Ark size and animals.
ksjj
In article <338b1fe5...@news.highfiber.com>, ras...@highfiber.com
(Charles Dye) wrote:
> On 26 May 1997 00:08:03 GMT, ks...@fast.net.nospam (ksjj) wrote:
>
> >Cetacean Network wrote:
> >>
> >> > It was demonstrated earlier that there was room on the ark
> >> > for 56,000 animals.
> >>
> >> No, Karl. It was not demonstrated. It was CLAIMED. You never demonstrate
> >> anything. And when folks challenged your claim, all you did was whine "is
> >> TOO."
>
> >Apparently you missed it the first time around.
> >
> >BACKGROUND:
> >As mentioned previously, the median size animal in the animal kingdom is
> >about the size of a house cat or small rodent.
> >Of course one knows that and elephant is large and requires much more
> >space than a cat, but, we also must remember that a mouse is small and
> >requires much less space than a cat. In the animal kingdom it should also
> >be mentioned that there is also more smaller animals than larger animals.
> >Approximately 11% of the animals on the ark would have been bigger than a
> >sheep. Keep in mind that the animal size would also have been greatly
> >reduced by bringing onboard infants at the start of the flood.
> >
> > [clip, more of same]
>
> Why not post some *useful* numbers, Karl? A "median size" is useless
> for purposes of calculation. A median size of a cat could be three
> fleas and a pony, or three fleas and two whales! You need to know:
>
> 1) Total number of animals (not pairs or septuples) aboard. Complete
> list of species. This would also provide a working definition of a
> "kind" and distinguish between "micro-" and "macroevolution."
>
> 2) Total (not median) mass (not volume) of these animals at start of
> the voyage. From here, you can find medians or compute means if
> you like.
The following reply was received from John Woodmorappe a few months back.
The mean (simple average) is useful when there is a small range of
values, but of little meaning when there is a wide range of values. That
is because the extreme values bias the results.
Consider this: If I were to throw in a combination of roller skates, cars,
and mack trucks, and then arrive at an average weight of this highly
heterogenous mixture, the number representing the average weight of
an object in this collection would be meaningless. This owes to the fact
that the weight of one mack truck swamps the other numbers.
Likewise, on the Ark, there were 8 orders of magnitude difference in body
masses of the animals (actually 7, because juveniles were used of large
animals).
Hence, a median value is much more informative, which is what I used. Of
course, in my work, I thoroughly account for all of the large animals as
well as the multitudes of small ones.
>
> 3) Length of voyage -- I believe you've cited one year? How many
> days? (The Hebrew calendar uses both solar and lunar years, with
> intercalary months to correct the differences. Noah would not want
> to sail for a 13-month leap year of 383+ days!)
According to Charles Ryrie, Noah and his family were in the ark 371 days
(53 weeks)
>
> 4) Total (not median) mass (not volume) of food required by animals
> in #1, above, for duration in #3. This one will not be so easy to
> figure. Young animals can consume many times their own body
> mass in food over the course of a year, and you'll need that complete
> list of species to even begin calculating. On the bright side, for
> food animals (food for Noah or for the lions) you only need to feed
> one pair for the entire year. If Noah brings seven of something, you
> only need four or five animal/years of food for them.
As mentioned before, Noah had over half of the ark left over for foos storage.
>
> 5) Total mass of livestock plus foodstocks, i.e., #2 plus #4.
>
> 6) Maximum total displacement for the ark. 450,000 cubic cubits*
> of seawater weighs less than 60 thousand tons metric.
>
> Please remember to keep #6 greater than #5, or your naval
> arkitecture will founder and the voyage is to noah vail !
>
> ras...@highfiber.com
>
> *Cubic cubits. What a cool unit! Say it five times fast.
--
------
see ya
karl
*********************************************
CREATION, is the scientific truth,
as well as the revelation of GOD
Michael D. Painter
The little girl turns from the TV set and says "They're back"
This is more scary.
karls back.
karl says the bible is the absolute word of his god.
Genesis 6:17 karl's god says everything is going to die.
Genesis 7:4 karl's god says everything is going to die.
Genesis 7:21-23 says everything did die.
So how come karl says so many things lived that were not in the Ark.
Genesis 6:20 says the animals came to Noah.
So did the mayfly bring a creek and the Koala a tree or what?
In Genesis god also says man could live (only) 120 years. Did 600 year old
Noah do, lie about his age?
ksjj <ks...@fast.net> wrote in article
<ksjj-27085...@max12-36.phl.fast.net>...
Steve Geller
> karls back.
>
> karl says the bible is the absolute word of his god.
> Genesis 6:17 karl's god says everything is going to die.
> Genesis 7:4 karl's god says everything is going to die.
> Genesis 7:21-23 says everything did die.
>
> So how come karl says so many things lived that were not in the Ark.
>
> Genesis 6:20 says the animals came to Noah.
> So did the mayfly bring a creek and the Koala a tree or what?
Yes, yes ...
If creationists would just drop the Ark story, they'd all look a
lot less foolish. Taking the Noah legend literally is just
unreasonable.
I suppose miracles can be introduced wherever there's a problem.
How about teleporting in the Koalas, complete with Eucalyptus supply.
But depending on miracles makes the whole thing blind belief.
--
Steve Geller
== always glad to respond to E-Mail (sge...@dsp.net)
Kenneth Fair
In article <ksjj-27085...@max12-36.phl.fast.net>, ks...@fast.net
(ksjj) wrote:
My, this is amusing. Karl, take your word processor and do a find-and-
replace, swapping "median" and "mean." Then the analysis will be
exactly correct.
If you are trying to determine the total weight of the animals on the ark,
or the total space that they take up, the formula is (mean weight x
# animals) or (mean volume x total animals). If you're trying to determine
ark buoyancy, or ark loading limits, these are the applicable formulae.
There *is* a bias towards the larger animals, and that's exactly the bias
needed to calculate weight and space requirements correctly.
Let's take Woodmorappe's mack truck example. Say you have one mack truck
and one hundred pairs of roller skates. You want to determine if this
collection will fit in a room of your house. We'll guesstimate that the
roller skates are about .25 cubic meters (m^3) in volume, while the mack
truck is about 500 m^3. The room in your house is 50 m^3.
The median size is the size of a roller skate, about .25 m^3. The mean size
is somewhere between the size of the mack truck and the roller skates--it
is ((100 x .25) + 500) / 101 = 5.20 m^3.
Using your median formula, you calculate that 101 objects x median
(roller skate) size is 101 x .25 = 25.25 m^3, which would indicate that
the mack truck and the 100 roller skates should fit in your 50 m^3 room.
So you try it, and end up driving the truck through the wall of your house.
Why? Obviously, the truck at 500 m^3 is ten times the size of your 50 m^3
room.
The mean formula tells you it can't work, however, since the mean volume
is 101 x 5.20 = 525 m^3. This is (surprise) the sum of the volumes of
the truck and the skates, the result you should be getting.
The exact same thing applies to the ark. The total volume of the animals
is the mean volume times the number of animals.
This is roughly eighth-grade math, after all.
[snip]
>As mentioned before, Noah had over half of the ark left over for foos storage.
Only if you use the median volumes and weights for the creatures you put
on the ark, which is incorrect, as demonstrated above.
--
KEN FAIR - U. Chicago Law | <http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/kjfair>
Of Counsel, U. of Ediacara | Power Mac! | CABAL(tm) | I'm w/in McQ - R U?
"My vulva is wide opened, a cave of darkness where the people . . . hang out
at night . . . . There is music playing in my Womb." - Doctress Neutopia
David L Evens
ksjj (ks...@fast.net) wrote:
: In article <338b1fe5...@news.highfiber.com>, ras...@highfiber.com
: (Charles Dye) wrote:
: > >Cetacean Network wrote:
: > >>
: > >> > It was demonstrated earlier that there was room on the ark
: > >> > for 56,000 animals.
: > >>
: > >> No, Karl. It was not demonstrated. It was CLAIMED. You never demonstrate
: > >> anything. And when folks challenged your claim, all you did was whine "is
: > >> TOO."
: >
: > >Apparently you missed it the first time around.
: > >
: > >BACKGROUND:
: > >As mentioned previously, the median size animal in the animal kingdom is
: > >about the size of a house cat or small rodent.
: > >Of course one knows that and elephant is large and requires much more
: > >space than a cat, but, we also must remember that a mouse is small and
: > >requires much less space than a cat. In the animal kingdom it should also
: > >be mentioned that there is also more smaller animals than larger animals.
: > >sheep. Keep in mind that the animal size would also have been greatly
: > >reduced by bringing onboard infants at the start of the flood.
: > >
: > > [clip, more of same]
: > Why not post some *useful* numbers, Karl? A "median size" is useless
: > for purposes of calculation. A median size of a cat could be three
: > fleas and a pony, or three fleas and two whales! You need to know:
: >
: > 1) Total number of animals (not pairs or septuples) aboard. Complete
: > list of species. This would also provide a working definition of a
: > "kind" and distinguish between "micro-" and "macroevolution."
: >
: > 2) Total (not median) mass (not volume) of these animals at start of
: > the voyage. From here, you can find medians or compute means if
: > you like.
: The following reply was received from John Woodmorappe a few months back.
: The mean (simple average) is useful when there is a small range of
: values, but of little meaning when there is a wide range of values. That
: is because the extreme values bias the results.
In reality, the arithmetic mean is the proper statistic to use for
certain applications, regardless of the range of values. For instance,
when you want to compute an expectation value for the mass of a randomly
selected sample of objects which have different masses, the mean mass is
the right statistic to use since it takes into account the effects of the
kind of variation imposed by the nature of the population.
: Consider this: If I were to throw in a combination of roller skates, cars,
: and mack trucks, and then arrive at an average weight of this highly
: heterogenous mixture, the number representing the average weight of
: an object in this collection would be meaningless. This owes to the fact
: that the weight of one mack truck swamps the other numbers.
In reality, the mean is quite meaningful: It is the mean weight of an
object in the mixture, and is the only useful statistic for computing
what the expected weight of a randomly selected sample of the objects.
: Likewise, on the Ark, there were 8 orders of magnitude difference in body
: masses of the animals (actually 7, because juveniles were used of large
: animals).
You keep forgetting to support your assumption of juveniles that didn't
grow up, which is rather atypical as a good many quite large animals grow
to adult size in a year or less. MOST mammals grow to adult sizes in
less than a year, actually, even rather large ones like ruminants.
: Hence, a median value is much more informative, which is what I used. Of
: course, in my work, I thoroughly account for all of the large animals as
: well as the multitudes of small ones.
In reality, the median tells you absolutely nothing about how large the
expectation value of a sample of animals, and so you cannot be taking
into account the actual size of the animals in your magical ark.
: > 3) Length of voyage -- I believe you've cited one year? How many
: > days? (The Hebrew calendar uses both solar and lunar years, with
: > intercalary months to correct the differences. Noah would not want
: > to sail for a 13-month leap year of 383+ days!)
: According to Charles Ryrie, Noah and his family were in the ark 371 days
: (53 weeks)
And he supports this with...?
That doesn't look like any length that a Hebrew calender year can have.
: > 4) Total (not median) mass (not volume) of food required by animals
: > in #1, above, for duration in #3. This one will not be so easy to
: > figure. Young animals can consume many times their own body
: > mass in food over the course of a year, and you'll need that complete
: > list of species to even begin calculating. On the bright side, for
: > food animals (food for Noah or for the lions) you only need to feed
: > one pair for the entire year. If Noah brings seven of something, you
: > only need four or five animal/years of food for them.
: As mentioned before, Noah had over half of the ark left over for foos storage.
You've never been able to support this assumption.
: > 5) Total mass of livestock plus foodstocks, i.e., #2 plus #4.
: >
: > 6) Maximum total displacement for the ark. 450,000 cubic cubits*
: > of seawater weighs less than 60 thousand tons metric.
: >
: > Please remember to keep #6 greater than #5, or your naval
: > arkitecture will founder and the voyage is to noah vail !
: >
: > ras...@highfiber.com
: >
: > *Cubic cubits. What a cool unit! Say it five times fast.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron, | "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,| But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion, +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down! | "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Scharle
In article <kjfair-ya02408000...@uchinews.uchicago.edu>, kjf...@midway.uchicago.edu.REMOVEME (Kenneth Fair) writes:
...
|> If you are trying to determine the total weight of the animals on the ark,
|> or the total space that they take up, the formula is (mean weight x
|> # animals) or (mean volume x total animals). If you're trying to determine
|> ark buoyancy, or ark loading limits, these are the applicable formulae.
|> There *is* a bias towards the larger animals, and that's exactly the bias
|> needed to calculate weight and space requirements correctly.
|> This is roughly eighth-grade math, after all.
Suppose that I want to transport the space shuttle from California
to Florida. That sound like a difficult task, but using the magic of
the median, I make it into a piece of cake.
All I need do is include a hundred ping-pong balls along with
the shuttle. The meadian weight of the load is now trivial, as is
the median volume. You can mail 101 items with the median weight
and volume of a ping-pong ball in a small package, can't you? I
think I'll tell NASA about this, and it'll save them a lot of time
and money.
--
Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
Kenneth Fair
In article <5mru5k$5...@news.nd.edu>, sch...@ubiquity.cc.nd.edu (Thomas
Scharle) wrote:
> Suppose that I want to transport the space shuttle from California
>to Florida. That sound like a difficult task, but using the magic of
>the median, I make it into a piece of cake.
>
> All I need do is include a hundred ping-pong balls along with
>the shuttle. The meadian weight of the load is now trivial, as is
>the median volume. You can mail 101 items with the median weight
>and volume of a ping-pong ball in a small package, can't you? I
>think I'll tell NASA about this, and it'll save them a lot of time
>and money.
So THAT'S what those Styrofoam(tm) peanuts are for! And I always thought
they were there to protect the shipment from damage!
Reverend Chuck
> : Likewise, on the Ark, there were 8 orders of magnitude difference in body
> : masses of the animals (actually 7, because juveniles were used of large
> : animals).
Yup. And they had to walk all the way from Tierra Del Fuego or wherever to Noah's
backyard. Every one of them, from baby ducks to baby t-rexes.
Splifford
> > : Likewise, on the Ark, there were 8 orders of magnitude difference in body
> > : masses of the animals (actually 7, because juveniles were used of large
> > : animals).
>
> Yup. And they had to walk all the way from Tierra Del Fuego or wherever
to Noah's
> backyard. Every one of them, from baby ducks to baby t-rexes.
Just one question, for those who've seen _The Lost World_: if someone
_does_ remake dinos from whatever, can we _please_ get Ted to be the one
who goes and seperates the baby T-rexes from momma so we can run our
experimental rebuilt ark?
(Yes, I know the movie ain't much. But the thought of a pissed-off mama
T-rex chasing Ted is just too hard to resist...)
--
"All creatures will make merry--on pain of death."
- banner above Ming City just before Ming the Merciless married Dale Arden
karl
> > karls back.
> >
> > karl says the bible is the absolute word of his god.
> > Genesis 6:17 karl's god says everything is going to die.
> > Genesis 7:4 karl's god says everything is going to die.
> > Genesis 7:21-23 says everything did die.
> >
> > So how come karl says so many things lived that were not in the Ark.
> >
> > Genesis 6:20 says the animals came to Noah.
> > So did the mayfly bring a creek and the Koala a tree or what?
Your replies are actually senseless. The truth is it happened and it has
been demonstrated to be feasable.
as far as the Koala goes...read on
1. Prior to the flood the Koala may have subsisted on a broad range
of foods. (more later in post))
2. Eucalyptus may have been grown on the ark. The seedlings could have
been raised on the ark.
3. There are reports that some Koala can subsist for prolonged periods of
time on mistletoe and monterey pine needles. There may also be other
foliage not mentioned here that the koala will eat outside of its native
Australia foliage.
4. Being a mammal, a young koala could be kept alive for 10 months on a
milk based diet.
5. Koalas can survive on dried Eucalyptus leaves. This is how the London
Zoo in the 1880零 kept the koala alive.
6. There are reports that Koala have been kept alive successfully on
common food soaked or sprinkled with eucalyptus oil.
Post Flood
After the flood the Koala could have lived on eucalyptus trees that have
already began to sprout up. Eucalyptus trees can be grow from fallen
trunks or individual stems. The Eucalyptus tree in this respect is
similar to the olive tree. The eucalyptus tree is a fast growing tree and
can reach heights of twelve meters in two years.
If no trees were present at the exit of the ark, Noah could have raised a
few trees and fed the koala from food from the ark untill the trees could
feed the koala.
or,
As mentioned in point 1, Koalas may have eaten a variety of foods and
after the flood some might have developed a diet using microevolution
towards eucalyptus only. This change could have taken place in just a few
thousand years.
Note: Some Hawaiian moth eat a diet of strictly bananas. The Banana was
introduced to Hawaii appr. 1000 years ago.
The above is six methods in which Noah could have used to keep the Koala .
>
> Yes, yes ...
>
> If creationists would just drop the Ark story, they'd all look a
> lot less foolish. Taking the Noah legend literally is just
> unreasonable.
Perhaps someday you might try to make a good case against the ark. You
tried with the koala...but failed. Sooner or later the evolutionist will
have to accept the truth.
>
> I suppose miracles can be introduced wherever there's a problem.
> How about teleporting in the Koalas, complete with Eucalyptus supply.
I think it's evolution that needs the tooth fairy to work.
karl
In article <kjfair-ya02408000...@uchinews.uchicago.edu>,
kjf...@midway.uchicago.edu.REMOVEME (Kenneth Fair) wrote:
kens nonsense snipped
>
> Only if you use the median volumes and weights for the creatures you put
> on the ark, which is incorrect, as demonstrated above.
Come on Ken. Face the facts. Noah could have easily placed 16,000 animals
on the ark with the food.
It even works with the sheep and the boxcar scenarios.
karl
In article <5mqinj$h...@ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca>, dev...@uoguelph.ca (David
L Evens) wrote:
snip
>
> You keep forgetting to support your assumption of juveniles that didn't
> grow up, which is rather atypical as a good many quite large animals grow
> to adult size in a year or less. MOST mammals grow to adult sizes in
> less than a year, actually, even rather large ones like ruminants.
>
And you forget as the animals grow up...they eat food....creating living space.
problem solved.
--
In the beginning....God...
karl
> In article <kjfair-ya02408000...@uchinews.uchicago.edu>,
kjf...@midway.uchicago.edu.REMOVEME (Kenneth Fair) writes:
> ...
> |> If you are trying to determine the total weight of the animals on the ark,
> |> or the total space that they take up, the formula is (mean weight x
> |> # animals) or (mean volume x total animals). If you're trying to determine
> |> ark buoyancy, or ark loading limits, these are the applicable formulae.
> |> There *is* a bias towards the larger animals, and that's exactly the bias
> |> needed to calculate weight and space requirements correctly.
> ...
> |> This is roughly eighth-grade math, after all.
> ...
>
> Suppose that I want to transport the space shuttle from California
> to Florida. That sound like a difficult task, but using the magic of
> the median, I make it into a piece of cake.
>
> All I need do is include a hundred ping-pong balls along with
> the shuttle. The meadian weight of the load is now trivial, as is
> the median volume. You can mail 101 items with the median weight
> and volume of a ping-pong ball in a small package, can't you? I
> think I'll tell NASA about this, and it'll save them a lot of time
> and money.
The problem is your trying to refute a workable theory.
Just for fun, what do you evolutionist think the, and we'll use, "average"
cage size for the animals would have been? 2 cubic feet? 4? 7? 10? what
and why.
--
In the beginning....God...
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Ark size and animals._, ks...@fast.net
(ksjj) wrote:
[snip]
>The following reply was received from John Woodmorappe a few months back.
>
> The mean (simple average) is useful when there is a small range of
>values, but of little meaning when there is a wide range of values. That
>is because the extreme values bias the results.
Statistics in a very interesting discipline. Quite frequently there
are some very subtle philosophical points being made with the
formulae. You use the mean when you want to describe the population as
a whole. There are two distinct ways to do this. One is when you have
total knowledge of the population and want to examine a "typical"
individual. Another way is when you have only a sample of knowledge
and want to discuss the whole group.
[snip]
Matt Silberstein
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I slept with Faith, and found a corpse in my arms on awaking; I drank
and danced all night with Doubt, and found her a virgin in the morning."
[Aleister Crowley, _The Book of Lies_] >
David Jensen
On 1 Jun 1997 17:02:32 -0400, in talk.origins
ks...@fast.net (karl) wrote:
....
>Come on Ken. Face the facts. Noah could have easily placed 16,000 animals
>on the ark with the food.
Okay, but he is still a million or so species short....
========================================================
The talk.origins faqs are at http://www.talkorigins.org/
karl
In article <339ca3e6...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, mat...@ix.netcom.com
(Matt Silberstein) wrote:
> In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Ark size and animals._, ks...@fast.net
> (ksjj) wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >The following reply was received from John Woodmorappe a few months back.
> >
> > The mean (simple average) is useful when there is a small range of
> >values, but of little meaning when there is a wide range of values. That
> >is because the extreme values bias the results.
>
> Statistics in a very interesting discipline. Quite frequently there
> are some very subtle philosophical points being made with the
> formulae. You use the mean when you want to describe the population as
> a whole. There are two distinct ways to do this. One is when you have
> total knowledge of the population and want to examine a "typical"
> individual. Another way is when you have only a sample of knowledge
> and want to discuss the whole group.
>
> [snip]
Sorry Matt...but John's way works just fine.
There is just some things you evolutionist will just have to concede to.
karl
> On 1 Jun 1997 17:02:32 -0400, in talk.origins
> ks...@fast.net (karl) wrote:
>
> ....
>
> >Come on Ken. Face the facts. Noah could have easily placed 16,000 animals
> >on the ark with the food.
>
> Okay, but he is still a million or so species short....
Noah had representatives from the genera that made up the species. Your
millions were not needed.
>
> ========================================================
> The talk.origins faqs are at http://www.talkorigins.org/
--
+++++++++++++
see ya,
karl
+++++++++++++
In the beginning....God.
Michael D. Painter
karl <ks...@fast.net> wrote in article
<ksjj-01069...@max2-18.phl.fast.net>...
> In article <33906C...@dsp.net>, sge...@dsp.net wrote:
>
> > > karls back.
> > >
> > > karl says the bible is the absolute word of his god.
> > > Genesis 6:17 karl's god says everything is going to die.
> > > Genesis 7:4 karl's god says everything is going to die.
> > > Genesis 7:21-23 says everything did die.
> > >
> > > So how come karl says so many things lived that were not in the Ark.
> > >
> > > Genesis 6:20 says the animals came to Noah.
> > > So did the mayfly bring a creek and the Koala a tree or what?
>
> Your replies are actually senseless. The truth is it happened and it has
> been demonstrated to be feasable.
karl. These are not replies. These are questions based on statements in the
bible you say you believe in.
A reply is an answer to a question. It's not really that hard is it.
I do agree that the quotes are senseless unless taken as a fairy tale.
Common knowledge for over 100 years says they are essentially this.
<karl crap snipped.>
Michael D. Painter
karl <ks...@fast.net> wrote in article
<ksjj-01069...@max2-18.phl.fast.net>...
No. He has refuted an idea based on astatement you made. He has used eight
grade math to do so.
Even if your idea were a theory he would have done what all science tries
to do with all theory.
karl and science is like 7 year olds and sex.
They know the words but just don't get it.
Victor Eijkhout
ks...@fast.net (karl) writes:
> Noah had representatives from the genera that made up the species. Your
> millions were not needed.
Hold on! Are you telling me that after the flood there was
an outburst of evolution of species?
Victor.
--
405 Hilgard Ave ............................. `Mostly because I did not fancy
Department of Mathematics, UCLA ............... to predict drama and death on
Los Angeles CA 90024 .......................... Mother's day.' [Psychic quake
phone: +1 310 825 2173 / 9036 ............... predictor Dr. Tury about having
http://www.math.ucla.edu/~eijkhout missed the big 7.0 quake in Iran]
Kai-Mikael Jää-Aro
karl wrote:
>
> In article <5mru5k$5...@news.nd.edu>, sch...@ubiquity.cc.nd.edu (Thomas
> Scharle) wrote:
>
> > In article <kjfair-ya02408000...@uchinews.uchicago.edu>,
> kjf...@midway.uchicago.edu.REMOVEME (Kenneth Fair) writes:
> > |> If you are trying to determine the total weight of the animals on the ark,
> > |> or the total space that they take up, the formula is (mean weight x
> > |> # animals) or (mean volume x total animals). If you're trying to determine
> > |> ark buoyancy, or ark loading limits, these are the applicable formulae.
> > |> There *is* a bias towards the larger animals, and that's exactly the bias
> > |> needed to calculate weight and space requirements correctly.
> > ...
>
> The problem is your trying to refute a workable theory.
Please explain this to me:
Several people have explained to you what the difference between a mean
and a median is and why one shouldn't use the latter for computing the
total weight of a group of animals. I cannot really believe that you
truly do not understand the arguments, which after all are really just
trivial arithmetic and should be easily double-checkable by you. So why
do you persist? Since you claim that you (or rather Woodmorappe) have a
"workable theory" it shouldn't suffer in the least if you did the proper
thing and used the means instead. So why don't you?
But personally I think that you should just drop the discussion about
"averages" since those are derived values anyway, and instead talk about
the total mass and volume of the included animals. Given that you know
precisely the "kinds" of animals on board the ark (because you do, don't
you?) it should be easy to just add their (typical) weights. To a first
approximation one could use the volumes of the animals and add them
together to get the required total volume, but as I have pointed out
before, it would be better to use bounding boxes with some slop factor
added as a second approximation of the required volumes. (After that we
can start talking about muscle atrophy, but that is a subject for
another day.)
--
Kai-Mikael Jää-Aro email: k...@nada.kth.se "Don't win, don't lose."
IPLab voice: +46 8 790 62 79 -- Yoshigasaki-sensei
NADA, KTH fax: +46 8 790 09 30
SE-100 44 Stockholm telex: 812 6154 1156 SICS
SWEDEN teletex:2401-812 6154 1156=SICS
karl
In article <33927C...@nada.kth.se>, Kai-Mikael Jää-Aro
<k...@nada.kth.se> wrote:
> > The problem is your trying to refute a workable theory.
>
> Please explain this to me:
> Several people have explained to you what the difference between a mean
> and a median is and why one shouldn't use the latter for computing the
> total weight of a group of animals. I cannot really believe that you
> truly do not understand the arguments, which after all are really just
> trivial arithmetic and should be easily double-checkable by you. So why
> do you persist? Since you claim that you (or rather Woodmorappe) have a
> "workable theory" it shouldn't suffer in the least if you did the proper
> thing and used the means instead. So why don't you?
>
Your problem is that you have not refuted what Woodmorappe has written.
In your opinion, what is the "average" size animal? How much room do they
take up?
Mean, median average all different, yet similar are just different ways to
logically determine a conclusion.
Woodmorappe presented his reasons,...which of course the evolutionist had
to defeat...or at least try.
As asked before to you evolutionist, what is the average size animal? Do
you guys know?
> --
> Kai-Mikael Jää-Aro email: k...@nada.kth.se "Don't win, don't lose."
> IPLab voice: +46 8 790 62 79 -- Yoshigasaki-sensei
> NADA, KTH fax: +46 8 790 09 30
> SE-100 44 Stockholm telex: 812 6154 1156 SICS
> SWEDEN teletex:2401-812 6154 1156=SICS
--
karl
In article <p0hgfh4...@jacobi.math.ucla.edu>, Victor Eijkhout
<eijk...@jacobi.math.ucla.edu> wrote:
> ks...@fast.net (karl) writes:
>
> > Noah had representatives from the genera that made up the species. Your
> > millions were not needed.
>
> Hold on! Are you telling me that after the flood there was
> an outburst of evolution of species?
I'm telling you there was rapid speciation....not MACRO-evolution, but
instead MICRO-evolution.
as said before'
Keep in mind all of the kinds of animals Noah had on the ark.
For example, from the order/class of Rodentia _rhodents or gnawling
animals_ there were *873* genera of this kind. Not just two rats that
evolved quickly into every species of the rodentia as the evolutionist
like to think and hope people believe. Perhaps if Noah only had 2 rats,
your argument might be acceptable, but, there were *873* rodentia on
board.
Below is a partial list of *873* kinds of rodentia which could have been
aboard the ark.
Agouti,
Beaver,
Capybara,
Cavy,
Chinchilla,
Chipmunk,
Coypu,
Dormouse,
Evolutionist,
Flying squirrel,
Gopher,
Guinea pig,
Hamster,
Jerboa,
Jumping mouse,
Kangeroo rat,
Lemming,
Marmot,
Mouse,
Muskrat,
Packrat,
Porcupine,
Prairie dog,
Rat,
Sewell,
Squirrel,
Vole,
White footed mouse,
Woodchuck,
plus many many more not listed here.
From these rodentia and others not mentioned all of the species came about.
The speciation would have grown and have been facilitated at an
exponential rate due to the changing characteristics of the enviroment
coupled with the also changing physical conditions of their surroundings.
Currently things are a bit more settled and the world wide niches are not
changing at the same rate which led to the rapid speciation.
Open a book on cats and you'll quickly see the variety avialable to us
today. From what I read these types of cats all came from the Egyptians
cat. But then again... one could argue all the styles of cats and dogs,
for that matter have also exceeded the rate of current evolution as you
suggest. IMHO: I think you should re-think your question.
Once again,
Keep in mind, there were not just 1 kind of monkeys (primates) on the
ark...there were 206 kinds of primates to speciate from in 4,000 years.
Once again, re-look at the list provided for you below.
The following is a list from Noahs Ark A feasibilty Study
Number of animals genus (Male & Female) present from each order-class on
the ark.
Passeriformes 2,236
Squamata 1,938
Rodentia 1,746 see above for example
Artiodactyla 1,144
Carnivora 696
Therapsida 508
Marsupialia 468
Perrissodactyla 436
Chiroptera 412
Primates 412
Insectivora 404
Saurischia 390
Gruiformes 280
Ornithischia 278
Apodiformes 276
Notoungulata 252
Edentata 250
Charadriiformes 208
Condylartha 198
Galliformes 176
Falconiformes 170
Psittaciformes 164
Captorhinida 152
Thecodontia 144
Piciformes 128
(add remaining 61 land-vertebrate orders
15,754
Reference Noahs Ark a Feasibility Study page 11
John Woodmorappe
http://mars.nettrek.net.au/~rik/cyber/crsbk21.htm
>
> Victor.
> --
> 405 Hilgard Ave ............................. `Mostly because I did not fancy
> Department of Mathematics, UCLA ............... to predict drama and death on
> Los Angeles CA 90024 .......................... Mother's day.' [Psychic quake
> phone: +1 310 825 2173 / 9036 ............... predictor Dr. Tury about having
> http://www.math.ucla.edu/~eijkhout missed the big 7.0 quake in Iran]
--
Mr. M.J. Smith
In article <ksjj-02069...@max2-20.phl.fast.net>,
karl <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
>In article <p0hgfh4...@jacobi.math.ucla.edu>, Victor Eijkhout
><eijk...@jacobi.math.ucla.edu> wrote:
>
>> ks...@fast.net (karl) writes:
>> > Noah had representatives from the genera that made up the species. Your
>> > millions were not needed.
>> Hold on! Are you telling me that after the flood there was
>> an outburst of evolution of species?
>I'm telling you there was rapid speciation....not MACRO-evolution, but
>instead MICRO-evolution.
So tell us how the genetic diversity in most of todays species came
about. i.e. the diversity at *single* genetic sites (due to mutation)
rather than the diversity of multiple sites (due to recombination).
<cut>
Martin Smith
Elmer Bataitis
karl wrote:
> 1. Prior to the flood the Koala may have subsisted on a broad range
> of foods. (more later in post))
And the evidence you have that supports this assertion is...?
> 2. Eucalyptus may have been grown on the ark. The seedlings could have=
> been raised on the ark.
Err, did the Koalas bring along the seeds? Did Noah have arc lamps to
provide sunlight?
> 3. There are reports that some Koala can subsist for prolonged periods =
of
> time on mistletoe and monterey pine needles. There may also be other
> foliage not mentioned here that the koala will eat outside of its nat=
ive
> Australia foliage.
Where are these reports to be found?
> 4. Being a mammal, a young koala could be kept alive for 10 months on a=
> milk based diet.
Given the number of animals you claim were on the ark, how many of them
were hand fed with baby bottles? What kind of work load was this for an
eight person crew?
> 5. Koalas can survive on dried Eucalyptus leaves. This is how the Lond=
on
> Zoo in the 18801s kept the koala alive.
How did the koala's carry these dried leaves all the way from Australia?
> 6. There are reports that Koala have been kept alive successfully on
> common food soaked or sprinkled with eucalyptus oil.
How did the Koala's carry eucalytus oil from Australia? Who extracted
the oil and loaded it on their backs from the trip? Who fed them on the
way?
> Post Flood
> After the flood the Koala could have lived on eucalyptus trees that ha=
ve
> already began to sprout up. Eucalyptus trees can be grow from fallen
> trunks or individual stems. The Eucalyptus tree in this respect is
> similar to the olive tree. The eucalyptus tree is a fast growing tree =
and
> can reach heights of twelve meters in two years.
> If no trees were present at the exit of the ark, Noah could have raised=
a
> few trees and fed the koala from food from the ark untill the trees cou=
ld
> feed the koala.
And how many other animals required a similar exotic feeding routine?
And where in the bible does it mention anything like this? All I
remember being mentioned is Noah planting a vineyard and getting
throughly soused.
> or,
> As mentioned in point 1, Koalas may have eaten a variety of foods and
> after the flood some might have developed a diet using microevolution
> towards eucalyptus only. This change could have taken place in just a =
few
> thousand years.
> Note: Some Hawaiian moth eat a diet of strictly bananas. The Banana =
was
> introduced to Hawaii appr. 1000 years ago.
What is the generational time of this moth and what is the generational
time of a koala? Compare and contrast.
> Perhaps someday you might try to make a good case against the ark. =
;-)
******************************************************************
Elmer Bataitis =93Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!=94
Planetech Services -Hobbes
716-442-2884 =
******************************************************************
Elmer Bataitis
karl wrote:
> And you forget as the animals grow up...they eat food....creating livin=
g space.
> =
> problem solved.
New problem: what is most of the food they eat converted to and where
does it go?
Elmer Bataitis
karl wrote:
> The problem is your trying to refute a workable theory.
!!!
=
> Just for fun, what do you evolutionist think the, and we'll use, "avera=
ge"
> cage size for the animals would have been? 2 cubic feet? 4? 7? 10? what=
> and why.
Why should anyone use an "average" cage? You have a list of the supposed
animals which were on the ark. Look up the size of these animals, and
their food requirements and calculate the room needed yourself.
Richard G. Henne, Jr.
karl,
I see you prefer to believe the lies of Woodmarope. He purposely
misuses median and mean figures in order to make animals fit onto Noah's
Ark. Just as you prefer to define kinds in a manner limiting the number
necessary to fit on the ark.
You love to use evolution, it matters not that you wish to call it micro
evolution, in order to expand the number of animal species you place on
the ark to today's number. Yet you also wish to claim evolution never
occurs. You can't have it both ways!
Please provide a definition of kind and macro evolution, IN YOUR OWN
WORDS! You provided definitions that you ran away from in previous
posts. If you fail to provide us with your new definitions of these
words, I will post your previous definitions along with their message ID
so that others can see for themselves how clueless you are.
--
Rich
Everything not on the ark died, all of my bibles agree on this! Why
does karl believe vegetation mats crawling with insects survived outside
of the ark?
Michael D. Painter
Richard G. Henne, Jr. <Rich....@asu.edu> wrote in article
<3392E67D...@asu.edu>...
karl says the bible is the absolute word of his god.
Genesis 6:17 karl's god says everything is going to die.
Genesis 7:4 karl's god says everything is going to die.
Genesis 7:21-23 says everything did die.
So how come karl says so many things lived that were not in the Ark.
Genesis 6:20 says the animals came to Noah.
So did the mayfly bring a creek and the Koala a tree or what?
In Genesis god also says man could live (only) 120 years. Did 600 year old
Noah do, lie about his age?
Mike Noren
Replying to ks...@fast.net (karl)
: In your opinion, what is the "average" size animal? How much room do they
: take up?
The question is unanswerable until a working definition of 'kind' has
been forwarded.
(BTW - there are more than 16000 genuses. Thought you may want to
know.)
: Mean, median average all different, yet similar are just different ways to
: logically determine a conclusion.
Centimeters, liters, degrees celsius - all different, yet similar are
just different ways to logically determine a conclusion.
: As asked before to you evolutionist, what is the average size animal? Do
: you guys know?
It's you who's supposed to know that. Not least because you are the
only one here who, apparently, knows what a 'kind' is.
(Is this your level of debate, karl? Trying to get your opponents to
prove your point when you yourself fail? Start with admitting that the
median size is the wrong measure to use here.)
: karl
Michael Norén, Doctoral student, Tel: Int +46 (0)8 6664236
Swedish Museum of Natural History, Fax: Int +46 (0)8 666
Dept. of Invertebrate Zoology
P.O.B. 50007
S-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden
Mike Noren
Replying to dje...@madison.tds.net (David Jensen)
: >Come on Ken. Face the facts. Noah could have easily placed 16,000 animals
: >on the ark with the food.
:
: Okay, but he is still a million or so species short....
There's approx 1.5M described species (out of which a percentage will
be 'doublets'), but the estimates for how many species there actually
are range from 3M to 100M, with a consensus estimate of 8-10M (based
on pure conjecture, but that's the best we've got).
I'd, for instance, conservatively estimate that 90% of all species in
the group I study, prolecitophoran flatworms, are as yet undescribed
(so chalk up another 3000 species for the flatworms - from just this
one not-particularly-obscure order!), and the situation is about the
same for many/most invertebrate groups containing mainly small
organisms.
Not to mention bacteria and fungi...
Hey, that reminds me - what ABOUT bacteria and fungi? In the ark, I
mean?
ppar...@swbell.net
karl wrote:
> 1. Prior to the flood the Koala may have subsisted on a broad range
> of foods. (more later in post))
And your evidence? Speculation isn't adequate, BTW.
> 2. Eucalyptus may have been grown on the ark. The seedlings could have
> been raised on the ark.
Two Koalas would have munched out the seedlings in short order.
> 3. There are reports that some Koala can subsist for prolonged periods of
> time on mistletoe and monterey pine needles. There may also be other
> foliage not mentioned here that the koala will eat outside of its native
> Australia foliage.
Nope. In fact, when a koala was loaned to the St Louis zoo, eucalyptus had to
be flown in daily. Too bad they didn't have Noah to tell them to plant seedlings,
huh?
> 4. Being a mammal, a young koala could be kept alive for 10 months on a
> milk based diet.
You don't want to know how the parent koala feeds it's young. But it isn't milk.
> 5. Koalas can survive on dried Eucalyptus leaves. This is how the London
> Zoo in the 1880零 kept the koala alive.
Still doesn't explain how the food was kept.
> 6. There are reports that Koala have been kept alive successfully on
> common food soaked or sprinkled with eucalyptus oil.
Post the report and it's source. If you're just lying again, feel free to ignore
the request.
> Post Flood
> After the flood the Koala could have lived on eucalyptus trees that have
> already began to sprout up. Eucalyptus trees can be grow from fallen
> trunks or individual stems. The Eucalyptus tree in this respect is
> similar to the olive tree. The eucalyptus tree is a fast growing tree and
> can reach heights of twelve meters in two years.
> If no trees were present at the exit of the ark, Noah could have raised a
> few trees and fed the koala from food from the ark untill the trees could
> feed the koala.
And then, of course, Noah would go along, a little ahead of the two koalas,
planting new trees along the koala's route to Australia. How considerate of
him! :D
> or,
> As mentioned in point 1, Koalas may have eaten a variety of foods and
> after the flood some might have developed a diet using microevolution
> towards eucalyptus only. This change could have taken place in just a few
> thousand years.
Evidence?
> Note: Some Hawaiian moth eat a diet of strictly bananas. The Banana was
> introduced to Hawaii appr. 1000 years ago.
>
> The above is six methods in which Noah could have used to keep the Koala .
> >
> > Yes, yes ...
> >
> > If creationists would just drop the Ark story, they'd all look a
> > lot less foolish. Taking the Noah legend literally is just
> > unreasonable.
>
> Perhaps someday you might try to make a good case against the ark. You
> tried with the koala...but failed. Sooner or later the evolutionist will
> have to accept the truth.
I think the vision of Noah traveling through south Asia like Johnny Eucalyptuseed
is sufficiently ludicrous to put an end to your fairy tale.
> >
> > I suppose miracles can be introduced wherever there's a problem.
> > How about teleporting in the Koalas, complete with Eucalyptus supply.
>
> I think it's evolution that needs the tooth fairy to work.
You can propose the above and say that? Have you no sense of humor at all?
Pat
Reverend Chuck
Damn, son, wouldn't you rather watch two t-rexes fight over his body?
Shooty
You posted this exact same crap a few weeks ago and all the points were
answered.
How come you are posting all the same crap again with no modification or
ref to the answers you were given?
Saying the same thing over and over again does'nt make it any more
correct.
Shooty
Richard Keatinge
>In article <33927C...@nada.kth.se>, Kai-Mikael J-Aro
>> Several people have explained to you what the difference between a mean
>> and a median is and why one shouldn't use the latter for computing the
>> total weight of a group of animals. I cannot really believe that you
>> truly do not understand the arguments, which after all are really just
>> trivial arithmetic and should be easily double-checkable by you. So why
>> do you persist? Since you claim that you (or rather Woodmorappe) have a
>> "workable theory" it shouldn't suffer in the least if you did the proper
>> thing and used the means instead. So why don't you?
>>
>Your problem is that you have not refuted what Woodmorappe has written.
>
>take up?
>
>logically determine a conclusion.
>to defeat...or at least try.
>
>you guys know?
It's time you gave us your list of animals and did some arithmetic to
demonstrate that you understand a little of what you're on about.
Woodmorappe must have had a great time lying to you - as easy as
shooting battery hens with a machine gun, he must have written to you
with a sneer on his face. But most of us aren't ignorant fundaloony
idiots and anyone who can understand basic arithmetic can tell where
you've been misled here.
karl, you're a pitiful failure, but keep on trying - for me at least,
the joke hasn't yet worn off. The pity remains...
--
Richard Keatinge
homepage http://www.keatinge.demon.co.uk
Richard Keatinge
In article <ksjj-01069...@max4-30.phl.fast.net>, karl
<ks...@fast.net> writes
>In article <3392115a...@news.tds.net>, dje...@madison.tds.net wrote:
>
>> On 1 Jun 1997 17:02:32 -0400, in talk.origins
>> ks...@fast.net (karl) wrote:
>>
>> ....
>>
>> >on the ark with the food.
>>
>> Okay, but he is still a million or so species short....
>
>millions were not needed.
Have we finally pinned karl down to a definition of a "kind"? No? What
will he come up with next? At a rough guess, his old stuff about the
changing definition of "kind".
>>
>> ========================================================
>> The talk.origins faqs are at http://www.talkorigins.org/
>
--
ppar...@swbell.net
karl wrote:
>
> In article <5mru5k$5...@news.nd.edu>, sch...@ubiquity.cc.nd.edu (Thomas
> Scharle) wrote:
>
> > In article <kjfair-ya02408000...@uchinews.uchicago.edu>,
> kjf...@midway.uchicago.edu.REMOVEME (Kenneth Fair) writes:
> > ...
> > |> If you are trying to determine the total weight of the animals on the ark,
> > |> or the total space that they take up, the formula is (mean weight x
> > |> # animals) or (mean volume x total animals). If you're trying to determine
> > |> ark buoyancy, or ark loading limits, these are the applicable formulae.
> > |> There *is* a bias towards the larger animals, and that's exactly the bias
> > |> needed to calculate weight and space requirements correctly.
> > ...
> > ...
> >
> > Suppose that I want to transport the space shuttle from California
> > to Florida. That sound like a difficult task, but using the magic of
> > the median, I make it into a piece of cake.
> >
> > All I need do is include a hundred ping-pong balls along with
> > the shuttle. The meadian weight of the load is now trivial, as is
> > the median volume. You can mail 101 items with the median weight
> > and volume of a ping-pong ball in a small package, can't you? I
> > think I'll tell NASA about this, and it'll save them a lot of time
> > and money.
>
Try shipping 10 ping pong balls and a Volkswagen. Tell UPS the median
weight is less than an ounce, so you should pay no more than the fee for
a pound. Add that the median volume is less than a couple of cubic inches,
so you should pay the minimum fee for the shipment. Then tell us how
"workable" your theory is. :^D
> In the beginning....God...And later, the fundies decided to "correct" Him.
Ken Denny
karl wrote:
>
> Come on Ken. Face the facts. Noah could have easily placed 16,000 animals
> on the ark with the food.
>
>
Large animals require large amounts of food. Go to any zoo and talk to
someone in charge of feeding elephants, hippos, rhinos, etc. Ask how
much space would be required to store enough food to feed two elephants
for a year, then add two hippos, two rhinos, two bison, two kodiak
bears, etc. There isn't enough room on the ark to even store food for
all those animals for a year (or even 150 days), much less the animals
themselves. Of course you also believe dinosaurs were still around then
so you have to add two T. Rexes, two Triceratops, two stegosaurs, two
brontosaurs, etc.
Do the math
Ken
Michael D. Painter
Kai-Mikael Jää-Aro <k...@nada.kth.se> wrote in article
<3392E7...@nada.kth.se>...
> karl wrote:
> >
> > >
> > Your problem is that you have not refuted what Woodmorappe has written.
>
> Well, *I* think Woodmorappe's claims are very thinly stretched (if not
> outright snapped) by now, but it may just be due to the confusing
> presentation of them.
>
> > In your opinion, what is the "average" size animal? How much room do
they
> > take up?
>
> To be precise here, you have actually restricted the set of "animals" to
> be carried on the ark quite considerably. (Which is another problem
> with the ark idea, but we'll come to that in due time.) I think what
> you intend is more like "terrestrial vertebrates".
>
> No, I do not know what size an "average animal" (with the above proviso)
> is, but I do know that the median size is considerably smaller than the
> mean size, since there are a whole lot more small animals than large
> ones. The large animals on the other hand contribute most of the weight
> and volume. This is something which has been pointed out to you and you
> have seemingly ignored this. That's why I think you should be a good
> sport and admit that the two numbers in general will be different.
>
> But I do know this about required space for animals: if I go to Skansen,
> which goes for the local zoological gardens, they have relatively few
> animals there (certainly no 16000-plus species of vertebrates) and it
> will take me quite a while to walk around it - yet they are (justly)
> criticised for having their animals in such cramped spaces. Have you
> ever seen a psychotic polar bear? This bear lived (I hope it has been
> put out of its misery by now, I refuse to even go near the place to
> check) in a space of, oh, say several hundred cubic metres and was very
> carefully tended for as far as I could tell, still the space was too
> small for it. Judging from the other animal pens, such a size
> requirement is by no means exceptional.
>
> > Mean, median average all different, yet similar are just different ways
to
> > logically determine a conclusion.
>
> I don't understand this. Medians and means work out to quite different
> numbers, so the "logical conclusions" that can be drawn from the two
> should be as different.
>
> > As asked before to you evolutionist, what is the average size animal?
Do
> > you guys know?
>
> Tell you what: you give me a complete list of all the animals on the ark
> and I will compute for you the mean, median, standard deviation and any
> other statistic you are interested in. Deal?
>
> --
> Kai-Mikael Jää-Aro email: k...@nada.kth.se "Don't win, don't lose."
> IPLab voice: +46 8 790 62 79 -- Yoshigasaki-sensei
> NADA, KTH fax: +46 8 790 09 30
> SE-100 44 Stockholm telex: 812 6154 1156 SICS
> SWEDEN teletex:2401-812 6154 1156=SICS
karl has never demonstrated that he understands either what he writes or
the questions asked of him. He "refutes" most questions by re-posting the
same statements.
Mean and median start with "M" and all have the letter "e" in them so they
are similar.
karls understanding of science and arithmetic are similar to a child's
knowledge of sex. He may know some of the words but not understand any of
it.
Mike Noren
Replying to ks...@fast.net (karl)
: Just for fun, what do you evolutionist think the, and we'll use, "average"
: cage size for the animals would have been? 2 cubic feet? 4? 7? 10? what
: and why.
Impossible to answer until you have defined 'kinds'. For instance, how
many insect kinds are there? That's a pretty important question in the
context.
: In the beginning....God...
Thomas Scharle
According to Robert M. May, in _Scientific American_, October
1992, pp. 42-48, the critical factor in loading the Ark would be the
largest creatures. The number of species decreases by a factor of
100 when a typical linear dimension of an animal increases by a factor
of 10. We can approximate the total volume of pairs from species of
animals of a given size by the following table:
linear dimension number of species total volume cumulative
(meters) of one pair volume
from each species
(upper bound)
(cubic meters)
5-10 10 20,000 20,000
1-5 100 25,000 45,000
.5-1 1,000 2,000 47,000
.1-.5 10,000 2,500 49,500
.05-.1 100,000 200 49,700
.01-.05 1,000,000 250 49,950
.005-.01 10,000,000 20 49,970
The dimensions of the Ark as given in Genesis: 300 cubits by 50
cubits by 30 cubits, or 450,000 cubic cubits. Given a cubit at
about .5 meter, the volume of the Ark is 56,250 cubit meters, and
they all fit.
--
Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
Mike Noren
Replying to ks...@fast.net (karl)
: > Okay, but he is still a million or so species short....
:
: Noah had representatives from the genera that made up the species. Your
: millions were not needed.
: >
: > ========================================================
: > The talk.origins faqs are at http://www.talkorigins.org/
karl, are you aware that genera are arbitrary units invented by humans
to help bring order in the array of species? That it is quite common
for species to move between genera? That new genera are created each
year, and old are lost? That the concept of genera didn't exist before
Linnaeus?
: karl
Jim Yahr
karl wrote:
>
> In article <339ca3e6...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, mat...@ix.netcom.com
> (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>
> > In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Ark size and animals._, ks...@fast.net
> > (ksjj) wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > >The following reply was received from John Woodmorappe a few months back.
> > >
> > > The mean (simple average) is useful when there is a small range of
> > >values, but of little meaning when there is a wide range of values. That
> > >is because the extreme values bias the results.
> >
Snip!
Let me translate what Woodmorrappe wrote to you. A literal translation
would read "I tried them both, but the only numbers that fit where the
ones I used. If I used the simple mean, the darn big animals kept
biasing the sample so it wouldn't work."
So he fudged his math until he found something that worked and ignored
the reality of what he found accounting for all the large "kinds."
I assume you're aware that Woodmorrappe's name is just a psuedonym, and
that he's afraid to publish his views under his own name. Not a
particularly reliable source (IMHO) if he won't stand behind his work.
Jim Yahr
Carlsbad, NM
Remove the "x"s to reply!
Richard Keatinge
In article <ksjj-01069...@max2-18.phl.fast.net>, karl
<ks...@fast.net> writes
>In article <33906C...@dsp.net>, sge...@dsp.net wrote:
>
>> > karls back.
>> >
>> > karl says the bible is the absolute word of his god.
>> > Genesis 6:17 karl's god says everything is going to die.
>> > Genesis 7:4 karl's god says everything is going to die.
>> > Genesis 7:21-23 says everything did die.
>> >
>> > So how come karl says so many things lived that were not in the Ark.
>> >
>> > Genesis 6:20 says the animals came to Noah.
>> > So did the mayfly bring a creek and the Koala a tree or what?
>
>been demonstrated to be feasable.
>
>as far as the Koala goes...read on
>
>
>1. Prior to the flood the Koala may have subsisted on a broad range
>of foods. (more later in post))
>been raised on the ark.
Love it! Did this ark have a sunroof, or how much compost did it carry?
Do the sums, karl.
>Post Flood
> After the flood the Koala could have lived on eucalyptus trees that have
>already began to sprout up. Eucalyptus trees can be grow from fallen
>trunks or individual stems.
After a year in salt water? Dream on...
> The Eucalyptus tree in this respect is
>similar to the olive tree. The eucalyptus tree is a fast growing tree and
>can reach heights of twelve meters in two years.
But not in any known aquarium. Nor under miles of "Flood sediments".
Talking of which, what age is the rock of which Mount Ararat is made?
If it's pre-Cenozoic then karl has yet another inconsistency with his
tale of the K/T boundary occurring during the flood.
>If no trees were present at the exit of the ark, Noah could have raised a
>few trees and fed the koala from food from the ark untill the trees could
>feed the koala.
>or,
>As mentioned in point 1, Koalas may have eaten a variety of foods
Including mud, I hope. There's not a lot else immediately after your
flood.
>and
>after the flood some might have developed a diet using microevolution
>towards eucalyptus only. This change could have taken place in just a few
>thousand years.
>Note: Some Hawaiian moth eat a diet of strictly bananas. The Banana was
>introduced to Hawaii appr. 1000 years ago.
>
>The above is six methods in which Noah could have used to keep the Koala .
>>
>> Yes, yes ...
>>
>> If creationists would just drop the Ark story, they'd all look a
>> lot less foolish. Taking the Noah legend literally is just
>> unreasonable.
>
>Perhaps someday you might try to make a good case against the ark. You
>tried with the koala...but failed.
Interesting really. At a rough guess, if you devoted the entire space of
the ark to nothing but koalas and their fodder, ignoring the fact that
the ship is unseaworthy and one or two other little details, Noah might
just manage to keep a few of them going. Unfortunately, there's not
much room for anything else, and Noah and his family will have their
hands full already. By the time you've got a representative of each
phylum on board, they're probably well and truly stuck. Have I just
managed to identify the "created kind"? I do realize that it just
shifts the miracles to hyperfast evolution after the flood, but that's
already impossible anyway.
Mr. M.J. Smith
In article <ksjj-01069...@max2-18.phl.fast.net>,
karl <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
>Your replies are actually senseless. The truth is it happened and it has
>been demonstrated to be feasable.
...
>Perhaps someday you might try to make a good case against the ark. You
>tried with the koala...but failed. Sooner or later the evolutionist will
>have to accept the truth.
So the ark was able to maintain multiple environments to sustain (in
good health) 'kinds' from all round the globe? From the poles to the
desert, from deep sea to mountain tops, salt to fresh water, tropical
forest to arctic tundra? In reality the ark would have been a
homogenously damp, stuffy and s(t)inking hell hole.
If it's so feasable ... go build one.
Martin Smith
Dan Lee
Victor Eijkhout wrote:
>
> ks...@fast.net (karl) writes:
>
> > Noah had representatives from the genera that made up the species. Your
> > millions were not needed.
>
> an outburst of evolution of species?
>
That's been Karl's "thesis" all along: That 16,000 species on Noah's
ark became the 9,000,000 species of today through micro-evolution.
When those 16,000 animals showed up, Noah used the arithmatic mean
to figure out an average cage size, but he found out that using the
mean even 16,000 species wouldn't fit on the ark. So he used a
median instead and found out he now had room for all those animals
plus a year's supply of food and water. What a genius!
Dan
WHOA!! I just set off my own Irony-o-meter! Calm down, baby, that's
it! I think I need to replace my sarcasm filters...
Robert Derrick
karl wrote:
> Rather than go out and spend hours on the
> research and typing of the response...
It's fascinating really. Evolution is taught in schools. Albeit badly,
in many cases, but taught nonetheless. And Creationism is not taught.
And yet the Creationist is not willing to put forth the real effort
it would take to support his case. Takes too much time, he says.
Fine by me. We certainly didn't come looking for him.
Of course, I'm sure that we would greatly fear to see real Creationist
discourse, face real Creationist evidence, be faced with the "truth"
of Scientific Creationism. Therefore, I am also certain, we are all
grandly thankful that the Creationist doesn't have the time to do it.
The "Situation Comedy" version of Creationism suits us just fine. Uh
Hum.
rob "the midnight daoboy" derrick
PS: < 17000 animal kinds on the boat. Yep, that is way too big a number.
No reasonable human being, let alone the Creationist, could ever
actually produce that list. I'm sure the world will understand.
It's just too much effort -- "Rather than go out and spend hours
on the research and typing..." Pity the poor downtrodden Creat!
Kenneth Fair
In article <ksjj-01069...@max2-18.phl.fast.net>, ks...@fast.net
(karl) wrote:
>In article <5mru5k$5...@news.nd.edu>, sch...@ubiquity.cc.nd.edu (Thomas
>Scharle) wrote:
>
>> Suppose that I want to transport the space shuttle from California
>> to Florida. That sound like a difficult task, but using the magic of
>> the median, I make it into a piece of cake.
>>
>> All I need do is include a hundred ping-pong balls along with
>> the shuttle. The meadian weight of the load is now trivial, as is
>> the median volume. You can mail 101 items with the median weight
>> and volume of a ping-pong ball in a small package, can't you? I
>> think I'll tell NASA about this, and it'll save them a lot of time
>> and money.
>
>The problem is your trying to refute a workable theory.
You've missed the point, Karl. It's not a workable theory because the
math is simply incorrect. I'm not saying that you couldn't maybe use
correct math to get the answer you want to get, but the argument you
present is incorrect. The only way it can be correct is if you were
to redefine addition and multiplication to work differently.
If you're going to prove all of the animals could fit on the ark,
please use the mathematics that apply in this universe. Get some
real data on the sizes of the animals you want to put on this ark,
and then we can make some real calculations.
>Just for fun, what do you evolutionist think the, and we'll use, "average"
>cage size for the animals would have been? 2 cubic feet? 4? 7? 10? what
>and why.
It doesn't make any difference to Woodmorappe's theory. His calculations
are still incorrect, regardless of whether what any other hypothesis might
say.
--
KEN FAIR - U. Chicago Law | <http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/kjfair>
Of Counsel, U. of Ediacara | Power Mac! | CABAL(tm) | I'm w/in McQ - R U?
"UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT Information
is ENCOURAGED, ESPECIALLY to COMPUTER BULLETIN BOARDS." - Bob McElwaine
ppar...@swbell.net
However, that assumes that only 10% of the interior was composed of bracing,
food and water storage, partitions, passages, etc. Unless one wants to assume a
nonscriptural miracle, this would be impossible.
Anyone who doubts this is welcome to build a wooden ark, using preChrist
technology, and live for a time in it, after loading it as per Noah. Won't work,
even if we accept the ludicrous idea that evolution took care of all the other
animals in a very short time.
Pat
karl
Just because an evolutionist has a reply doesn't mean it was refuted.
Often the same or similar question is asked over and over again by
different people on this forum. Rather than go out and spend hours on the
research and typing of the response...again, it is easier to re-post the
factual creationist viewpoint.
Keep learning Shooty and you will see that the creation flood models ifar
superior to the evolutionary dogmatic belief system.
--
+++++++++++++
see ya,
karl
+++++++++++++
In the beginning....God.
Kai-Mikael Jää-Aro
Thomas Scharle wrote:
> We can approximate the total volume of pairs from species of
> animals of a given size by the following table:
>
> linear dimension number of species total volume cumulative
> (meters) of one pair volume
> from each species
> (upper bound)
> (cubic meters)
> 5-10 10 20,000 20,000
> 1-5 100 25,000 45,000
> .5-1 1,000 2,000 47,000
> .1-.5 10,000 2,500 49,500
> .05-.1 100,000 200 49,700
> .01-.05 1,000,000 250 49,950
> .005-.01 10,000,000 20 49,970
So, the *mean* volume of an animal using these figures is 2.2E-3 m3,
whereas the *median* volume is 1E-6 m3 or less, i e there is a three
orders of magnitude difference between the mean and the median. This is
actually even more of a difference than I expected...
Futhermore, if we assume that the typical density of animals is a bit
higher than that of water, let's say 1200 kg/m3 (just a guess on my
part), then the mean animal would weigh approx 2.7 kg - about the size
of a rabbit I'd say. The median animal would weigh 1.2 g - what's that,
a shrew?
On the other hand, since ksjj very doesn't want too many invertebrates
on board, we should trim the bottom range - I don't think there are that
many vertebrates weighing in under 5 g (somebody will correct me if I'm
wrong). If we skip the bottommost row we get a mean weight of 54 kg
(alsatian-size?) and a median weight of less than 150 g (rat-size?).
It might also be noted that this computation is very dependent on the
exact number of very large animals - I'm sure I can think of more than
ten species (including currently-extinct ones) that are more than five
metres along some dimension.
> The dimensions of the Ark as given in Genesis: 300 cubits by 50
> cubits by 30 cubits, or 450,000 cubic cubits. Given a cubit at
> about .5 meter, the volume of the Ark is 56,250 cubit meters, and
> they all fit.
Well, yes. At least if you put the critters through a blender and pour
them into the ark (also note that a number of the species should be
multiplied by seven, rather than by two). What I'm wondering is whether
the ark will float - I seem to remember something about the necessity to
displace more water than the weight of the ship - i e the density of the
ship has to be less than that of water, right? Do these figures work
out? As I said, I'm a bit unsure about the density of animal tissue.
Of course, as Tom Scharle points out, the numbers computed above are
upper bounds, so they could end up one the right side (assuming the ark
is a big box with no internal structure), but I still think an animal
needs more space than just it's body volume.
ArachnomaniA
In talk.origins karl <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
> I'm telling you there was rapid speciation....not MACRO-evolution, but
> instead MICRO-evolution.
Do you have genetic information to corroborate your absurd claim, Karl?
Jeff
http://www.mcs.com/~spider/arachnomania.html
is...@aurora.com.editthis
In article <ksjj-01069...@max4-30.phl.fast.net> ksjj writes:
>Noah had representatives from the genera that made up the species. Your
>millions were not needed.
First, "kind" means something close to species for Noah's purposes. If it
were genera, you would need rates of macroevolution far greater than are
observed today.
Second, Noah would need 100,000 or more genera to represent all the land
animals that he was instructed to carry. Woodmorappe doesn't allow for
anywhere close to that number.
--
Mark Isaak "God offers every mind its choice between truth
isaak @ aurora.com and repose. Take which you please,--you can
never have both." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
ArachnomaniA
In talk.origins karl <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
In talk.origins karl <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
[snip]
> Keep learning Shooty and you will see that the creation flood models ifar
> superior to the evolutionary dogmatic belief system.
Karl is an interesting example in how extreme someone will go
in order to support their faith. Again and again Karl separates
himself from reality whenever he feels threatened. It's rather
interesting as I'm trying to understand your feelings and views
on the subject.
In stating that the creation flood models are far
superior to evolutionary theory most people can easily
distinguish what is speculation and what has evidence.
Can you admit there is no evidence for a global
flood, or do you believe that there is evidence, but
it has yet to be found?. Maybe, you feel all of
geology is a world wide conspiracy? Where in the
fossil record can we find evidnce of a flood
that spans the entire globe?
Karl, what would it mean if Noahs flood story was just
a story? Would that diminish your faith in God? Would
the Bible lose credibility in your eyes? What would
you lose? Or, are you just afraid to admit you were wrong?
Jeff
http://www.mcs.com/~spider/arachnomania.html
ppar...@swbell.net
karl wrote:
>
> In article <33930A...@mrent.demon.co.uk>, an...@mrent.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
> > You posted this exact same crap a few weeks ago and all the points were
> > answered.
> > How come you are posting all the same crap again with no modification or
> > ref to the answers you were given?
> >
> > Saying the same thing over and over again does'nt make it any more
> > correct.
> >
> > Shooty
>
> Just because an evolutionist has a reply doesn't mean it was refuted.
> Often the same or similar question is asked over and over again by
> different people on this forum. Rather than go out and spend hours on the
> research and typing of the response...again, it is easier to re-post the
> factual creationist viewpoint.
So how about reposting that "reply" you claimed to have posted about the problems
with your theories of coral atoll formation? It's not in DejaNews, and no one
here saw it.
Let's recap:
If you claim coral grew faster in those days (several degrees of magnitude faster)
then you have to explain where the nutrients came from, how they could exist in
that concentration without poisoning the water, how the heat was removed (metabolism
that rapid would overheat the coral), and why the process stopped just as people
arrived to observe it.
If, on the other hand, you want to claim the coral was moved there, you have to
specify a source, a mode of transportation, and an explanation for such precise
placement. You also have to explain why the process stopped as soon as people
arrived to observe it.
I'm sure you don't want to give us another instance of creationist dishonesty, do
you? You claimed to have answered these questions. Why not just repost those
answers?
Pat
> In the beginning....God.
And then the creationists "corrected" Him.
karl
In article <5n0spp$7...@mercury.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk>, mjs...@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk
(Mr. M.J. Smith) wrote:
your comment is nonsense. ALL of the above have been addressed. Especially
the fish. If there is any question in particular you need refreshing on,
let me know and I'll try to answer it.
In the mean while you should get your facts straight and try to understand
the flood models....they work, whether you want to believe it or not.
>
> If it's so feasable ... go build one.
>
> Martin Smith
--
karl
In article <339410B7.41C67EA6@m_l.com>, Geoff Sheffield <geoff@m_l.com> wrote:
snip
>
>
> There were no cages of any size. You're welcome to try to correct
> Woodmorappe's math errors, but by now I've concluded that you
> cannot do so.
First you have to demonstrate the errors...not just make claims.
After you do you you will see the truth behind the ark...that is if your
open minded.
>
> GS
karl
In article <339434...@lanl.gov>, Robert Derrick <ro...@lanl.gov> wrote:
> karl wrote:
> > Rather than go out and spend hours on the
> > research and typing of the response...
>
> It's fascinating really. Evolution is taught in schools. Albeit badly,
> in many cases, but taught nonetheless. And Creationism is not taught.
>
> And yet the Creationist is not willing to put forth the real effort
> it would take to support his case. Takes too much time, he says.
Like usual, you evolutionist are inserting words into my mouth.
If I already have the research stored on disk, why should I go out and
collect it all again? .....do you understand now?
snip
>
>
> PS: < 17000 animal kinds on the boat. Yep, that is way too big a number.
> No reasonable human being, let alone the Creationist, could ever
> actually produce that list. I'm sure the world will understand.
> It's just too much effort -- "Rather than go out and spend hours
> on the research and typing..." Pity the poor downtrodden Creat!
The list has been presented many, many times. here it is one more time,
The following is a list from Noahs Ark A feasibilty Study
Number of animals genus (Male & Female) present from each order-class on
the ark.
Passeriformes 2,236
Squamata 1,938
Rodentia 1,746
Artiodactyla 1,144
Carnivora 696
Therapsida 508
Marsupialia 468
Perrissodactyla 436
Chiroptera 412
Primates 412
Insectivora 404
Saurischia 390
Gruiformes 280
Ornithischia 278
Apodiformes 276
Notoungulata 252
Edentata 250
Charadriiformes 208
Condylartha 198
Galliformes 176
Falconiformes 170
Psittaciformes 164
Captorhinida 152
Thecodontia 144
Piciformes 128
(add remaining 61 land-vertebrate orders
15,754
Reference Noahs Ark a Feasibility Study page 11
John Woodmorappe
http://mars.nettrek.net.au/~rik/cyber/crsbk21.htm
karl
> In talk.origins karl <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> In talk.origins karl <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
> > problem solved.
>
> No the problem is far from solved Karl. In your own mind you
> may feel that it is, but anyone with an iota of logic and reason
> can appreciate the enormous complexity of your narrative you call
> Noahs flood. Now I'm not saying your stupid, but you're most
> certainly too emotionly involved to make rational decisions.
> I understand, your faith is being poked and proded by scientific
> inquary. However, no matter how painful it is, the evendce
> falls against the idea of Noahs Flood. The most fundamental
> issues such as where did all the water comefrom, collecting the animals,
> redistributing them and the genetic miracles that took place to
> populate the Earth from a few parent stock are all serious issues.
>
> I think the ICR should conduct an experiment (ARK 2000 project)
> and bring the Ark into reality by duplicating the experiment.
> Then, and only then will they appreciate the size of the
> problem at hand. But, again some like Karl will refuse to
> follow the evidence and will continue to believe where
> the evidence says, no.
I think the evolutionist should conduct an experiment...cause
macro-evolution to occur.
>
>
> > --
> > In the beginning....God...
>
> That may be true and is completely inconsequential.
>
>
> Jeff
> http
karl
> In talk.origins karl <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
> In talk.origins karl <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
> > Come on Ken. Face the facts. Noah could have easily placed 16,000 animals
> > on the ark with the food.
>
>
> So how did todays immense biodiversity arise? You're claiming
> that from a few thousand parent stock nature was able to produce
> millions of different species within a few thousand years. Furthermore,
> all present day populations of any given species are direct descendants
> from only a few parents. Does this not strain credibility? How do you
> account for this seeming impossibility?
Thats a whole lot easier than claiming in a few million years a whole new
class/order/family/genera and species evolved.
At least I'm realistic.
>
>
> Jeff
> http://www.mcs.com/~spider/arachnomania.html
karl
> In talk.origins karl <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
> In talk.origins karl <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
> [snip]
> > Keep learning Shooty and you will see that the creation flood models ifar
> > superior to the evolutionary dogmatic belief system.
>
>
> Karl is an interesting example in how extreme someone will go
> in order to support their faith. Again and again Karl separates
> himself from reality whenever he feels threatened. It's rather
> interesting as I'm trying to understand your feelings and views
> on the subject.
>
> In stating that the creation flood models are far
> superior to evolutionary theory most people can easily
> distinguish what is speculation and what has evidence.
> Can you admit there is no evidence for a global
> flood, or do you believe that there is evidence, but
> it has yet to be found?. Maybe, you feel all of
> geology is a world wide conspiracy? Where in the
> fossil record can we find evidnce of a flood
> that spans the entire globe?
The fossil record alone shows there was a flood.
Q, what do you need to make a fossil? A, a quick burial.
That is just what happened during the flood. For you to be right the
animals would have to lay out exposed to the elements for an awfull long
time before they were buried. The flood model is far superior. That's
quite clear.
>
> Karl, what would it mean if Noahs flood story was just
> a story? Would that diminish your faith in God? Would
> the Bible lose credibility in your eyes? What would
> you lose? Or, are you just afraid to admit you were wrong?
What if the flood story was true? as science clearly indicates it is.
Would you believe in God? would it destroy your dogmatic faith in
evolution? Are you afraid to admitt your wrong?
Glen J. Kuban
Karl writes:
>
>Noah had representatives from the genera that made up the species. Your
>millions were not needed.
Even if we allow GENERA rather than species as a closer approximation
of "kinds" needed to be taken on the ark, you need to know how many FOSSIL
and MODERN genera of land creatures existed. That would include all the
modern and fossil amphibians, reptiles (including dinosaurs--over 800
genera already identified), birds, mammals, plus all nonaquatic
invertebrates (including many crustaceans, arachnids, insects, and
myriapods), plus the many fossil forms of each that are likely to be
discovered (since new fossil forms are found every year). Many previous
Ark-capacity calculations were not only flawed from a statistical
standpoint as others have pointed out, but also did not adequately
consider the many fossil creatures (known and yet to be discovered).
According to young-earthism, they were all alive at the time of Noah.
One must also remember that the "unclean" animals went in by twos and
the "clean" by sevens, figure the amount of living space needed for
Noah and his family (8 people), lots of fresh water for them and the
animals (it must be contained in troughs or containers somehow, even if
collected as rain), tools and supplies, the volume taken by hallways as
well as the volume of wood in floors, walls, and partitions. Waste
management would be no small consideration as well. A thorough
analysis of Ark capacity must take all these space-occupying entities
into account. Have I left anything out?
Glen Kuban
pa...@ix.netcom.com
karl
> Victor Eijkhout wrote:
> >
> > ks...@fast.net (karl) writes:
> >
> > > Noah had representatives from the genera that made up the species. Your
> > > millions were not needed.
> >
> > Hold on! Are you telling me that after the flood there was
> > an outburst of evolution of species?
> >
> > Victor.
>
> That's been Karl's "thesis" all along: That 16,000 species on Noah's
> ark became the 9,000,000 species of today through micro-evolution.
>
> When those 16,000 animals showed up, Noah used the arithmatic mean
> to figure out an average cage size, but he found out that using the
> mean even 16,000 species wouldn't fit on the ark. So he used a
> median instead and found out he now had room for all those animals
> plus a year's supply of food and water. What a genius!
You guys are full of it....so far no one from the evolutionist camp has
even presented the mean size of the animals or even the average. Knowing
this, there is no way you proved me wrong.
Lets face it, the ark happened!
>
> Dan
>
> WHOA!! I just set off my own Irony-o-meter! Calm down, baby, that's
> it! I think I need to replace my sarcasm filters...
--
karl
> In talk.origins karl <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
> > I'm telling you there was rapid speciation....not MACRO-evolution, but
> > instead MICRO-evolution.
>
> Do you have genetic information to corroborate your absurd claim, Karl?
do you have any genetic information to corroborate evolution?
>
>
>
>
> Jeff
> http://www.mcs.com/~spider/arachnomania.html
Jim Yahr
karl wrote:
> You guys are full of it....so far no one from the evolutionist camp has
> even presented the mean size of the animals or even the average. Knowing
> this, there is no way you proved me wrong.
>
> Lets face it, the ark happened!
> >
While not quite a lie, this is certainly incorrect. The calculations
you requested where posted to you about 2 years ago when you first
started spouting this stuff on Compuserve. On at least 3 separate
occasions I posted calculations here on talk.origins showing that the 10
largest "kinds" of dinosaurs wouldn't have fit, much less the 16,000
other kinds. Check Deja News. If we go back to your days on Compuserve
again, I can show you where the same calculations were done for the 100
largest "kinds" of mammals. You've been wrong about this for two years
karl. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.
Jim Yahr
Carlsbad, NM
Remove the "x"s to reply.
Mike Noren
Replying to Dan Lee <dan...@gate.net>
: That's been Karl's "thesis" all along: That 16,000 species on Noah's
: ark became the 9,000,000 species of today through micro-evolution.
Well, the flood was, like 4000BC according to creationists, right? And
speciations must've finished at the latest around the birth of Christ,
which gives a total of 4000 years for a) the continents to move from
the middle east to their present positions, and b) 8-10M species to
evolve.
: When those 16,000 animals showed up, Noah used the arithmatic mean
: to figure out an average cage size, but he found out that using the
: mean even 16,000 species wouldn't fit on the ark. So he used a
: median instead and found out he now had room for all those animals
: plus a year's supply of food and water. What a genius!
Let's not forget that he also carried eggs or young instead of adult
animals. And that he had a system of drain-pipes set up into which the
animals defecated, and which the movements of the waves flushed clean.
And that they had the hay packed in oil-impregnated sheepskins to keep
it dry. And that the ancient israelites, by virtue of being
sheepherders, would be able to care for animals some of which not even
today are easily kept at zoos.
<sigh>
:
: Dan
Michael Norén, Doctoral student, Tel: Int +46 (0)8 6664236
Swedish Museum of Natural History, Fax: Int +46 (0)8 666
Dept. of Invertebrate Zoology
P.O.B. 50007
S-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden
REMOVE THE WORD SPAMSTOP IN MY ADDRESS TO MAIL ME
Thomas Scharle
In article <ksjj-03069...@max11-31.phl.fast.net>, ks...@fast.net (karl) writes:
...
|> You guys are full of it....so far no one from the evolutionist camp has
|> even presented the mean size of the animals or even the average. Knowing
Chuckle.
|> this, there is no way you proved me wrong.
...
Why do you ignore my posting?
ArachnomaniA
In talk.origins karl <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
> Noah had representatives from the genera that made up the species. Your
> millions were not needed.
Where were all the land invertebrates kept? For example, I thinks it's rather
astonishing that from a few parent stock over 10,000 species of spider were
derived in only a few thousand years.
Do you have genetic information to corroborate your claim, Karl?
Jeff
http://www.mcs.com/~spider/arachnomania.html
ArachnomaniA
In talk.origins karl <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
In talk.origins karl <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
> problem solved.
No the problem is far from solved Karl. In your own mind you
may feel that it is, but anyone with an iota of logic and reason
can appreciate the enormous complexity of your narrative you call
Noahs flood. Now I'm not saying your stupid, but you're most
certainly too emotionly involved to make rational decisions.
I understand, your faith is being poked and proded by scientific
inquary. However, no matter how painful it is, the evendce
falls against the idea of Noahs Flood. The most fundamental
issues such as where did all the water comefrom, collecting the animals,
redistributing them and the genetic miracles that took place to
populate the Earth from a few parent stock are all serious issues.
I think the ICR should conduct an experiment (ARK 2000 project)
and bring the Ark into reality by duplicating the experiment.
Then, and only then will they appreciate the size of the
problem at hand. But, again some like Karl will refuse to
follow the evidence and will continue to believe where
the evidence says, no.
karl
In article <339415...@nada.kth.se>, Kai-Mikael Jää-Aro
<k...@nada.kth.se> wrote:
snip
>
> Futhermore, if we assume that the typical density of animals is a bit
> higher than that of water, let's say 1200 kg/m3 (just a guess on my
> part), then the mean animal would weigh approx 2.7 kg - about the size
> of a rabbit I'd say. The median animal would weigh 1.2 g - what's that,
> a shrew?
Your explanation helps out the ark models!!! If the mean weight is about
the size of a rabbit then the mean size animal is about the size of a
rabbit. If the median is correct like you suggest then that's even better
for the ark.
As you evolutionist should be discovering by now, the ark was possible!!!
snip
ArachnomaniA
> on the ark with the food.
So how did todays immense biodiversity arise? You're claiming
that from a few thousand parent stock nature was able to produce
millions of different species within a few thousand years. Furthermore,
all present day populations of any given species are direct descendants
from only a few parents. Does this not strain credibility? How do you
account for this seeming impossibility?
Jeff
http://www.mcs.com/~spider/arachnomania.html
Geoff Sheffield
karl wrote:
>
> In article <5mru5k$5...@news.nd.edu>, sch...@ubiquity.cc.nd.edu (Thomas
> Scharle) wrote:
>
> kjf...@midway.uchicago.edu.REMOVEME (Kenneth Fair) writes:
> > ...
> > |> If you are trying to determine the total weight of the animals on the ark,
> > |> or the total space that they take up, the formula is (mean weight x
> > |> # animals) or (mean volume x total animals). If you're trying to determine
> > |> ark buoyancy, or ark loading limits, these are the applicable formulae.
> > |> There *is* a bias towards the larger animals, and that's exactly the bias
> > |> needed to calculate weight and space requirements correctly.
> > ...
> > |> This is roughly eighth-grade math, after all.
> > ...
> >
> > Suppose that I want to transport the space shuttle from California
> > to Florida. That sound like a difficult task, but using the magic of
> > the median, I make it into a piece of cake.
> >
> > All I need do is include a hundred ping-pong balls along with
> > the shuttle. The meadian weight of the load is now trivial, as is
> > the median volume. You can mail 101 items with the median weight
> > and volume of a ping-pong ball in a small package, can't you? I
> > think I'll tell NASA about this, and it'll save them a lot of time
> > and money.
>
> The problem is your trying to refute a workable theory.
>
> cage size for the animals would have been? 2 cubic feet? 4? 7? 10? what
> and why.
>
> In the beginning....God...
There were no cages of any size. You're welcome to try to correct
Woodmorappe's math errors, but by now I've concluded that you
cannot do so.
GS
Michael D. Painter
karl <ks...@fast.net> wrote in article
<ksjj-03069...@max11-31.phl.fast.net>...
> In article <339434...@lanl.gov>, Robert Derrick <ro...@lanl.gov>
wrote:
>
> > karl wrote:
> > > Rather than go out and spend hours on the
> > > research and typing of the response...
> >
> > It's fascinating really. Evolution is taught in schools. Albeit badly,
> > in many cases, but taught nonetheless. And Creationism is not taught.
> >
> > And yet the Creationist is not willing to put forth the real effort
> > it would take to support his case. Takes too much time, he says.
>
> Like usual, you evolutionist are inserting words into my mouth.
>
> If I already have the research stored on disk, why should I go out and
> collect it all again? .....do you understand now?
>
Nothing to understand karl. Writing down things you would like to see is
not research.
You and your believers have been challenged time and again to do real
research in physics, biology, botany, boat building, food supply, animal
husbandry, and any other science I've failed to mention.
You ignore all of them.
But then you seem to ignore your own bible a lot.
karl says the bible is the absolute word of his god.
Genesis 6:17 karl's god says everything is going to die.
Genesis 7:4 karl's god says everything is going to die.
Genesis 7:21-23 says everything did die.
So how come karl says so many things lived that were not in the Ark.
Genesis 6:20 says the animals came to Noah.
So did the mayfly bring a creek and the Koala a tree or what?
In Genesis god also says man could live (only) 120 years. Did 600 year old
Noah do, lie about his age?
>
Dan Lee
karl wrote:
>
> In article <33941F...@gate.net>, dan...@gate.net wrote:
>
> > Victor Eijkhout wrote:
> > >
> > > ks...@fast.net (karl) writes:
> > >
> > > > millions were not needed.
> > >
> > > an outburst of evolution of species?
> > >
> > > Victor.
> >
> > ark became the 9,000,000 species of today through micro-evolution.
Karl, which part of this statement do you disagree with?
> >
> > When those 16,000 animals showed up, Noah used the arithmatic mean
> > to figure out an average cage size, but he found out that using the
> > mean even 16,000 species wouldn't fit on the ark. So he used a
> > median instead and found out he now had room for all those animals
> > plus a year's supply of food and water. What a genius!
>
> You guys are full of it....so far no one from the evolutionist camp has
> even presented the mean size of the animals or even the average. Knowing
> this, there is no way you proved me wrong.
You want the evolutionists to present their own version of the ark
story? Sigh...
Macroevolution:
1. Woodmorrappe and you say that all but 16,000 species were wiped
out by a global flood. The Bible is clear that all life outside
the ark died. (Maybe you and Woodmorrappe don't believe the Bible)
3. You also claim that there is no such thing as macro-evolution,
one species giving rise to one or more other species.
3. Yet there are now about 9,000,000 species of animals on earth.
You and others have tried to state that "kinds" are different
than "species." Yet there is no such thing as an animal that is
only a "genus," or whatever other class level you want to stop at.
ALL ANIMALS ARE SPECIES.
So you reject macroevolution, yet without macroevolution there is
no way 16,000 species can become even 16,001 species, much less
9,000,000.
Median vs Mean one more time:
(average size) X (number of animals) must equal the total size of
all the animals if you're using an average to figure out how big
a boat you need to carry them, which you are. The mean gives you
an average that can be used this way. The median gives you an
"average" that is useless for this kind of calculation.
Take 10 animals: 8 of them weigh 1 pound, 1 weighs 20 pounds,
1 weighs 100 pounds. Total weight: 128 pounds.
Mean size of thie group: 12.8 pounds.
Median size of this group: 1 pound.
Now which would you use to determine how big a boat to build?
Dan
Kai-Mikael Jää-Aro
In article <ksjj-03069...@max11-31.phl.fast.net> ks...@fast.net
(karl) writes:
>In article <339415...@nada.kth.se>, Kai-Mikael Jää-Aro
><k...@nada.kth.se> wrote:
>snip
>>
>> Futhermore, if we assume that the typical density of animals is a bit
>> higher than that of water, let's say 1200 kg/m3 (just a guess on my
>> part), then the mean animal would weigh approx 2.7 kg - about the size
>> of a rabbit I'd say. The median animal would weigh 1.2 g - what's that,
>> a shrew?
>
>Your explanation helps out the ark models!!! If the mean weight is about
>the size of a rabbit then the mean size animal is about the size of a
>rabbit. If the median is correct like you suggest then that's even better
>for the ark.
I most definitely am saying that the median is NOT the proper function
to use!
Are you saying this just to spite me, or what is the problem!?
In fact the entire point of my exposition was that the *median*
*under*states
the *mean* by over a factor 1000 (for this particular data
distribution), so as
to demonstrate for you why the median should not be used.
>As you evolutionist should be discovering by now, the ark was possible!!!
It seems you missed my caveats about the figures used at the end of my
article.
Please reread it. And really, shouldn't you be more wary about
declaring the
truth of the results when I made it clear that the figures used were
complete
guesstimates? Which is another point: faulty assumptions will most
likely lead
to faulty conclusions.
Geoff Sheffield
karl wrote:
>
> In article <339410B7.41C67EA6@m_l.com>, Geoff Sheffield <geoff@m_l.com> wrote:
>
> snip
> >
> >
> > Woodmorappe's math errors, but by now I've concluded that you
> > cannot do so.
>
>
> After you do you you will see the truth behind the ark...that is if your
> open minded.
> >
> > GS
>
> +++++++++++++
> see ya,
> karl
> +++++++++++++
> In the beginning....God.
Woodmorappes improper use of median instead of mean has been
demonstrated several times. You may also wish to read the book
"How to Lie With Statistics" by Darrell Huff (ISBN 0393310728).
Here are two formulas for you:
1 Total weight = Mean Weight times number of items
2 Total Volume = Mean volume times number of items
Proof of #1
Mean Weight = (Total Weight of all items) / (Number of items)
Definition of mean
Mean Weight times Number of items = Total Weight of all items
Multiply both sides of equation by
number of items
QED - #1 is TRUE
#2 can be proved by same line of reasoning.
Let's try another - Woodmorappes formula:
3 Total Volume = Median volume times number of items
Counterexample to #3
3 items, volume of 1,2,15.
Median volume: 2
Median time number of items: 6
Total volume: 18
6 does not equal 18
QED - #3 is FALSE
These proofs don't seem too difficult to me.
I don't see how you are going to convince anybody that
you are correct about complex issues of biology and
geology if it is so clear to anybody reading your
posts that you do not understand eighth grade math.
Why don't you redo Woodmorappes calculations using
mean values rather than median values and see
what results you get?
GS
Mr. M.J. Smith
In article <ksjj-03069...@max11-31.phl.fast.net>,
karl <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
>In article <5n0spp$7...@mercury.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk>, mjs...@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk
>(Mr. M.J. Smith) wrote:
>> In article <ksjj-01069...@max2-18.phl.fast.net>,
>> karl <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
>> >Your replies are actually senseless. The truth is it happened and it has
>> >been demonstrated to be feasable.
>> >Perhaps someday you might try to make a good case against the ark. You
>> >tried with the koala...but failed. Sooner or later the evolutionist will
>> >have to accept the truth.
>> So the ark was able to maintain multiple environments to sustain (in
>> good health) 'kinds' from all round the globe? From the poles to the
>> desert, from deep sea to mountain tops, salt to fresh water, tropical
>> forest to arctic tundra? In reality the ark would have been a
>> homogenously damp, stuffy and s(t)inking hell hole.
>
>
>your comment is nonsense. ALL of the above have been addressed. Especially
>the fish.
Spare us the fish tale karl. Have you tried acclimatising a goldfish
to saline conditions yet?
>If there is any question in particular you need refreshing on,
>let me know and I'll try to answer it.
Please do!!!
How do you explain the rather large number of genetic loci with multiple
(>4) alleles with an extreme genetic bottleneck 4000 years ago? You need
to explain the formation of new alleles at single loci, not the mixing
of different loci by recombination.
>In the mean while you should get your facts straight and try to understand
>the flood models....they work, whether you want to believe it or not.
They don't work. Among many reasons why is the lack of genetic evidence
for a global flood.
Thomas Scharle
In article <33955c24...@news.su.se>, ev-mi...@SPAMSTOPnrm.se (Mike Noren) writes:
|> Replying to Dan Lee <dan...@gate.net>
|>
|> : ark became the 9,000,000 species of today through micro-evolution.
|>
|> speciations must've finished at the latest around the birth of Christ,
|> which gives a total of 4000 years for a) the continents to move from
|> the middle east to their present positions, and b) 8-10M species to
|> evolve.
What I've seen suggested is more like 2500 BC. Bishop Ussher's
chronology puts it at 2348 BC.
I suppose that one could do a study of the "kinds" of animals
depicted in ancient Egyptian art. It seems to me that most of them
look much like modern animals.
Mike Noren
Replying to ks...@fast.net (karl)
: > Do you have genetic information to corroborate your absurd claim, Karl?
:
: do you have any genetic information to corroborate evolution?
Yes, we do. Sequencing and comparing the genes of organisms frequently
conform to traditional views of relationship, based on morphology.
Also sequencing and comparing DIFFERENT genes normally conform to
eachother, which there'd be no reason to do if evolution had not
occurred.
: karl
Mike Noren
Replying to ks...@fast.net (karl)
: I think the evolutionist should conduct an experiment...cause
: macro-evolution to occur.
The HeLa cells.
Mike Noren
Replying to ks...@fast.net (karl)
: The list has been presented many, many times. here it is one more time,
: The following is a list from Noahs Ark A feasibilty Study
: Number of animals genus (Male & Female) present from each order-class on
: the ark.
The interesting bit is that this again shows us how untenible this
position is, and how badly researched.
For instance, it is somewhat surprising to have 250 genera of
Edentates, when there are only 29 known species. There are similar
discrepancies for almost all the orders listed.
Also lots of orders are missing in this list, so one can't even check
that the calculation is internally consisten (that it adds up to 15754
genera) or whether all recognized vertebrate orders are present.
To be honest these figures seem like very rough guesstimates, even if
presented with misplaced confidence.
: Passeriformes 2,236
Which leads us to conclude that no room was reserved for snails,
insects, land crustaceans, nematodes, spiders, scorpions, diplopods,
chilopods, springtails, tardigrades, mites, land flatworms, etc etc
which together make up, at a guess, >95% of all terrestrial life, and
very few of which would survive a year under water (not to mention 2km
of sediment).
Add to this the problem of 200000 land plant species, and an unknown
but VERY large number of fungi and bacterial species.
Dave Haas
Glen J. Kuban wrote:
>
> Karl writes:
> >
> >Noah had representatives from the genera that made up the species. Your
> >millions were not needed.
>
Let us not forget the extinct plant genera and even *divisions* which
lived on earth 400 to 100 mya. Lycophytes, Calamites, Sphenophytes,
Pteophytes, Gymnosperms, Cycads, Gingkoes and Psilophytes. For many
have only a few herbaceous genera left all the woody species are
extinct.
You also must also consider that there are over 300,000 species of
angiosperms which are thriving today. We have few good fossils extinct
angiosperms though there must have been many.
D. Haas
> Glen Kuban
> pa...@ix.netcom.com
Rick Gillespie
In article <339d514d...@news.su.se>,
Mike Noren <ev-mi...@SPAMSTOPnrm.se> wrote:
>Replying to ks...@fast.net (karl)
>
>: I think the evolutionist should conduct an experiment...cause
>: macro-evolution to occur.
>
>The HeLa cells.
Careful, Mike. "macro-evolution" is as much a moving target as
"kind". It appears that it will always get redefined to be something
that cannot be observed in human time-scales. One might even get
the impression that karl defines "macro-evolution" as "evolution
between kinds" :-)
Rick Gillespie
ps - karl is on record, IIRC, as saying the speciation has happened
and is merely "micro-evolution"
ArachnomaniA
In talk.origins karl <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
In talk.origins karl <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
> In article <339410B7.41C67EA6@m_l.com>, Geoff Sheffield <geoff@m_l.com> wrote:
> snip
> > There were no cages of any size. You're welcome to try to correct
> > Woodmorappe's math errors, but by now I've concluded that you
> > cannot do so.
> First you have to demonstrate the errors...not just make claims.
The errors have been demonstrated Karl. Have you been paying
attention or don't you understand the mathematical 奏rickery' that
was played on you?
[snip]
> After you do you you will see the truth behind the ark...that is if your
> open minded.
So open your brain falls out, right? Come on Karl, there is a time when
you have to swallow your pride and admit you're wrong. Is that within
your power?
Jeff
http://www.mcs.com/~spider/arachnomania.html
ArachnomaniA
> > that from a few thousand parent stock nature was able to produce
> > millions of different species within a few thousand years. Furthermore,
> > all present day populations of any given species are direct descendants
> > from only a few parents. Does this not strain credibility? How do you
> > account for this seeming impossibility?
> Thats a whole lot easier than claiming in a few million years a whole new
> class/order/family/genera and species evolved.
That's not what I asked is it Karl, again how did todays immense
biodiversity arise?
[snip]
> At least I'm realistic.
I don't care what you call your self. Answer the question.
Do you have genetic information to corroborate your wild claims?
Please, feel free to elaborate on why modern genetic does not
support your ‘realistic' claims.
Jeff
http://www.mcs.com/~spider/arachnomania.html
Paul Yost
> No the problem is far from solved Karl. In your own mind you
> may feel that it is, but anyone with an iota of logic and reason
> can appreciate the enormous complexity of your narrative you call
> Noahs flood. Now I'm not saying your stupid, but you're most
> certainly too emotionly involved to make rational decisions.
> I understand, your faith is being poked and proded by scientific
> inquary. However, no matter how painful it is, the evendce
> falls against the idea of Noahs Flood. The most fundamental
> issues such as where did all the water comefrom, collecting the animals,
> redistributing them and the genetic miracles that took place to
> populate the Earth from a few parent stock are all serious issues.
I don't know where the water came from, perhaps as some creationists assert
it was magically suspended above the atmosphere in such a way that it would
not prevent light from penetrating its depths.
As to where the water went, my theory is that interstellar Ice Pirates from
Delta Pavonis absconded with it.
ArachnomaniA
In talk.origins karl <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
> The fossil record alone shows there was a flood.
> Q, what do you need to make a fossil? A, a quick burial.
> That is just what happened during the flood. For you to be right the
> animals would have to lay out exposed to the elements for an awfull long
> time before they were buried. The flood model is far superior. That's
> quite clear.
I'm confused Karl. We're talking about the fossil record here on
Earth - you know, the one that spans some hundreds of millions of
years in time. Just how long was that flood of yours? Are you
saying the flood lasted hundreds of millions of years?
> > Karl, what would it mean if Noahs flood story was just
> > a story? Would that diminish your faith in God? Would
> > the Bible lose credibility in your eyes? What would
> > you lose? Or, are you just afraid to admit you were wrong?
> What if the flood story was true? as science clearly indicates it is.
> Would you believe in God? would it destroy your dogmatic faith in
> evolution? Are you afraid to admitt your wrong?
My point is Karl that you are too emotionally involved to make
rational decisions. You can not even admit that you *might*
be wrong. In your mind you are only right and no amount
of evidence will sway you to conclude that you are wrong. I, on the
other hand, can and will admit that the current theory of evolution is:
1. Incomplete
2. It's not perfect
3. Could have serious modifications in the future that change
our outlook drastically.
4. There may have been a flood, but the evidence says no.
Can you admit this when it comes to your ‘hypothisis'?
Jeff
http://www.mcs.com/~spider/arachnomania.html
ArachnomaniA
In talk.origins karl <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
In talk.origins karl <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > instead MICRO-evolution.
> >
> > Do you have genetic information to corroborate your absurd claim, Karl?
> do you have any genetic information to corroborate evolution?
Is there a reason you can not answer my question?
Again, for the Ark story to be feasible, do you have genetic information
to corroborate your absurd claim that all species are descendants from
a few parent stock only a few thousand years ago?
If you have that information please let us know what journal it's
in. If you do not have that information, then that's another nail
in the coffin for the creation hypothesis.
Jeff
http://www.mcs.com/~spider/arachnomania.html
ArachnomaniA
> let me know and I'll try to answer it.
Oh, me first! I have a question on where the current (conservative)
estimate of 750,000 cataloged species of insects came from. I understand
that you only had genera on the ark, but this vast collection of
invertebrates required specialized husbandry that is still not matched
by the best insect zoos in the world. But, lets ignore that glaring error
for now and ask:
Do you have genetic information (for invertebrates and vertebrates alike)
that suggests that all current species were derived from parent stock only
a few thousand years ago? If not, how does the creation hypothesis account
for this?
Jeff
http://www.mcs.com/~spider/arachnomania.html
Thomas Scharle
In article <01bc710d$4b0a21c0$7f009696@paul>, "Paul Yost" <c...@iea.com> writes:
...
|> The reason the dinosaurs became extinct was not because a big meteorite
|> wiped them out but because a) it is hard to collect dinosaur semen and b)
|> those particular cyrogenic tanks had bad coolers so the contents rotted.
|> Or maybe c) Noah didn't like dinos. c) sub 1--too bad Noah liked
|> mosquitos.
Here's a nifty idea, and any "creationist" is free to use it:
The dinosaurs were monsters made by humans before the Flood,
produced by humans using genetic engineering, not belonging to
natural "kinds" themselves, and thus (1) their elimination was one
of the reasons for the Flood, part of the sinfulness of the world,
and (2) not belonging to any "kind", they were not included on the
Ark. I suppose that this could be also used as a cautionary tale
about genetic engineering.
"Creationism" is a easy game to play.
Robert Derrick
karl wrote:
First of all, you yam, I am most greatly dissappointed that you
even replied to this. Every single substinative argument that
I've ever presented has been roundly ignored, to the point that
I had assumed I was killfile'd. And that doesn't bother me. But
that you ignored every pertinent argument and responded to this
bit of fluff!!!
Well, to be truthful, I always knew that if you did reply, it
would be to fluff. No hard feelings.
> I wrote:
> > karl wrote:
> > > Rather than go out and spend hours ...
> >
> > It's fascinating really. Evolution is taught in schools. Albeit badly,
> > in many cases, but taught nonetheless. And Creationism is not taught.
> >
> > And yet the Creationist is not willing to put forth the real effort
> > it would take to support his case. Takes too much time, he says.
>
> Like usual, you evolutionist are inserting words into my mouth.
You creationist, you!
Well, only a little. Actually, the reference that I was truly ruminating
upon was your personal email to me that said that "I don't have time
to look this up for you. If you're too lazy to go out and find it
yourself, that's not my problem." And, as I hinted above, I wasn't
really
talking to you, I was talking about you.
> If I already have the research stored on disk, why should I go out and
> collect it all again? .....do you understand now?
No, I don't. I don't understand now how it is that you have refuted
numerous arguments that invalidate your premise, if true, by ignoring
them utterly and referring to "research stored on disk". Correct me
if I'm wrong, but where, other than this McCartyesque disk that you
wave about, have you answered, for example, the question of how a
single founder pair can generate a wide diversity in a few thousand
years, in contradiction to and in excess of even the most wild-eyed
Goldschmidtian sci-fi evolution fantasies, and still not be evolution,
but rather some meaningless jot called microevolution. I could of
course go on to talk about alleles and such but what would be the
point. This is, after all, a substinative argument, and you must
needs therefore be bound to ignore it. Also, I am still not
actually talking to you. I am only encouraging your personal
edification to your vast knowledge that you are so skillful
at elucidating.
In other words, Foonman, I don't refer to the poorly understood
regurgitations of others that you are so skilled at cutting and
pasting, but rather the much larger area of unanswered and
unaddressed issues that, if true, utterly destroy your thesis.
Ho hum, and here I am, talking to myself again.
> > PS: < 17000 animal kinds on the boat. Yep, that is way too big a number.
> > No reasonable human being, let alone the Creationist, could ever
> > actually produce that list. I'm sure the world will understand.
> > It's just too much effort -- "Rather than go out and spend hours
> > on the research and typing..." Pity the poor downtrodden Creat!
>
> The list has been presented many, many times. here it is one more time,
Are you and I working out of the same math book? For me, a list with
approximately 16,000 entries would have about, oh, 16,000 entries, I
would guess.
Your list, a couple of dozen.
My math -- 16,000 = 16,000
Karl's math -- 16,000 = ~24
Why not just remove all pretense at scholarly effort (like that
cribbed list of yours has fooled anybody into thinking that you
even know what's actually on the list, in its pathetically
abbreviated state) and just give the "list" like this:
"... a list from Noones Ark An Infeasibility Studu
Number of animals genius (Male and Female and Priority Mail) on
the ark.
Animals on the ark 15,754
Reference A napkin smeared with ketchup and mustard from
last months company picnic."
rob "Just Dao It" derrick
PS: Hey Karl, glad to see you found your way back. Making a
mockery of Sci-Cre without you (and your ilk) would
only be half the fun and twice the work. Welcome back!
Richard G. Henne, Jr.
karl wrote:
> > > research and typing of the response...
> >
> > in many cases, but taught nonetheless. And Creationism is not taught.
> >
> > And yet the Creationist is not willing to put forth the real effort
> > it would take to support his case. Takes too much time, he says.
>
> Like usual, you evolutionist are inserting words into my mouth.
>
> collect it all again? .....do you understand now?
>
Yet to date, you have NEVER presented a valid flood model. You have
presented many individual answers, most of which were refuted, but your
answers if placed together into a model are incoherent.
You seem to think that by listing ways that fossils could have been
buried is the same as explaining why the fossil record is the way it has
been found. No science takes place, unless you apply your methods to
the data. Scientists have done this, and came up with a model that fits
the data. You have done nothing and in spite of the fact your theory
does not fit the data, you wish to assert that science is wrong.
Show me precisely how your model applies to each individual layer in the
Grand Canyon. IOW, stop the listing bullshit and explain how each of
layers was found, and why only the specific fossils associated with that
layer are found there. Austin and Woodmarope list possible methods for
the formation of the layers, but never apply them to the data or show
how everything ties together.
If you wish, I'll accept a repeat of a post that has done this (DejaNews
can find no such post from you). You are the one that claimed to this
news group that the Grand Canyon was evidence for the flood model, but
to date, you have produced no coherent model that explains the real data
found in the Grand Canyon.
Rich
In science, nothing beats direct evidence!
Richard G. Henne, Jr.
karl wrote:
>
> In article <5n1lrb$f4m$1...@Mercury.mcs.net>, spi...@MCS.COM (ArachnomaniA) wrote:
>
> > In talk.origins karl <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
> >
> > In talk.origins karl <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
> >
> > No the problem is far from solved Karl. In your own mind you
> > may feel that it is, but anyone with an iota of logic and reason
> > can appreciate the enormous complexity of your narrative you call
> > Noahs flood. Now I'm not saying your stupid, but you're most
> > certainly too emotionly involved to make rational decisions.
> > I understand, your faith is being poked and proded by scientific
> > inquary. However, no matter how painful it is, the evendce
> > falls against the idea of Noahs Flood. The most fundamental
> > issues such as where did all the water comefrom, collecting the animals,
> > redistributing them and the genetic miracles that took place to
> > populate the Earth from a few parent stock are all serious issues.
> >
> > and bring the Ark into reality by duplicating the experiment.
> > Then, and only then will they appreciate the size of the
> > problem at hand. But, again some like Karl will refuse to
> > follow the evidence and will continue to believe where
> > the evidence says, no.
>
> macro-evolution to occur.
> >
> >
> > > In the beginning....God...
> >
> > That may be true and is completely inconsequential.
> >
> >
> > Jeff
> > http
>
> +++++++++++++
> see ya,
> karl
> +++++++++++++
> In the beginning....God.
By your own definition of kind, Triticale was the product of macro
evolution. Except, now you will wish to claim that genera is not equal
to kind in this case. When are you going to produce a true definition
of kind, one that does not use qualifiers (mostly, usually, etc.).
--
karl
In article <5n238l$n...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, pa...@ix.netcom.com
(Glen J. Kuban) wrote:
Why is what your saying a problem? All of your concerns have already been
answered. If you would like to talk about one of the, e-mail me.
>
> Glen Kuban
> pa...@ix.netcom.com
karl
answered. If you would like to talk about one of them, e-mail me.
karl
In article <5n2257$m...@news.nd.edu>, sch...@ubiquity.cc.nd.edu (Thomas
Scharle) wrote:
> In article <ksjj-03069...@max11-31.phl.fast.net>, ks...@fast.net
(karl) writes:
> ...
> |> You guys are full of it....so far no one from the evolutionist camp has
> |> even presented the mean size of the animals or even the average. Knowing
> ^^^^ ^^^^^^^
>
> Chuckle.
>
> |> this, there is no way you proved me wrong.
> ...
>
> Why do you ignore my posting?
I don't think ignore is the correct term, but like a typical evolutionist
I understand your trying to cast a bias upon the subject.
Better statement is did you se my posting?
>
> --
> Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
--
Victor Eijkhout
ev-mi...@SPAMSTOPnrm.se (Mike Noren) writes:
> Well, the flood was, like 4000BC according to creationists, right? And
> speciations must've finished at the latest around the birth of Christ,
> which gives a total of 4000 years for a) the continents to move from
> the middle east to their present positions,
Yeew! That's so fast you could almost put on your waterskis and
hook up for the ride!
If I remember my Coustau documentaries, coral reefs grow at a
very constant pace. Are there reefs older than 4000 years?
They couldn't have been there if a continent had recently
swooped across the ocean floor.
Victor.
--
405 Hilgard Ave ............................. `Mostly because I did not fancy
Department of Mathematics, UCLA ............... to predict drama and death on
Los Angeles CA 90024 .......................... Mother's day.' [Psychic quake
phone: +1 310 825 2173 / 9036 ............... predictor Dr. Tury about having
http://www.math.ucla.edu/~eijkhout missed the big 7.0 quake in Iran]
ArachnomaniA
In talk.origins Paul Yost <c...@iea.com> wrote:
In talk.origins Paul Yost <c...@iea.com> wrote:
> > No the problem is far from solved Karl. In your own mind you
> > may feel that it is, but anyone with an iota of logic and reason
> > can appreciate the enormous complexity of your narrative you call
> > Noahs flood. Now I'm not saying your stupid, but you're most
> > certainly too emotionly involved to make rational decisions.
> > I understand, your faith is being poked and proded by scientific
> > inquary. However, no matter how painful it is, the evendce
> > falls against the idea of Noahs Flood. The most fundamental
> > issues such as where did all the water comefrom, collecting the animals,
> > redistributing them and the genetic miracles that took place to
> > populate the Earth from a few parent stock are all serious issues.
> I don't know where the water came from, perhaps as some creationists assert
> it was magically suspended above the atmosphere in such a way that it would
> not prevent light from penetrating its depths.
> As to where the water went, my theory is that interstellar Ice Pirates from
> Delta Pavonis absconded with it.
Sorry. That does not constitute a theory....oh, wait nothing in creationism
has ever amounted to a workable theory so yes, that does fit! :)
Jeff
http://www.mcs.com/~spider/arachnomania.html
Paul Yost
Dan Lee <dan...@gate.net> wrote in article <33941F...@gate.net>...
> Victor Eijkhout wrote:
> >
> > ks...@fast.net (karl) writes:
> >
> > > Noah had representatives from the genera that made up the species.
Your
> > > millions were not needed.
> >
> > Hold on! Are you telling me that after the flood there was
> > an outburst of evolution of species?
> >
> > Victor.
>
> That's been Karl's "thesis" all along: That 16,000 species on Noah's
> ark became the 9,000,000 species of today through micro-evolution.
>
> When those 16,000 animals showed up, Noah used the arithmatic mean
> to figure out an average cage size, but he found out that using the
> mean even 16,000 species wouldn't fit on the ark. So he used a
> median instead and found out he now had room for all those animals
> plus a year's supply of food and water. What a genius!
>
> Dan
>
> WHOA!! I just set off my own Irony-o-meter! Calm down, baby, that's
> it! I think I need to replace my sarcasm filters...
Actually, you've got it all wrong. Both of you. Noah didn't carry two
full grown individuals of each species onto the ark. It would have been
WAY too much trouble. Food, fresh water, space, and all that. Instead,
Noah's associates gathered embryos from all the species which they
cryogenically preserved. I mean hey, as long as we're giving Noah the
technology to build such a magnificent boat in the first place, why not
just go whole hog?
karl
In article <3394A8...@xxcemrc.nmsu.edux>, ya...@xxcemrc.nmsu.edux wrote:
> karl wrote:
>
> > You guys are full of it....so far no one from the evolutionist camp has
> > even presented the mean size of the animals or even the average. Knowing
> > this, there is no way you proved me wrong.
> >
> > Lets face it, the ark happened!
> > >
> While not quite a lie, this is certainly incorrect. The calculations
> you requested where posted to you about 2 years ago when you first
> started spouting this stuff on Compuserve. On at least 3 separate
> occasions I posted calculations here on talk.origins showing that the 10
> largest "kinds" of dinosaurs wouldn't have fit, much less the 16,000
> other kinds. Check Deja News. If we go back to your days on Compuserve
> again, I can show you where the same calculations were done for the 100
> largest "kinds" of mammals. You've been wrong about this for two years
> karl. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.
But then agin Jim if I saved my old compuserve files I would easily be
ably to demonstrate where you and others were wrong.
In two years the model has been presented by me it hasn't been refuted.
Truth always prevails jim.
>
> Jim Yahr
> Carlsbad, NM
>
> Remove the "x"s to reply.