Guess what I learned today? There were dinosaurs on Noah's Ark!

[Guinastasia]

@Bayesian_Empirimancer

I thinkthis summarizes the events aptly.

Oh god, that site is awesome! (Is the “Bible Fellowship” part satire? Because those are pretty vulgar)

[Clothahump]

[Malleus_Incus_Stapes]

@Hari_Seldon

Funny about are dinos kosher. They are not mammals or seafood, so neither the cloven hoofs and cud-chewing nor fins and scales apply to them. I don’t know precisely what makes chickens, ducks, geese, and (for most Jews) turkeys kosher while song-birds (as far as I know), raptors, and ostriches aren’t.

That’s a bit complicated. There’s a list in Levticus or somewhere of twenty-four birds (or bird families) that aren’t kosher. Everything else is fine. Problem is, over the past few thousand years people have forgotten which name means what. So, on the principle of better-safe-than-sorry, we’ve restricted ourselves to eating only birds that we have a long-standing tradition of eating. And then there’s turkeys, but that’s a long story…

[Little_Nemo]

@Malleus_Incus_Stapes

@Hari_Seldon

Funny about are dinos kosher. They are not mammals or seafood, so neither the cloven hoofs and cud-chewing nor fins and scales apply to them. I don’t know precisely what makes chickens, ducks, geese, and (for most Jews) turkeys kosher while song-birds (as far as I know), raptors, and ostriches aren’t.

That’s a bit complicated. There’s a list in Levticus or somewhere of twenty-four birds (or bird families) that aren’t kosher. Everything else is fine. Problem is, over the past few thousand years people have forgotten which name means what. So, on the principle of better-safe-than-sorry, we’ve restricted ourselves to eating only birds that we have a long-standing tradition of eating. And then there’s turkeys, but that’s a long story…

There’s two lists. A short one in Leviticus and a longer one in Deuteronomy.

Here’s Leviticus 11:13 and Deuteronomy 14:12-18 (King James Version):

And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray

But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, and the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind, and every raven after his kind, and the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, the little owl, and the great owl, and the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant, and the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

Let’s try the English Standard Version instead:

And these you shall detest among the birds; they shall not be eaten; they are detestable: the eagle, the bearded vulture, the black vulture

But these are the ones that you shall not eat: the eagle, the bearded vulture, the black vulture, the kite, the falcon of any kind; every raven of any kind; the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk of any kind; the little owl and the short-eared owl, the barn owl and the tawny owl, the carrion vulture and the cormorant, the stork, the heron of any kind; the hoopoe and the bat.

Now when you compare these two you can see some of the confusion. It’s clear you’re not supposed to eat eagles, kites, ravens, nighthawks, hawks, cormorants, herons, and bats.

An ossifrage is a bearded vulture. Not eating those either.

An ospray is a black vulture not an osprey. (You can understand how people were confused when told not to eat black vultures. The species doesn’t exist in the Old World.)

Less understandable is the confusion about lapwings and hoopoes. Two different birds.

But that’s nothing compared to the apparent confusion over owls, which are apparently indistinguishable from ostrichs and swans. Seriously, five year olds know these birds. This is bad ornithology even for people who think a bat is a kind of bird.

Figuring out what a glede is was apparently where they threw in the towel. They just quietly dropped it from the English Standard list.

[Malleus_Incus_Stapes]

It’s not much easier in the original Hebrew. We’re pretty certain that most of them were birds of prey, and ostriches and storks are there somewhere. And Biblical taxonomy isn’t exactly the sort of classification we’re used to- bats were flying vertebrates, therefore they were “birds”.

[Mijin]

nm

[statsman1982]

@Hari_Seldon

If they took Gish’s PhD away it would just add to the evidence that his valuable ideas are being suppressed by a scientific establishment. Besides, is he so much worse (or more dangerous) that vice-presidential candidates who talk about “death panels”?

Yeah, I know it’s wishful thinking. I can just imagine the shitstorm it would create. I can even hear Wolf Blitzer:

“Now we move on to another story out of Berkeley California, where a noted Creation Scientist has had his PhD *rescinded *for allegedly propagating misinformation about scientific knowledge. Let’s hear from sides…”:rolleyes:

It just annoys me that I’m working on a dissertation that, you know, has to be at least sorta-kinda right. It’d be much easier if I could just throw in God working in mysterious ways to support one of my arguments.

[Wile_E]

@Little_Nemo

…
Let’s try the English Standard Version instead:

But these are the ones that you shall not eat: the eagle, the bearded vulture, the black vulture, the kite, the falcon of any kind; every raven of any kind; the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk of any kind; the little owl and the short-eared owl, the barn owl and the tawny owl, the carrion vulture and the cormorant, the stork, the heron of any kind; the hoopoe and the bat.

Now when you compare these two you can see some of the confusion. It’s clear you’re not supposed to eat eagles, kites, ravens, nighthawks, hawks,
cormorants, herons, and bats.

An ossifrage is a bearded vulture. Not eating those either.

An ospray is a black vulture not an osprey. (You can understand how people were confused when told not to eat black vultures. The species doesn’t exist in the Old World.)

Less understandable is the confusion about
lapwings and hoopoes. Two different birds.

But that’s nothing compared to the apparent confusion over owls, which are apparently indistinguishable from ostrichs and swans. Seriously, five year olds know these birds. This is bad ornithology even for people who think a bat is a kind of bird.

Figuring out what a glede is was apparently where they threw in the towel. They just quietly dropped it from the English Standard list.

I could have sworn I saw a list somewhere of foods at some biblical feast that included fruit-bats.

Also, sloths, orangutans and breakfast cereals.

[Little_Nemo]

@Malleus_Incus_Stapes

It’s not much easier in the original Hebrew. We’re pretty certain that most of them were birds of prey, and ostriches and storks are there somewhere. And Biblical taxonomy isn’t exactly the sort of classification we’re used to- bats were flying vertebrates, therefore they were “birds”.

But did the people who translated the biblical Hebrew into modern English really think the Old Testament told people to avoid black vultures - a species that lives in Mexico and South America? That’s like saying that the Lord told the Israelites not to eat kangaroos.

[Little_Nemo]

@Wile_E

I could have sworn I saw a list somewhere of foods at some biblical feast that included fruit-bats.

Also, sloths, orangutans and breakfast cereals.

… and tigers, lions, elephants, buffaloes, donkeys, giraffes, octopuses, rhinoceroses, mooses, ducks, and especially rabbits.

[Colibri]

@Little_Nemo

An ospray is a black vulture not an osprey. (You can understand how people were confused when told not to eat black vultures. The species doesn’t exist in the Old World.)

@Little_Nemo

But did the people who translated the biblical Hebrew into modern English really think the Old Testament told people to avoid black vultures - a species that lives in Mexico and South America? That’s like saying that the Lord told the Israelites not to eat kangaroos.

That’s a problem with common names. In addition to the (American) Black Vulture Coragyps atratus, the Cinereous Vulture Aegypius monachus of the Old World is also called the Black Vulture or Eurasian Black Vulture. Undoubtedly the latter is the one that was meant by the translator.

[Little_Nemo]

@Colibri

That’s a problem with common names. In addition to the (American) Black Vulture Coragyps atratus, the Cinereous Vulture Aegypius monachus of the Old World is also called the Black Vulture or Eurasian Black Vulture. Undoubtedly the latter is the one that was meant by the translator.

Okay, I’ll let that one slide. But owls and ostriches?

[Peremensoe]

@DiosaBellissima

One person said, “Oh yeah, and there were dinosaurs on the Ark, too!” which caused us all to break out into giggles, thinking we were all in agreement with the ridiculousness of it all. Except Scientist, who got deadly serious and said, “No, it’s true. There were dinosaurs on the Ark, but just not how you and I would think of dinosaurs.”

So… what did she mean? The birds and crocodiles?

[Little_Nemo]

The weird thing about this thread is that while we’re laughing at the idea that dinosaurs were around to ride the ark, we all seem to have no problem with the idea that there was an ark for them to ride on and a worldwide flood to give them a reason to.

If you think about it, the dinosaurs are the most plausible part of this story.

[Irishman]

It’s called suspension of disbelief for the purposes of mockery.

“Yeah, I know, preposterous to begin with, but even if you buy the premise of a giant wooden boat, a worldwide flood, and all the animals on the boat, now you want to try to squeeze a few dinosaurs on board?”

Hoist by their own petard.

[Malleus_Incus_Stapes]

@Little_Nemo

@Colibri

That’s a problem with common names. In addition to the (American) Black Vulture Coragyps atratus, the Cinereous Vulture Aegypius monachus of the Old World is also called the Black Vulture or Eurasian Black Vulture. Undoubtedly the latter is the one that was meant by the translator.

Okay, I’ll let that one slide. But owls and ostriches?

Again, “No one seems to know what a chassida is, but the root of the word is ‘kindness’, so it must be a social bird… parrots, maybe? And this old manuscript I have has it as ‘tufted titmouse’, although I might be wrong about that because the handwriting is atrocious. Ah, heck, I’ll go with the parrots for now.”