Jonah and the whale - It happened!

I can. His point is that the Jonah and the whale/great fish story really might have happened (although he uses "scientifically possible" to say that).He missed your point, too, which is that if it's possible that God created an animal specifically to swallow Jonah, then of course it's "scientifically possible" for such an animal to swallow Jonah, but neither you nor hardly anyone else is going to believe God created a great sea animal just to swallow Jonah.I think he's wondering whether anyone will try to say that no human could survive in the belly of any creature for three days and nights, because he's saying that it is possible.

Brian, if I can address something. You won't agree or really like the point, but I think I can establish what the point of the thread actually was. You sort of mentioned it earlier when you addressed fundy's. It was a remark in passing, but it was right on the money.Kendemeyer is saying that it is scientifically possible for a man to survive in the belly of a whale for three days. Moose granted him this for the purpose of argument, but that was Ken's whole argument. He had no further one. Maybe you miss this, because you were never a fundy. I was.You say, what was the point. Fundy's begin with a conclusion (as you pointed out), which is that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God. Therefore, all they're trying to do is end arguments against the Bible. If the argument against the Bible falls, then the Bible must be true.That makes no sense to you, and it's completely illogical, but I'm telling you there's no more than one literalist in a 100 that doesn't think that way. They have no objections whatsoever to starting with a conclusion and then finding the evidence for it.To you, and to me now, you can point out that they started with a conclusion and then sought evidence, and they'll cling to the conclusion no matter what the evidence, and we assume just pointing it out will solve the problem. They will see the illogic of it all. They won't. They do not object to starting with a conclusion, because that conclusion is "based on the Word of God."Keith Miller talked to Henry Morris one morning after destroying him in a debate the night before. "Do you really believe the stuff you were saying?" Miller asked. Morris replied that he certainly did. The Bible has God's knowledge, and in the end men's knowledge, if it disagrees with the Bible, is wrong in some way that we must be missing, and eventually man will have to come around to agreeing with the Bible.That's where they are, and not a one of them seems to realize even that it's their interpretation of the Bible they're backing, much less that their interpretation is illogical, inconsistent, or contradictory.If you think it's bad when it's evolution vs. creation, or no flood, local flood, or worldwide flood, you should get involved in their doctrinal battles.I know this is long, but you talk to a lot of fundies, and it was clear you were hearing exactly what Kendemeyer was saying, but you couldn't believe he was saying it. You got his point right. He really was saying it. I have a conclusion, he said, which is that Jonah's story must have happened, because I believe the Bible is literal. Now, all I have to do is prove that it is even remotely scientifically possible, and "It Happened."That's what he meant by "It Happened." In the end, Moose gave him "proof." Moose admitted it was scientifically possible. Debate's over. Fundy's win. It could have happened, so now we can get back to preaching the Gospel of literalism.

I read a couple of things that I wrote and thought I better be careful. However, what I want to re-emphasize that I am absolutely confident of are the last three times you quoted me. Those things are all true, and I know that the reason you didn't see them is because of "We would argue in this way when we were ten years old."Despite how embarrassing it is to say this, I was like that once, and I have plenty of friends who would admit to having been like this. Being a fundy can be like a disease. It's a difficult thing to get rid of, and you're just not allowed to be honest.I used to argue theology a lot back when Prodigy had it's own area to sign into. It used to astonish me that I could tell someone that I didn't believe something they had said to me, and they would just go an and build further arguments on it as though it were just established because they said it. Then I'd point it out to them, and they couldn't figure out what I was saying to them. Only if the Bible says it happened. If the Bible says it happened, then all you need is a loophole making it remotely possible, and, poof, it's proven!On the other hand, if it's just an apocryphal book, like, say Maccabees or Judith or something, then, if it's real unlikely, it probably didn't happen.Actually, one of my favorite example is the Phoenix bird, which Clement of Rome appeals to in 1 Clement. 1 Clement was considered Scripture by a lot of early churches, and it was an "iffy" book until at least the late 3rd century, probably longer. Finally, it didn't make the cut.So, the Phoenix bird isn't true. It's just a fable, even to Christians. Had Clement made it, however, then the Phoenix bird would surely be defended by all literalists, because it only shows up every 500 years. It probably showed up in Egypt back in the 1600's when no one was looking, and it will be back in the 22nd century, and right now it's off in Asia somewhere, where it's been sighted occasionally by numerous Chinese farmers and even a few Indian fakirs.One more thing: your avatar looks so much like someone I know that it really shakes me up to look at it.

That was clear. I didn't meant to suggest otherwise. I understand your point here, and I think you did an excellent job of getting that point across to Ken. I would only disagree that Ken is rare in that approach. I think most fundy's are happy to have a "scientifically possible" explanation. I agree this "argues Biblical inerrancy from an atheistic position," although I would hove missed that, had you not pointed it out. I think most fundy's would have missed it with me.

Not that I've seen. I don't know that any of them have even admitted to a contradiction, no matter how obvious.I went from a literalist to non-literalist and from a YEC to someone who acknowledges the obvious truth of evolution on the CompuServe forums years ago. I was told by one guy there I was the only person he'd ever seen back down. I've heard of others since, but never seen it happen.Of course, there's a difference between becoming a non-literalist and saying that the Bible is not the Word of God.

I was going to answer your post here, ThingsChange, but I realized it is a complete topic shift that I would enjoy discussing, so I opened a new topic in the Bible Inerrance forum calledThe Bible: Miracles Required to Believe It's the Word of God?

If y'all don't mind me interjecting some comments.One, Kendemeyer is not being an intellectual coward, CA. He genuinely believes he has supplied the proof you want.For Kendemeyer, should he ever return, and Brian, I think the fact that Kendemeyer never reacted to my summation of his argument ("if it's scientifically possible, and the Bible said it, then it happened") is proof enough that I summed his argument up. In a bizarre maneuver, he went back and completely changed his OP, but the point of the OP is still exactly the same: "scientifically, it's not impossible."That's why he didn't get it, Brian, when you said he should study theology. Only one question is able to get into his brain, "Is it scientifically possible?" Because, in his mind, if it is, then his case is rested: it happened.I pointed out this is how he was arguing. You pointed out that's not good enough for anyone. Moose tried to grant him his "scientifically possible" argument and then tell him that doesn't prove it happened, and he still couldn't figure it out.It's a good thing Kendemeyer's taking a break. This could go on forever. You guys are asking for proof it happened, and he considers "it's scientifically possible" proof that it happened. Thus, he can't understand your requests for anything theological (what does theology have to do with "it's scientifically possible") or consequent's request for real inductive proof. He gave evidence it's scientifically possible, what more could you possibly want?If we can't make him realize scientifically possible does not equal "it happened," then it's pointless to continue; he can't understand your questions.Anyway, he's gone for now, I guess.

Nope. I was kind of hoping at some point he'd go, "Oh, they're asking me to provide some evidence that this actually happened, rather than just some evidence that it's possible." However, he's been asked that directly by Moose and Brian several times, and it never clicked.

The point is that your suggestion that Brian had not read your work is ridiculous, considering his point by point discussion of the entire thing! You basically nitpicked at a couple things and then suggested he didn't read it properly.People are trying to tell you it really wasn't worth reading as thoroughly as Brian read it. Yet you had the audacity to suggest he didn't read it enough.Listen, he read it enough to catch that you said Jonah must have been slim, because a sperm whale only has a 1.5 foot wide gullet, but then you said a sperm whale could swallow a 4-5 foot square box (that's 2x2 at the smallest, with about 2 3/4 feet from corner to corner). He read it carefully enough to point out to you that you provided not one shred of evidence that a person can survive inside a whale.But worst of all, he read it carefully enough to point out to you that you used two example of people who were not swallowed at all, which was utterly pointless, and really was enough to make anyone else just throw your paper away. Brian kindly continued, because he's autistic or something (just kidding, Brian) and able to stay focused on a subject far longer than anyone I know.Then, you, instead of thanking him for pointing out exactly why people are ignoring what you say and even scoffing at you a bit, SAY THAT HE HASN'T READ YOU PAPER WELL ENOUGH!!!It doesn't get much worse than that, Mr. kendemyer.