The Four Color Media Monitor

You guys are the dumbest fucking assholes on the internet.

You need to rename this blog to:

"Grasping at Straws & Bald Assertions"

I hope you didn't tweak or pull anything after posting this. It's all quite a big stretch there, champ.

The fact that you can even include the Titanic and the Ark in the same conversation relating to validity is about as brainless as one can possibly be. I say that with very little in the way of hyperbole.

Avi, you are a sad, sad person. The titanic thing is something you brought into it for a comparison, and all it did was make you look desperate.

It's simple: if you want to prove Larsen wrong on his personal opinion, then PROVE him wrong. Show him the Ark. In fact, since you feel he's an atheist (and I agree that's likely by his posts and twitter), why not slam-dunk him and prove God?

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

This argument is nonsensical. You should probably delete this post. It reflects poorly on you.

Pretty sad to see that some of his readers have decided to embarrass him by writing profanity and insults in his name. Bad for the business, if you ask me. Also reflects poorly upon atheists to speak so degradingly, some not even having the courage to sign their real names. Yet will help let us know how comicdom - or any medium for that matter - has been hijacked by people who probably don't even thank comicdom's founding fathers for building a medium with potential. I guess we can assume you'll never take a trip to Armenia to visit Mount Ararat either, even if the flight rates to go there are cheap.

Oh well, thanks for visiting anyway. Like I said, there is what to learn from such thin-skinned specimens.

I'm trying to understand your argument. Are you saying that the construction of the Titanic is proof of the Arc? But the Titanic was a failure, it could barely keep its human passengers alive.
Also, if you believe that the Titanic and the Arc would be roughly the same size, you should go look up the manifest of the Titanic. Count how many crew and passengers were aboard. Then compare that with the numbers it would take to have two of every animal that exists. I think you will find that a vessel the size of the Titanic would not be anywhere large enough to pull that off.

The main problem is that your argument is nonsensical. There is no scientific proof Noah's Ark exists; there's definitely not an Ark at Mount Ararat despite what the stories tell. Said stories were written hundreds of years after the supposed Flood. By contrast, we actually know where the Titanic is located, have verified artifacts from it, have photographs, etc.

Honestly, the fact that you consider him less of a person because he is an atheist (and pointed out the problems with the Noah's Ark story) says more about you than it does about hi,

Are you saying that there's a rift between the Bible/Torah and science? In case you didn't notice, I speak from the view of somebody who recognizes the legitimacy of science, and sees no disconnect at all. Oh wait, you must be one of those kind of people who thinks the Satmar movement represents all Jews, since their type of "education" makes it seem as though there is a rift. Well in that case, you might as well go join them, because they actually uphold twisted viewpoints not unlike your own. Yeah, seriously, go put on a black hat and grow a beard, and go live in absurdist isolationism while getting all the socialist welfare you must crave.

And Kirchoff, in case you're not aware, the Titanic was ripped open on icebergs in 1912. A fault of bad navigation by the crew, if that matters, and unlike the time of Noah, the water levels weren't as high. Do the math.

Holy shit.

You are reading FAR too much into what I said. I honestly don't care WHAT kind of Jew/Christian/Muslim/Scientologist/Heaven's Gater you are. I pointed out two things:

1) There is far far more proof of the Titanic's existence than the Ark's.

2) It's pretty crappy to think someone is a lesser person simply because he is an atheist.

That's it.

I'd say that next time, you shouldn't reply with such insane ramblings and assumptions, but given your replies so far it's pretty likely you wouldn't listen. Just realize that you've shot your credibility pretty badly.

Ah, in case I forget, are you saying that Noah's Ark couldn't have been destroyed over centuries by weather conditions and ancient vandals? Wow, guess who the real denier of science is here! Not that I ever expected somebody like you to be approaching these issues from the standing of somebody wishing to raise a rational argument. No, that wasn't your intention, was it? No matter, you needn't say more, I get the picture. Besides, my problems with Larsen is that politically, he just doesn't know when to quit, and tends to be so lacking in respectability. Much like a few MSM journalists I'd known years ago.

As big as the titanic?

Actually the bible states what the measurements of Noah's Ark are.

I am aware of that. The unsinkable ship was sunk on it's maiden voyage. I was just pointing out that comparing the Arc to a vessel that ended up not being able to deliver on what it was designed to do, may not be the best choice.

I also find it ironic that I ask you how it would be possible to fit all those animals into a vessel roughly around the size of the Titanic and you tell me to do math.

I just don't understand how the existence of the Titanic proves the existence of the Ark or if someone doesn't believe that the Ark ever existed that that would mean they would have to also deny the existence of the Titanic. How does that make any logical sense?

Erik Larsen is simply pointing out obvious logistical problems with the story of Noah's Ark. If you want to argue against that, don't make a comparison to the Titanic. Instead try supplying a reasonable solution to those logistical problems.

We needn't look any further than the fact that a "global flood" is a physical impossibility to dismiss the Noah myth. It would only be possible if accompanied by erosion that had flattened most of the land so that there were no mountains rising above the floodwaters. The geological record, to say nothing of the Earth's present shape, makes this an inherently absurd proposition.

As all sane Christians know, the Noah story is self-evidently a myth, like all of the other global flood myths, which can probably be tied back to an actual flood of devastating proportions, as the Caspian region was prone to sustaining epic floods.

Kirchoff: As though it weren't possible for ancient humanity to build sturdy boats. Pitch, an ancient form of waterproof asphalt, was used to build the Ark, and we can figure that Noah's family had a good sense of what wood to use for the framing.

As for how many animals you could fit in? There were only 2 of each kind, and I'm not sure even then, animal species were that numerous, so I don't see why he or you think it's so doubtful.

If you're a skeptic, so be it, but I don't see why it's such a big deal that you have to go out of your way to say so. I'd think there's a lot of other, more important issues out there that matter far more than somebody's dissent over atheism.

That argument is certainly an improvement from the Titanic one. Though, its still based on a lot of supposition on your part.

And you're right, there's a lot of other issues out there besides "somebody's dissent over atheism." Just as there's a lot of other, more important issues out there that matter far more than one comic book creator's issues with the Noah story. Yet you still wrote a whole blog entry about it.

Atheists are such nice people.

Yes, Mike, because as we all know *only* atheists don't accept the bible. I mean its not as if there are other religions or theistic positions out there besides the Judeo-Christian beliefs, right?

Oh wait...

There were no dinosaurs! They are not mentioned in GENESIS. Satan planted those bones underground to deceive manking and test our faith. Only Leviathan is real.

You guys know that Noah's ark had a set of specific dimensions, which are mentioned in the bible, and don't even come close to the size of the Titanic, right?

And that the whole ark was supposedly made of wood, right?

I'm not going to call you any names, I'm just going to ask you one last thing.

Can you give an approximation of how many different species of animals exist on the planet, multiply their combined volume by two, and compare that combined volume to what Noah's ark (again, size being described in the bible itself) could fit within?

Because if my calculations are even five hundred percent off, you guys can't count.

Avi, you probably like to compare apples and oranges too, don't ya?

Your whole post is fucking ridiculous. Larsen wasn't putting animals before humans, he was saying, why would god kill the animals when its the humans that are assholes? Its a good debate point. When was the last time a giraffe stoke your wallet or raped you?

I live free speech. I think its our greatest weapon. In celebration of that freedom I say that your post has no informational or factual value.

Jackass...

Guessing Larsen decided to sic what remains of his fanboys on Avi. Heh.

For the record, Genesis doesn't say "species." It says "kind." Not remotely the same thing. Be a skeptic if you must, just try to be somewhat informed and honest about what you're skeptical of first.

That's right, Drizzt, because obviously it's simply impossible for anyone who disagrees with Avi to ever be here of their own free will right?

@anon 11:03, what we have is either one person (you) posting with multiple identities, or someone (probably Larsen) who has linked with an implicit "go harass Avi."

So, ready to say how you found this site?

Ah, was Marz that linked. Missed the update area between reading it the first time and commenting.

A true disappointment that Marz turned out to be as bad a person as he was a writer. Well, almost, anyway.

lol So someone having a different opinion or view than you equals them being a bad person.

"Oh no! How dare someone think differently than me!"

There's that childish nonsense again.

And yet you were the one saying one must agree with you to be human.

It's called "projection."

That's not what I said at all, Drizzt. And I have already cleared that up in the other post.

By conceding that Noah probably didn't have two of every current species, but only those that existed at the time, aren't you essentially validating the idea of evolution?

Seems kinda weird to defend a literal interpretation of the Noah story by equivocating on how many species there were "at the time" -- I would assume that if you proscribe to that idea that the biblical flood is a divine truth, then it stands to reason that story of Genesis would be no less true, right? Taking the position that new species have been introduced since the flood contradicts the concept of Divine Creation, doesn't it?

Isn't the definition of literalism -- in a biblical sense -- that you accept the WHOLE THING as a factually accurate account?

Maybe I'm just being thick, but I wasn't aware that fundamentalism was available a la carte.

I haven't conceded anything about "species." I've simply pointed out the word used is "kind." It's an imprecise pre-scientific term.

As far as evolution, most people of faith don't deny it. Microevolution (small scale changes in attributes) is an obvious, demonstrable fact. Most people who accept some non-evolutionary version of creation draw the line between macro (one "kind" of creature - say, a primate - changing into another, vastly different "kind" - say, a human) and micro.

Just noticed: Is the illiterate "John Layman" in comment #1 the former Wildstorm editor that Paul Levitz fired? Explains a lot, if so.

Drizzt, the only people who draw a difference between macro and micro evolution are those who have no idea what evolution is or how it works. You demonstrate this ignorance with your example of primates being a different creature than a human is. Humans ARE primates so saying that a human is a different creature from a primate is as idiotic as saying that a German Shepherd is a different creature from a dog.

There is no such thing as "macro" or "micro" evolution. There is only evolution. End of.

The science is settled. You can't argue with science, you denier!

Or something.

Funny. We go from:

"So someone having a different opinion or view than you equals them being a bad person."

to

"Anyone who disagrees with me is a bad person."

(For the record, I haven't said what my view is, just tried to explain the one that disagrees with you. Another of your many, many errors.)

But we're done. Maybe you'll grow out of believing that disagreeing with you makes one inhuman and stupid. If not, well, there's always politics.

Drizzt, no one has said anything about you being a bad person for having a disagree opinion.

For someone who complains about projection, you seem to be doing a lot of it.

And accusing me of believe having a disagreeing opinion makes them inhuman or stupid, when 1) I have already corrected your fallacious assumption regarding the inhuman remark, 2) I haven't called anyone stupid. I have only called you childish and that was regarding your behavior not your opinions, and 3) YOU specifically called Marz a "bad person" for simply linking this thread, is the epitome of hypocrisy.

Does intellectual honesty mean nothing to you Drizzt?