19 Responses to “Life, Satire Inch Closer”

1. #1 |  wade |  November 1st, 2004 at 10:15 am

   http://print.google.com/print?id=43tYdgmU5zoC&lpg=v&prev=http://print.google.com/print%3Fq%3Dcharles%2Blyell&pg=0_1&sig=Bp3ZAQMH8xxKwqFFrJwppvMs6KM

   ’nuff said

      +0
2. #2 |  Matt |  November 1st, 2004 at 10:28 am

   if Noah’s flood did happen, wouldn’t it be considered a geologic force?

   Why is the bush administration approving or disapproving any book to begin with?

      +0
3. #3 |  Joe Sims |  November 1st, 2004 at 11:31 am

   From Laurie Anderson’s United States Live:

   Part I - Say Hello

   A certain American religious sect has been looking at conditions of the world during the Flood.

   According to their calculations, during the Flood the winds, tides and currents were in an overall southeasterly direction.

   This would mean that in order for Noah’s Ark to have ended up on Mount Ararat, it would have to have started out several thousand miles to the west.

   This would then locate pre-Flood civilization in the area of Upstate New York, and the Garden of Eden roughly in New York City.

   Now, in order to get from one place to another, something must move. No one in New York remembers moving, and there are no traces of Biblical history in the Upstate New York area.
   So we are led to the only available conclusion in this time warp, and that is that the Ark has simply not left yet…

      +0
4. #4 |  Bunnie |  November 1st, 2004 at 12:24 pm

   The issue was that an independent bookstore at the Grand Canyon was selling this book in the “Inspiration” section.

   Some folks wanted it banned.

   They took it to the Office of the Inspector General, which, apparently, decided NOT to ban the book.

   I would say the action was ‘refusing to ban a book’ from being sold at an independent book store. Others would say ‘approve a book.’

      +0
5. #5 |  Murray |  November 1st, 2004 at 12:36 pm

   If the Park Service is publishing this book, big problem.

   If they are merely selling it as one of many books concerning the canyon, no problem.

      +0
6. #6 |  fyodor |  November 1st, 2004 at 1:27 pm

   Based on the linked story, the Park Service is merely selling the book, which on the surface seems like no prob to me, especially because the justification given was that the book is popular rather than that the book is accurate, or to be fair and balanced or whatever. So let the Park Service make a few bucks off the dweebs who’d buy such a thing, fine with me. As long as the Park Service is reasonably consistent about such matters.

      +0
7. #7 |  Bithead |  November 1st, 2004 at 1:42 pm

   Forgive me;
   Wouldn’t a flood of that magnitude cause some erosion?

      +0
8. #8 |  michael |  November 1st, 2004 at 1:55 pm

   allot christians and jews believe the flood was an isolated event. there is enough water on the planet or in the atmosphere to flood the entire world. also 40 days and 40 nights is just an expression. in the middle east 40 is used to mean it just rained a shitload, i.e. ali baba and the forty-thieves means ali baba and a shitload of thieves.

      +0
9. #9 |  myrddin |  November 1st, 2004 at 2:18 pm

   They shouldn’t take the book off the shelves, but someone needs to ensure that it is never seen as having Park endorsement, or as reflective of actual science.

   It’s scary that this author would even have a vote. I wouldn’t trust him to deide what to feed my dog, much less who should run the country.

      +0
10. #10 |  michael |  November 1st, 2004 at 2:47 pm

    oops, i meant there is NOT enough water

    sorry.

       +0
11. #11 |  Lee |  November 1st, 2004 at 3:30 pm

    Michael,

    You forget that the Kings James version of The Bible is the literal word of God and that no interpretation is allowed.

    So it literally rained for 40 days and 40 nights.

    /sarcasm off

       +0
12. #12 |  Roy |  November 1st, 2004 at 4:45 pm

    Actually, wasn’t the Grand Canyon dug by Paul Bunyan’s Ox dragging a plow? What’s this nonsense about a flood?

       +0
13. #13 |  Mike N. |  November 1st, 2004 at 4:59 pm

    bithead,
    yes a flood of that magnitude would cause alot of erosion (movement of material from its place of origin)…but not nearly enough weathering (the chemical and physical process which breaks down rocks)…

    as an agnostic science teacher with christian in-laws i’ve heard ‘em all…i smile and keep the scientifically proven facts to myself…it’s a no win situation…no use in discussion…

    but please allow me to say-scienctists DO NOT HAVE AN AGENDA TO DISPROVE GOD…

    it just seems to be pretty apparent from what we discover, and continue to discover, that the idea of the old testament version of creation is way the “f” off.

       +0
14. #14 |  James |  November 1st, 2004 at 6:55 pm

    I know it’s different, but i just came upon it doing homework the other day and it’s kinda related, and quite interesting…
    http://www.kidscosmos.org/kid-stuff/mars-trip-scablands.html

    It’s a giant flood causing massive erosion at least.

       +0
15. #15 |  Ms. Dani |  November 1st, 2004 at 6:58 pm

    symbolism is rampant in the bible, you have to study the entire book to know when something is symbolic and when something is literal. when does anyone ever read just one chapter of a book and suddenly become an expert on the entire subject?

       +0
16. #16 |  The Interloper |  November 1st, 2004 at 7:01 pm

    I’m with Roy on this one. I fully support the “Ox theory.”

       +0
17. #17 |  Mike N. |  November 2nd, 2004 at 12:02 pm

    that’s great, a historical document that’s symbolical…what a cop-out.

       +0
18. #18 |  zz |  November 2nd, 2004 at 2:32 pm

    since everybody agreed that the earth was flat back then, wouldn’t all the extra water just run off the sides?

       +0
19. #19 |  Paul O'Brien |  November 6th, 2004 at 6:29 pm

    What did you recommend to John F’n Kerry do after his election?

       +0

---