Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as the abuses of power.”

Sure, he claims he never encouraged violence, but that's clearly a lie.  Blasphemy laws are violent.  He literally sides with the pope, saying to punch people in the face if they insult your mother (read: your faith, your god, your pet, your car, whatever).  As I've said before, just because someone is insulted doesn't mean that the speech was offensive, nor does it mean it was aimed at the person it offended. 

And the last line, that's just SO IRONIC IT HURTS. 

Open Response to Bill Donohue.

In response to Bill Donohue's open letter, from the Catholic League website.

This is the kind of thing Bill Donohue thinks is insulting, offensive, and to be angry about.

Killing in response to insult, no matter how gross, must be unequivocally condemned. That is why what happened in Paris cannot be tolerated. But neither should we tolerate the kind of intolerance that provoked this violent reaction.

First sentence, great.  I agree totally.  Killing is bad, and let's try not doing it.

Second sentence, also wonderful.  It's good to condemn people who kill other people, in this context especially.

Third sentence and, well, we've hit a wall.  What kind of intolerance should we not tolerate?  It's pretty damned intolerant to say we shouldn't tolerate freedom of expression.  Bill doesn't seem to realize that lots of things that Religious people say are just as inflammatory.  Bill has no problem using religion to defend his intolerant stances:  

"Anti-Catholicism is sadly tolerated at a time when much progress in curbing bigotry has been made by other demographic groups. The reasons for this condition are complex, but they are unacceptable regardless. Our job is to continue the fight: at least we know that our effort is on the side of the angels."  -Catholic report thing

And just so you know, Bill has no problem if the offensive speech is catholic.  For example, January 30 shows us pretty clearly that he thinks Catholic Schools should be free of such petty things as human rights and tolerance toward individuals who don't agree with your religion.  But we shouldn't tolerate this kind of intolerance, wasn't that his point?  Can he seriously not imagine people getting angry enough to become violent about it?  Ruining people's lives, running campaigns of hate against them, is still a violent kind of intolerance.

Back to the initial letter.

Those who work at this newspaper have a long and disgusting record of going way beyond the mere lampooning of public figures, and this is especially true of their depictions of religious figures. For example, they have shown nuns masturbating and popes wearing condoms. They have also shown Muhammad in pornographic poses.

 So, let's get this right.  He first says they have a long history of going beyond mere lampooning, but doesn't really show anything that's gone beyond lampooning?  Catholics rape little boys, but talking about it is the bad thing?   I'm sorry, but where did this cross the line, and since when is 'lampooning' a 'mere' thing?  Satire is a useful tool, and Bill has absolutely no problem calling his followers to be violent in the face of this exact kind of violence.  He seems to forget about those catholic crusades, Salem witch trials, more recently anti-LGBT stuff that has caused such people to kill themselves because of exactly this sort of intolerance.  You don't have to be holding a rifle and firing bullets to promote the kind of intolerance that kills people.

While some Muslims today object to any depiction of the Prophet, others do not. Moreover, visual representations of him are not proscribed by the Koran. What unites Muslims in their anger against Charlie Hebdo is the vulgar manner in which Muhammad has been portrayed. What they object to is being intentionally insulted over the course of many years. On this aspect, I am in total agreement with them.

Not sure what the first sentence has to do with anything.  You can find in-groups within any group of people who object to anything, and others who do not.  Reversed, it's like saying some Christians object to the Westboro stance on homosexuality, and some do not (Bill appears to agree with it, see June 3)

But let's keep moving.  Sentence two, he backtracks.  Either all muslims object to it and are angered by it, or not all muslims object and thereby cannot be angry about it.  This is logic 101, you can't have it both ways.  And even if they're angry about it, what has that got to do with killing apostates?  Sentence three belies his underlying stance, that somehow making fun of a religion is making fun of its adherents.  This is not true at all.  You are allowed to believe in an ethereal being, and I'm allowed to believe that's crazy.  I have to respect your ability to hold opinions, no the opinions themselves, especially if they are unfounded in any observable evidence.  Telling me you talk to unicorns and telling me you talk to Jesus are roughly commensurate.  No one has provided a test that would demonstrate the existence of either.  If someone had, we'd fund it with our science tax money.  If either were shown real, someone would win the Nobel prize.

 Another picture Bill thinks it is okay to be very angry about.

But back again to the arguments at hand.  He agrees it's good to be angry because someone 'insults' an idea that you happen to hold.  What if I were angry that you didn't believe in brownie monsters?  What if I said it was alright that people who don't believe in brownie monsters were right to be angry when told maybe they don't exist? What if I said I was angry enough to justify people who killed other people for making fun of brownie monsters, leprechauns, gnomes, unicorns, and other beasts that only I and other believers in them could see?  Is this a defensible position?  Because this is EXACTLY the sort of thing you are defending, Bill.  You're saying it's okay to be angry because your indefensible position is being called into question, or 'insulted' as you like to say.

Creationism is an insult to Evolutionary Science (sure, you did all that science, but we're just going to belittle all that and say some skydaddy made everything instead - because science is silly?) in exactly the same way Hebdo is an insult to religion.  If you want to argue one, you have to argue every case like this, and that's the fallacy.

Part two next time, since I have to go do my real-world work thing now.

Secular Atheism.

I was at the bar the other day,  and an acquaintance mentioned off the cuff something about religion.  I showed him my card,  indicating we shared a perspective,  as I am a registered preacher for the first church of atheism.  

This took him a moment to comprehend, apparently.   He proceeded to tell me,  in a tone that was clearly demonstrating his unease,  that he didn't like atheist churches because they were going around collecting monies to build atheist schools in developing nations.   This,  said he,  is why he is a secular atheist. 

Now,  it is important to note that there is not a physical house of worship yet,  and there is but one established Sect of atheistic churches.   Upon cursory examination of Google,  as well at the FCA website,  I could find no such examples of atheist churches building schools in such places.  

But let us consider for a moment what an atheist school would really teach.   As an atheist,  i tend to know more about most religions than most people do.  Atheist curriculum would logically be the core STEM stuff, language (perhaps more than one, as early language learning helps encourage better thought processes, studies have shown), arts,  cultural studies,  and just about every other subject one might imagine in the typical public school.   Even religious studies would be fine, I think.   It is amazing how many Sunday schools and missionary schools seem to forget about the vast majority of gods that aren't theirs. Ask the average Christian to name thirty gods other than their own (substitute Muslim, Jew, Mormon, etc. ), or thirty religions, and see how complete the list is, without counting sects of various religions (protestants and catholics are all Christian, as Shiite and Sunni are both Islamic). 

So,  as one can see,  I didn't really understand the derision.   Is it really so bad to want to teach kids math without teaching them that they will go to hell unless some magic water is sprinkled on them?   Is it really so bad to tell kids that it is moral to treat people equally, but then bringing up that some gods think that women and children should be subservient to men? How can we teach children that it us not okay to kill,  but then explain that various gods extol the virtues of killing enemies (matthew 10:34, quran 4:89, Grímnismál, et cetera)?  This is an untenable and indefensible proposition.

Let us move on to the secular portion.   I know of no atheist who also doesn't encourage separation of church and state.   Secularism has nothing to do with atheism.   I do not wish to insert atheist churches into schools, but Christians do this all the time.   Some Christians are indeed secular as well.   Oddly enough, most Jewish are also quite secular.  Perhaps it is a firm belief in Jesus that removes secularism.   Even most Islamic peoples do not support (and actively decry, as Malala, the 17 year old Nobel Peace prize winner, does) in exactly the same way most Christians decry the violence of Jesus (as Luke 19:27 for example).  The point is, secularism has nothing to do with being theistic, in much the same way theism has nothing to do with being agnostic. Every person in the atheist church should logically be secular.   We don't want religion in schools,  we want education in schools. 

Although,  it is probably worth pointing out that the supreme court now thinks that most religious services are just speech from a religious viewpoint.  I wonder if that means that church buildings and staff should no longer receive tax benefits,  since Sunday services aren't actually religious now. ..

Evidence: fallacies of authority

So, to recap the prior post, it is that we find evidence of things (or lack thereof, in some cases, is evidence itself) that happened before we could directly observe them, and explained why this indirect evidence is important, and testable.

Now we're going on a bit of a caveat, since it seems to be ingrained in the idea that it is evidence.

Someone said they doubt a portion of some theory, so the entirety of said stance is incorrect.

  Let's think about this for a moment, because it really hits home at some very important points in the nature of how science works.  This also illustrates a couple of common fallacies.

Since this is a series on evidence, we'll start there.  Let's go again to the first part of that sentence.  Doubt is a natural, skeptical process.  It's how science works.  But doubt isn't simply someone saying they think something could be wrong. Simply disagreeing to disagree in spite of evidence is cynicism, not skepticism.  Furthermore, saying that someone happens to have doubts about something in a theory/hypothesis doesn't make the theory/hypothesis wrong.  It merely means that, perhaps, a small portion is somehow incorrect.  This has happened a lot of times.

Let's take a simple example, Newton's theory of gravity (that's a scientific theory, so please take a moment and clarify that again).  Newton's theory works fine for most of our interactions, and it works to a degree of clarity that's pretty astounding, given the tools and abilities of people several centuries ago.  Newtonian physics didn't deal with the speed at which gravitational waves propagate, for example (waves are interesting things when you leave the macro world for the micro/quantum, but I digress - that's not the scope of this post, and I'm not the best person to discuss that anyway).  Some people had doubts as to whether they really moved at the speed of light. 

Now, to say the doubts about whether they move at the speed of light, whether they propagate instantaneously, or whether they're slower (like ocean waves, sound waves, radio waves, etc) doesn't change the fact that the rest of the theory works well.  It also doesn't invalidate Einsteinian Relativity for Einstein to question this very thing himself.  Newtonian gravity works excellently for things at short distances (say, within a few hundred million miles, like our distance from the sun, or the distance of a basketball hoop from the center of the earth, say), but starts to fall apart at larger distances.  Even Newton was (probably) well aware of this. 

With this foundation, let's look a bit closer at the second part of the argument above.  Just because we didn't know how fast gravity waves moved, doesn't mean there aren't gravity waves, and it doesn't mean they don't move.  It's exactly the same conundrum when people say that there are things we don't understand about evolution, so evolution must be incorrect.  It's simply not true, and it's an appeal to authority fallacy.

Let's pop this on it's back and reverse it.  There's two clear-cut examples, one biblical, and one more recent.  In the bible, Jesus questions whether or not his father is really sure about what to do.  Jesus questioned his own existence, essentially.  This does not, by itself, mean that the bible is wrong.  Jesus had doubts about his father's plan, so maybe his father's whole plan was wrong.  Again, this is an argument from appealing to authority, and it's a fallacy.  To put that in modern terms, tons of biblical scholars are even pretty sure Jesus didn't actually exist (they doubt the bible), and therefore since they're the learned ones of the bible, we should just accept that their whole hypothesis is wrong too, because one part of it is in doubt by someone who should know these things.  That's a bad fallacy, but no one seems to like bringing it up.

Essentially, this is exactly what the popes do ALL THE TIME.  They change stances, doubt the biblical things that shouldn't be doubted if it's the literal word of god.  But, as simple as that would make my job, it doesn't invalidate the bible just because people don't know it all to be true.  The evidence, you see, is what bears negatively on the bible.  There's literally no evidence for, and plenty of that direct and indirect evidence against, the historical account of the bible.  If that changes, and we find fossils in the wrong strata, or perhaps we find a particular element that measures a different half-life than all the same samples we've ever found before, then the science would change.  Those fossils in the wrong place would be pretty strong evidence of someone moving them.  In a million years, perhaps, another species might see tons of localized fossils that don't belong in our strata that we've moved.  And even if all this happens, it still isn't evidence (direct, indirect, induced or otherwise) for a creator, especially not a specific one. 

Until such time as we have such evidence, and can test it, and make predictions with it, the doubt Dawkins has about tiny parts of the theory of Evolution do not make the theory invalid.  It simply means someone doubts part of it (and probably with at least a bit of evidence), nothing more.  Evidence is required for the next step, which is changing the theory.  If we found solid evidence of a creator, then our theory would have to include it, regardless of who doubts it. 

The key takeaway here is that doubt by one party is not evidence for another.  Cherry-picking that doubt as evidence is actually quite another fallacy, and is intellectually disingenuous at best.  It may be a formal unwarranted assumption, but I think it's more correctly a fallacy of absence of evidence.  It is most definitely, however, a confirmation bias.  Just because someone doubts a portion of something doesn't mean you can then say that's justifiably a way to show it incorrect in absence of evidence that you don't have.  You need evidence to demonstrate your point just as much as the other needs evidence to have doubt in his.  This seems convoluted, but that's what happens with fallacious thinking.

Evidence and corollaries.

So, bearing in mind the things we discussed in the last post, let's move forward a bit.  The story of Noah is a great one, but I think I've made my case reasonably.  Also, lots of other people have handled this one anyway, so lets work on something rather more productive.

Let's start with the various complaints that theists tend to levy against atheists.  And since we're talking evidence, we'll take it from a straightforward evidence standpoint.  This will be mostly slanted toward Christianity since it happens to be the religion I'm most familiar with.  Though, I'm actually at home for this post, so I can do rather more research if need be.  These are just going to be logical points, however, so it shouldn't require much.

Also, I think I'm going to do a series of these in a row, one post for each sort of thing I happen to run into.  STAY TUNED!

First fallacy: You weren't there, so you can't know what happened.

 Let's break this down.  Absolutely correct, first sentence portion. I wasn't there, you were not there, no one alive today was there.  

Second sentence portion, you disappoint me.  It's like you didn't even read the former blog post.  It's similarly as though you've never witnessed the after-effects of something.  Fires are simple, and we'll stick with them.

Let's run a thought experiment here.  Imagine you've come upon a pile of ashes in the woods.  You know there's approximately one way to make ashes, by burning things.  The ashes are in a neat pile that looks rather like it was the remainder of something that happened in this particular spot.  The pattern of the ashes is such that the coloration is variegated.  These are all pretty clearly signs of something.  It's entirely possible someone carried some ashes, that were produced in the absence of fire, to this very location.  It's possible also that someone artfully and masterfully made the whites and blacks of the ashes look like sticks of wood had burned.  It is much more likely, however, that a fire was here and someone left the remainder of it thus.  The evidence supports both conclusions, but the explanation that requires the least extraordinary thing to be true tends to be true. 

Let's go one more round here.  I'm wearing a shirt.  This is pretty clear evidence that I (or at least someone) put the shirt on at some point.  It is also evidence that perhaps the shirt simply wove its fabric together around my torso, but that takes rather more explanation.  Also, a machine that makes shirts on the torso every morning would be pretty neat.

It is through logic this way we can sort out the likeliest of scenarios.  This also has a corollary: it is this way we can also sort out the least likely of scenarios.

But back to the argument, now that we've our basic ideas laid forth.  You're absolutely correct, we weren't there when the fire burned.  It's entirely possible the ashes popped into existence.  The evidence is much stronger that there was simply a fire here.  Just saying I wasn't there isn't evidence that there was no fire, in exactly the same way me saying you weren't there isn't evidence that there was a fire.  Man, that sentence was hard to think about - logical fallacies are hard to weave.

So let's say you take the opinion that there was no fire.  That's absolutely wonderful skepticism.  Now, you need only provide evidence.  Remember, evidence has to be testable.  So I show you a stick.  I light it on fire.  It burns and produces ashes strikingly similar to the ashes in the pile.  We'll keep this one simple and halt there for our methods.  Logically, I now ask you to produce evidence.  You take a stick, and can do nothing to it that produces ashes, least of all bearing any resemblance to the pile before us (in this simplistic argument, fire makes ashes of this nature - lightning strikes produce much different patterns of ashes, say, which are inconsistent with this pile in front of us). 

To say that I simply wasn't there, that's fine.  You weren't either.

Also, whilst we are on this topic, one important tangent.  Saying that evidence is faulty, or that there isn't evidence (while ignoring actual evidence or simply not knowing of it, and then denying it when it's presented), but not producing counter-evidence to support the (in)validity of the evidence you are rebutting, is not evidence.  Just disagreeing isn't evidence.  Creating a testable observation is.

It is these testable observations for which all of science operates.  Evidence is not just direct and indirect, though you could simply call inductive logic (and evidence) either one, depending on it.  For example, we also 'see' directly the evidence of fires that didn't happen by things that haven't burned down.  The tree in my back yard that's still standing is evidence that someone hasn't burnt it down (or cut it down or any number of other things that leave various signs as to what happened), in exactly the same way as ashes are evidence of a fire.

Putting this in evolutionary perspective, for example, we can test strata, see what lives in them, and equally importantly what doesn't, and both are evidence.  The evidence of absence is not the absence of evidence (don't run that backward all the time though, you're bound to get false causality fallacies sometimes) as Colin Powell once tried to say, but ended up with a horrible fallacy all his own...

See you all on the next one!

On the nature of evidence: the requisition of science

Evidence is a wonderful thing.  It shows us what is real and what sorts of things to be true in our universe.  This is why it is important to understand the role it plays in our lives, as well as the sort of rigors that are required to ensure science remains as objective as possible.

Note: this article isn't discussing the difference between evidence and proof. I am going to treat the terms as completely commensurate for this post to avoid semantic posturing and pedantry.

Some people have a hard time understanding what evidence is.  Evidence comes in two forms, and both are based on observation. 

The first type is direct evidence.

Some evidence we can view, touch, taste, feel.  Direct evidence for a fire is watching it burn.  Direct evidence for waves and tides is watching them on the coast at the ocean, for example. 

The second type is indirect evidence.

Some evidence is observable after the fact, or in the absence of things we can do right now.  Ashes are a good indicator that something was, at one time, on fire.  The sides of cliffs eroding in particular ways, or accumulating things to only a certain level, are good evidence of waves and tides, respectively.

Understanding this is key to understanding science, and to scientific understanding of nature.

This is where it is important to understand things that are not evidence.  A science textbook is not itself evidence for science.  It is a textbook that explains testable things that have happened in the past ( note: in a meta sense, any book is evidence for science because you can do things to the books, like set them on fire or weigh them to measure gravity or test their ability to withstand ionizing radiation...).  The fact that a science text exists (and there are write a number if science and math texts in the world) doesn't make it evidence for the things contained within.  The fact that we can test the ideas contained within, however, does.

This same rule applies to any text. The bible is not, as Ken Ham implies (for example), evidence for the Genesis creation story.  (Again, in a meta sense, we can and are testing the ideas there too - Sodom was probably pretty tame compared to Las Vegas, but it still thrives.  China is considerably less Christian than the ancient Midianites, but still it stands).

This tends to trip up people a bit, who think that creation and evolution have the same credibility.   Lots of religious people want to say, for example, that the fossil record is faulty or too incomplete to make an informed decision.  Let's take a look at this stance from the evidence.

To save time, we are going to break this argument down to a couple simple concepts in the greater thing.  First, it is important to note that fossils are all intermediaries. Every species is intermediary.  DNA supports this also (evidence isn't evidence without other evidence to verify, mind).  If we only had fossil evidence, then the idea that every species is unique would also hold water.  We have not only fossil evidence, but also DNA evidence, and similarly we only find given species within various strata of rock that have consistent radioactive timers encasing similar creatures.  One single fossil too far back would be enough to make us see that the other view could require more evaluation.  As yet, it hasn't been found.

So, you ask, where is the testable part of this?  Well, that is the important thing, and the burden of proof is mine. Here we go.

You, me, or anyone can go and start digging up (within reason: please don't go breaking laws, and be safe) the ground and see what fossils we can find.  We can get a Geiger counter any test the radioactive content of the rocks.  We can borrow a mass spectrometer and determine what elements are in it for the decay and it's half life.  We can do the maths on our own to determine our method are good.  We can view other, carefully recorded things, which are verified by more than one observer. 

I think we can see why religious books don't meet this criteria, but in the interest of being thorough, let's analyse the antecedent.  Let's say god really did create each kind of 'animal and plant' in existence.  Let's even skip some of the simpler aspects and jump to Noah.  Noah supposedly saved one of each gender of each type of thing.  Let's even forget about the species of bacteria and flies we can make in labs in a matter of a lifetime, or the different breeds of dog that didn't exist 200 years ago and will likely be species in another 200 or so.  Now let's analyze this through the bible.

One of each kind of animal is A LOT of animals.  It is considerably fewer if we only count the animals Noah would have known about, living essentially in a desert.  But alas, we have indirect evidence that Noah has literally a viable copy of at least every single animal that exist today, plus the ones we know have gone extinct even in our lifetime.  It is important to note that Noah only saved land animals, and that a dove basically found a tree god popped into existence on a fertile plot of land good popped into existence at the 'end' of the worldwide flood. 

Anyway.  My name isn't Randall Munroe, but I am gonna take a shot at a what-if.

What if Noah really did take one of each animal?  How big would the ark have to be?  What other interesting things does this tell us?

The first thing is calculating how many animals exist today.  Since I am writing this from my phone, I'm going to use Munroe's style of estimation and leave the math as an exercise to the reader (see if my evidence adds up with your evidence!  Hahaha!  Math jokes!) or the professionals.

Let's look first at the zoos of the world.  Most zoos don't even have 1% of all species (kinds?) in the world, let alone even a representative for each kind of animal (species, genus, family, phylum, who knows.  Kinds are a nice device, eh?).  So we need a boat that can handle, let's say, every current species bigger than a gnat.  And it had to fit all in a boat 500 cubits or so long, among other dimensions.

There are at least two species of elephant.  There are at least ten species of big cat.  There are thousands of marsupials (kangaroos to kookaburra and things in between).  There are likely at least as many species of lizard and mammal and insect and arachnid and crustacean ( not all crustaceans live in the water, and many would die if the world were inundated for over a month.). So let's pretend there's only ten major families of animal.  Let's define them too, since this is science and all.

Mammals, arachnids, crustaceans, marsupials, avians (which, admittedly, fall into most of the others), lizards, reptiles, insects, and some others that are primarily not land dwellers.  Let's say, just to simplify, there's at least a thousand things in each.  So we need room for at least five thousand unique pairs of animals, plus a family of humans, enough rations for a family of at least 20 people (remember, the bible probably omitted lots of women that Noah and his brood would have had) to live for an indefinite period in a time before preserving food was really a thing at all, let alone other various things we take for granted.  It isn't clear if God simply made every animal immune to hunger, thirst, and lots of other things, or if Noah had to prepare food and stuff for them (he did prepare and plan for months of animal bedding, at the very least), or if the number of species simply dwindled as the carnivores are the herbivores. Let's pretend god magically made every animal on earth tame for very brief period of time, and that every species survived because of that magic manna god used later in some desert.

So we have, let's say, ten thousand pairs of animals on a boat.  500 cubits is definitely not more than about 700 feet.  Let's assume this is a square boat, and let's be generous in Noah's arm length.  Let's say this thing is a cube, rather, three football fields long and the football fields wide.  Let's say it is, quite unrealistically, ten floors.  Noah probably didn't think to make the floors varying height to most efficiently accommodate carrying heights per floor (I don't recall and my phone isn't getting internet here, but I think for some reason it was only three floors or so, and Noah had access to all of them). 

So how many animals can we fit on 90 football fields?  226 per field is approximately what we need, that's 112 of each gender, for just 10,000 animals total.  I think it would be hard to fit the thousand representative mammal species in that area, let alone a pair of every species of mammal.  People don't realize, there are lots of animals in the world.  Primates alone would not fit one of each on a single field.  That's us, chimps, bonobos, baboons, gorillas, true monkeys, orangutans, lemurs, et cetera.  Not let's include dogs, wolves, cats, lions, cheetas, hyenas, gazelle, water buffalo, caribou, elk, gnu...

So, it seems the direct evidence of a very large number of species is indirect evidence against the Noah's Ark hypothesis.

And that, my friends, is why evidence is important.

Part two to follow, perhaps?  INDUBITABLY!

DESTINY: Such Hubris.

So I'm sitting here, watching some youtube videos.  At the beginning of them, an advertisement for the video game 'Destiny.'  There's a band of heroes (I assume), three in total.  One of them is looking down these binoculars (it's the future, we're fighting aliens in space, and we don't have optical implants?) at a fortress in the side of a mountain.  So they deduce it looks pretty quiet.  Might as well blow something up, right?  I mean, it's not like there's just three of them, or that the three of them are standing in front of a huge fortress brimming with probably thousands of enemies.  Enemies possibly much more advanced than the simple 20th century firearms they apparently lugged through space (shipping things to space costs A LOT OF RESOURCES). 

Blast apart the door they do and out pour these myriad enemies.  You know they're enemies because the English-speaking fellows are shooting at them, and they don't speak any civilized language (and they look scary too!  Why do these antagonists never look like cute little bunnies or kittens or something?  Always so humanoid).

As the first enemies pour out, one says 'Looks like the party has started,' to which the other replies something about wanting his floating computer to play Classical music.  Que Led Zeppelin's 'Immigrant Song.'

There's something funny about playing a song about Vikings fighting their way to Valhalla that's probably lost on the average viewer.  I mean, yeah, the protagonists are definitely invading the natives, so that's probably a decent track to pick.  But what I don't get is why they apparently have a floating computer that has the entire history of music on it (mind you, Destiny has to be set sometime a LONG time from now - are you gonna put several-hundred year old music on your future MP3 player?  I doubt you can stream Pandora from servers on Earth to somewhere light-years away almost instantly...)

Also, it's pretty awesome how we Americans all pretty much still have the exact same dialect several hundred years from now, and intergalactic warriors are gonna be listening to English music (of all the possible worlds full of music, ours is still the most awesome, music no one of that time is going to have any real ties to).  I mean, seriously, who wants to listen to a Holophoner (thanks, Futurama!) when you have remastered vinyl from several centuries ago?

Maybe this is why I don't play video games so much anymore...