Raf

As far as the National Center for Science Education article and the Biblical flood, only one question needs to be asked. Does the article describe a flood that would carry Noah's Ark to an area that could reasonably be referred to as "the mountains of Ararat"? Ararat has two peaks (that's why it's called "mountains." It's not a mountain range like the Rockies, the Alps or the Andes). Supposedly, definitions of "the mountains of Ararat" have been loosely interpreted to the extent that we're talking about a mountain in Cizre, Turkey (Mount Judi, about 60 miles away from Ararat, if I read correctly). For the sake of argument, let us accept Mt. Judi because it is nice and far south of the actual mountains of Ararat. Does the flood described in the NCSE article come anywhere near Mt. Judi? Nope. Not even close. Therefore, by this very article you cited, IF the flood stories of multiple cultures (not just the Hebrew culture) were an allusion to an actual, historical flood, it still does not exonerate the Bible of the actual errors committed in the telling of the story. To wit: The flood did not cover mountains, as the Bible claimed it did. And the flood did not carry the ark to the mountains of Ararat, or to the mountains 60 miles south of Ararat, or anywhere near the Turkish border, because the flood did not extend that far north! Pick your actual error.

Big post, can't answer all of it at once, so please be patient. That's the easiest, so I will tackle it first. A real unbiased scientist would be one who did not BEGIN with his conclusion (that there WILL be harmony between science and scripture no matter how much I have to twist one or the other to make it happen). Ross begins with his conclusion, as do you. That's not how science works.

A writer discovers that the cartoon universe he thinks is a product of his imagination is actually real -- and rapidly becoming overrun by zombies.

Sorry... coming right up...

Maybe Raf was indicating a knowledge of the movie without actually guessing the movie, which sounds to me like Conan the Barbarian

Animal House

Do you want to live forever?

Hill Street Blues Clues

Yes, please, every clue MUST be spelled out for this one. Wow.

You were, of course, correct about Little House. The pilot was actually based on Little House on the Prairie, a sequel to Little House in the Big Woods. The series was loosely based on the third book in the series, On the Banks of Plum Creek. Mary did go blind in real life. She also never married, so her blind husband never recovered his sight. :)

"Do you ever have deja vu?" "Didn't you just ask me that?"

One of the supporting characters went blind from a clunk on the head. He later regained his sight after another clunk on the head. This didn't happen in the source novels, because this character didn't exist at all in the source novels.

The pilot for this series was based on a novel that was actually a sequel. The series itself played a little fast and loose with subsequent novels in the series. For example, the central characters pretty much stayed in the title location throughout the series, but in the books, they moved many times. One other bit of trivia: The person who wrote the theme music for this series also wrote the well known prototypical burlesque theme music known as "The Stripper."

You had me at Danielle Spencer. What's Happening

LOL! I think you just won the game.

"I was in the Virgin Islands once. I met a girl. We ate lobster, drank piña coladas. At sunset, we made love like sea otters. That was a pretty good day."

Really? Wow. Talk about a WAG. Ok, coming up...

"Tutti Frutti" "Do you believe in rock and roll? Can music save your mortal soul? Can you teach me how to dance real slow?"

Body Heat ?

On the whole "whale" diversion, there's something worth noting here. T-Bone has evidently gone to some trouble explaining why Genesis 1:21 mentions whales and whether that's an accurate translation. If you go back over my post, however, you will see that I made no such assertion (completely understandable, as I was not relying on the King James when I ASKED whether whales were included in the verse). I was not claiming that Genesis 1:21 included whales. If it did, it's an error. If it didn't, it's not. Minor point in the scheme of what I actually WAS addressing. The more I review what you're sharing about Ross, the more clear it is becoming that he is absurdly incorrect about whale evolution. That is a REMARKABLE claim. It's also horsehockey, and Ross should know it. He's counting on you NOT knowing it, though. Here's a simple task: Find one expert in cetacean biology and evolution who actually agrees with what you wrote there. If Ross is correct in that statement, then evolution has been actively disproved. That would be a Nobel-worthy achievement in the field of science. It is just an astonishing development, one that would have the entire field of biology shaken to its foundations. Unless, of course, it's bullcrap. It's simply not true. But again, don't take my word for it: check with real, unbiased scientists who have not started with their conclusions. Do whale biologists think whales are an exception to evolution, or that there hasn't been enough time for whales to evolve the way they have? Find one. One. (Psst: Ross is not one). Enjoy.

Mark, I appreciate your endorsement of Ross. If you'd like to apply it to something I've said, I'm all ears. Meanwhile, back to T-Bone: You can SAY that as often as you'd like, but you can only demonstrate it by finagling the Bible until it says the opposite of, or something completely different from, what is actually says. I'm entertained by the amount of effort you've put into examining what I said about whales, by the way. I just threw that in there as an afterthought, and you're acting like you've come across the biggest gotcha against my post. Not even close. First off, Ross is wrong. Ross makes the crucial mistake of beginning with his conclusion and manipulating both facts and scripture to suit that conclusion. Couple of things: one, that there's never been a measurable chance within a species is a flat out lie on its face, but if you expand on the idea a little bit, we might be able to iron it out. On its face, though, that's a howler. Big fat lie. Try again. Second: "much less the appearance of a new one" reflects both a simplistic and a distorted view of what evolution predicts. If Ross is trying to say that the fossil record does not show speciation, he's once again simply lying. Again, the problem here may be the wording. To say there's never been a change within a species, much less the emergence of a new one, is rather oxymoronic. You're never going to see a new species within a species. Because you're within a species. That's like looking for high school graduates among a high school's freshman population. Duh. You've kind of defined them out of the sample population. None of this discussion on whales, horses, speciation, etc, does a single thing to contradict the ACTUAL POINT I WAS MAKING, which is, again: Here's the order of creation in Genesis: Heaven, earth, light, plant life, the sun (moon and stars) water life, birds, THEN land animals) That's an actual error. In reality, it was heaven/light, sun, earth, with plant life not showing up for a couple of BILLION years, AFTER water life, and birds came after (and from) land animals. Now, if you BEGIN with the conclusion that there's no contradiction between scripture and science, then you can harmonize the two, but only by twisting both the scripture and science. The more you distort one, the less you have to distort the other. Ross accomplishes both, distorting science for those who are not scientifically literate, and distorting scripture in ways that, frankly, I'm surprised you guys are allowing. You would never let Wierwille get away with the infractions Ross is committing. But go ahead. I'm not going to stop you.

On the "regional flood" and the article we're debating, I just have this to say: You quoted the point I made but did not refute it. In fact, the information you provided supported every point I made. Namely, that the flood described in the article directly exposes the Genesis flood as an actual error. The Bible doesn't say it "looked like" the whole world was covered in water. Genesis makes explicit statements that the article you cite clearly establishes to be flat out wrong. The Bible says the flood covered mountains. The flood in the article did not. The Bible says the flood carried the ark to Ararat. The flood described in the article would not have accomplished that feat. So in other words, I'm quoting the Bible. You're quoting an article that says the Bible is actually in error. And you're claiming that the article proves the Bible is accurate and not in error. I'm sorry, but you simply cannot have it both ways.

I just noticed the recent posts and will delve into them piecemeal as the opportunity arises. Thanks for the feedback.

I keep seeing Cameron Diaz and Ben Stiller in my head, so I'm gonna guess There's Something About Mary

The theme song referred to several life circumstances that seemed to belie the title of the program. Irony, maybe? Among the circumstances: losing your job for a short time and falling victim to predatory lending (though the song used different words).