Noah's Ark included Mechanical ventilation and Reverse Osmosis
Friar Broccoli
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
I still found this description of the requirements for modern
LiveStock
vessels interesting:
Dan Listermann
"Friar Broccoli" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:18c95f7c-5ba9-4cdc...@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Wow! Considering the gravitas some give goatherds, the guys who run some of
these ships must be really heavy duty prophets!
.
Ron O
The Bible says that the ark only had one window and that it was closed
for at least 40 days and 40 nights. It may have been closed for
longer than that. All the animals had to hold their breath and no one
was allowed to fart. Waste management would be another story.
Ron Okimoto
teresita
> The Bible says that the ark only had one window and that it was closed
> for at least 40 days and 40 nights. It may have been closed for longer
> than that. All the animals had to hold their breath and no one was
> allowed to fart.
God miraculously supplied oxygen and closed their assholes with a divine
power. How easily those who refuse to believe in the Sacred Scriptures
find "scientific" reasons to do so.
--
Teresita
http://hackylinux.blogspot.com/
Harry K
Nah, the FSM used his noodly appendage to scoop the crap out of that
small window. When he wasn't scooping, he was fanning. Oh Ye of little
faith!
Harry K
Glenn
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 21:24:22 -0800, Ron O wrote:
> > The Bible says that the ark only had one window and that it was closed
> > for at least 40 days and 40 nights. �It may have been closed for longer
> > than that. �All the animals had to hold their breath and no one was
> > allowed to fart.
>
> God miraculously supplied oxygen and closed their assholes with a divine
Closed off the exhaust and pumped them full of hot air, eh.
> How easily those who refuse to believe in the Sacred Scriptures
> find "scientific" reasons to do so.
Here the reasons are based on interpretation, not science. If it were
only skepticism there would be reasoning. In Ron's case there is no
discernible difference in that regard, between his reasons to
disbelieve and the most devout literalist's reason to believe.
Harry K
Ya mean no reason other than the scientific evidence and physical
laws?
Harry K
Glenn
Friar Broccoli
.
Glenn, as far as I know you believe that Noah's flood was a real
event, but assuming that context I am having trouble figuring out what
your position is here.
Do you believe that God intervened to create the extra food and water
as well as to remove the solid, liquid and gas waste materials; or
alternatively to make eating and breathing unnecessary for the animals
on the ark or do you have some other belief?
I am not trying to be cute here, I honestly cannot figure out what
your position is here.
Thanks in advance for any clarification.
Glenn
If I thought you might be honestly, sincerely or politely asking what
my position is here I would simply refer you to my first post. As it
stands, having responded to the second and appearing oblivious to the
first, I might instead say something like
Polly Polly want a qwacker want a qwacker?
Mike Painter
in one of the smaller, but reasonable churches she allows.
It saddens me to think that anyone could believe that the FSM wrote that
stupid book.
Mike Painter
> On Dec 31, 9:53 am, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 31, 11:25 am, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 31, 9:09 am, Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Dec 31, 7:55 am, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Dec 31, 7:51 am, teresita <ruby...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 21:24:22 -0800, Ron O wrote:
>>>>>>> The Bible says that the ark only had one window and that it was
>>>>>>> closed for at least 40 days and 40 nights. It may have been
>>>>>>> closed for longer than that. All the animals had to hold their
>>>>>>> breath and no one was allowed to fart.
>>
>>>>>> God miraculously supplied oxygen and closed their assholes with
>>>>>> a divine power.
>>
>>>>> Closed off the exhaust and pumped them full of hot air, eh.
>>
>>>>>> How easily those who refuse to believe in the Sacred Scriptures
>>>>>> find "scientific" reasons to do so.
>>
>>>>> Here the reasons are based on interpretation, not science. If it
>>>>> were only skepticism there would be reasoning. In Ron's case
>>>>> there is no discernible difference in that regard, between his
>>>>> reasons to disbelieve and the most devout literalist's reason to
>>>>> believe.
>>
>> .
>>
>>>> Ya mean no reason other than the scientific evidence and physical
>>>> laws?
>>
>>> Polly want a qwacker?
>>
>> Glenn, as far as I know you believe that Noah's flood was a real
>> event, but assuming that context I am having trouble figuring out
>> what your position is here.
>>
>> Do you believe that God intervened to create the extra food and water
>> as well as to remove the solid, liquid and gas waste materials; or
>> alternatively to make eating and breathing unnecessary for the
>> animals on the ark or do you have some other belief?
>>
>> I am not trying to be cute here, I honestly cannot figure out what
>> your position is here.
>>
>> Thanks in advance for any clarification.
>
> If I thought you might be honestly, sincerely or politely asking what
> my position is here I would simply refer you to my first post. As it
> stands, having responded to the second and appearing oblivious to the
> first, I might instead say something like
> Polly Polly want a qwacker want a qwacker?
There is no need to refer to that first post if you are talking about in
this thread, rather than something done a few years ago.
I offset it with astericks above.
You make a meaningless comment which does nothing to answer the question
asked of you.
Glenn
Yuh huh, so, nuh uh.
Friar Broccoli
Glenn, I did read your first post here at:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d409a689716e11aa
or .
news:7f3d7ca0-20fc-4c77...@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com
and the text of that post was retained in my question, and remains
quoted in this post above. Unfortunately the only somewhat
informative phrase in that post was (as far as I could tell): "Here
the reasons are based on interpretation, not science." which only
tells me that something (presumably some part of scripture) is not
being interpreted correctly - which could mean (I suppose) that there
wasn't a real boat or real flood or something like that.
I assume the phrase: "Closed off the exhaust and pumped them full of
hot air, eh." was intended as sarcasm.
So, I really really haven't the slightest idea what your position is,
or even what it could be, apart from some act of God which for
scientific purposes amounts to magic. Could you be clearer please?
g...@risky-biz.com
I've read all your posts in this thread; if you've described how you
think humans and animals survived on the ark, I can't find it. I've
made a consistent practice of courtesy in my relatively infrequent
posts. Perhaps you could answer my sincere request?
I promise not to tell anyone else. :)
Greg Guarino
Ron O
I believe that was his intent. He has nothing else to add to the
discussion. If he did, he would do more than snipe from the
sidelines. He would have some real arguments. It is sad that he gave
up on the claptrap years ago, and decided that snipping was the only
thing that he could do.
Ron Okimoto
Glenn
>
> and the text of that post was retained in my question, and remains
> quoted in this post above. �Unfortunately the only somewhat
> informative phrase in that post was (as far as I could tell): "Here
> the reasons are based on interpretation, not science." which only
> tells me that something (presumably some part of scripture) is not
> being interpreted correctly - which could mean (I suppose) that there
> wasn't a real boat or real flood or something like that.
I suppose you could assume that a possibility, but only is you
overlook the significance of the first word "here" in response and in
context to the statement replied to, as well as overlooking the
specific interpretation that was the subject.
"Some part of scripture" and "real boat or real flood", as well as
"haven't the slightest idea" tells me you are either remarkably stupid
yet at the same time able to communicate well - which seems unlikely,
or you're a troll.
>
> I assume the phrase: "Closed off the exhaust and pumped them full of
> hot air, eh." was intended as sarcasm.
>
> So, I really really haven't the slightest idea what your position is,
> or even what it could be, apart from some act of God which for
> scientific purposes amounts to magic. �Could you be clearer please?
That you are unable to come up with any idea other than "magic"
informs me that rephrasing would not help. I believe what I said was
pretty clear. But I have little doubt that you are sincerely in the
dark about the specific position I have offered here, almost certainly
your query of my "position" includes more than what I have offered
here. To satisfy you the subject would have to be completely changed;
"How easily those who refuse to believe in the Sacred Scriptures
find"..."reasons to do so."
Friar Broccoli
In the above you say:
First: you are either remarkably stupid ... or you're a troll
Second: that [since I can imagine nothing but magic] rephrasing would
not help
Third: you [meaning me] are sincerely in the dark about the specific
position
Forth: To satisfy you the subject would have to be completely changed
The above elements seem to me to be somewhat mutually contradictory,
while providing me with no hints (except that fresh water was not
provided and gas and wastes not removed by magic [or other Divine
acts?]), so in the hope of receiving the answer you appear to be
implying you will provide, I have changed the thread subject as you
requested. (Note that the DIG cuts off subject titles from G.G.
posters at about 70 characters, but I did my best.)
Will you tell me how you think the air and solid waste and water
problems were solved on the Ark now?
Glenn
You can change the thread subject but not the subject to which I
replied. But why should I play your game? I could easily diffuse it,
but you have demonstrated a total disregard of everything I have said
so far, didn't even acknowledge that I had said anything other than
how problems were solved, even though I didn't even come close to
addressing that. And you have even gone to the extreme of
misrepresenting what I said apparently in order to make it look
contradictory; for what purpose is unclear unless just an intro to
implying that there should have been "hints".
Friar Broccoli
> On Dec 31, 5:12�pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snipping: hoping for a new start]
> > Will you tell me how you think the air and solid waste and water
> > problems were solved on the Ark now?
>
> You can change the thread subject but not the subject to which I
> replied. But why should I play your game? I could easily diffuse it,
> but you have demonstrated a total disregard of everything I have said
> so far, didn't even acknowledge that I had said anything other than
> how problems were solved, even though I didn't even come close to
> addressing that. And you have even gone to the extreme of
> misrepresenting what I said apparently in order to make it look
> contradictory; for what purpose is unclear unless just an intro to
> implying that there should have been "hints".
Glenn, I really wasn't trying to disregard or misrepresent what you
said. I was trying to summarize those of your comments that I
understood (some seemed to make no point at all that I could see) in
order to demonstrate that I had read your preceding comments (since
your first accusation was that I had not read the answer in your first
post).
All I am trying to do is get a clear answer to the question:
How do you think the air and solid waste and potable water problems
were solved on the Ark?
Is there any chance of my receiving an answer from you?
Glenn
About the same chance you will actually respond to what I said in the
first post, it appears.
If you are in doubt, look up the meaning of "interpretation", then try
real hard to guess what it referred to. Then consider what "what" is
in context, to what I replied to, what had been claimed in the thread,
and the title of the thread itself.
Glenn
description of how I think humans and animals survived on the ark.
Perhaps you'd like to explain why I haven't found a description of why
you think it would have been impossible without mechanical ventilation
and reverse osmosis.
Glenn
> On Dec 31, 7:39�pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 31, 5:12�pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snipping: hoping for a new start]
>
> > > Will you tell me how you think the air and solid waste and water
> > > problems were solved on the Ark now?
>
> > You can change the thread subject but not the subject to which I
> > replied. But why should I play your game? I could easily diffuse it,
> > but you have demonstrated a total disregard of everything I have said
> > so far, didn't even acknowledge that I had said anything other than
> > how problems were solved, even though I didn't even come close to
> > addressing that. And you have even gone to the extreme of
> > misrepresenting what I said apparently in order to make it look
> > contradictory; for what purpose is unclear unless just an intro to
> > implying that there should have been "hints".
>
> Glenn, I really wasn't trying to disregard or misrepresent what you
> said. �I was trying to summarize those of your comments that I
> understood (some seemed to make no point at all that I could see) in
> order to demonstrate that I had read your preceding comments (since
> your first accusation was that I had not read the answer in your first
> post).
>
said in the first post, not that you had not read it. I don't recall
reading any of your posts in the past, do you make a habit of serving
word salads?
Friar Broccoli
.
> About the same chance you will actually respond to what I said in the
> first post, it appears.
> If you are in doubt, look up the meaning of "interpretation", then try
> real hard to guess what it referred to. Then consider what "what" is
> in context, to what I replied to, what had been claimed in the thread,
> and the title of the thread itself.
Glenn, why should I have to guess what you believe?
Why cannot you just tell me what you believe?
In case my own position is not perfectly clear, I believe (based on
the little knowledge I now have of modern vessels for carrying
livestock) that Noah and family could not have designed and
constructed a vessel that could have successfully carried samples of
all the world's species for even a month, without all of them (apart
from a few reptiles and insects) dieing from asphyxiation or
dehydration, because that would have required modern technology
including means for adequate ventilation, fresh water supplies and
cleaning methods.
How does or could the meaning of the word "interpretation" change
these physical limitations?
g...@risky-biz.com
Because Broccoli asked and you mentioned referring him to your first
post. And then I asked you again myself. You can choose whether or not
to give an answer, and I haven't got the interest or the temperament
to go stepwise tit-for-tat down the newsgroup display after you. But
at this point it sure looks like you don't have one.
> Perhaps you'd like to explain why I haven't found a description of why
> you think it would have been impossible without mechanical ventilation
> and reverse osmosis.
That wasn't my contention. The ark story is preposterous on so many
levels that even an unlimited supply of air and water wouldn't save
it. In fact, it is much more preposterous in an everyday common-sense
way than the separate creation of species. The latter requires some
detailed biological observation to counter. The ark story falls apart
on the slightest examination. That makes me curious to hear how you,
or anyone, thinks it could have worked.
Greg Guarino
Mike Painter
<snip>
>
> I suppose you could assume that a possibility, but only is you
> overlook the significance of the first word "here" in response and in
> context to the statement replied to, as well as overlooking the
> specific interpretation that was the subject.
> "Some part of scripture" and "real boat or real flood", as well as
> "haven't the slightest idea" tells me you are either remarkably stupid
> yet at the same time able to communicate well - which seems unlikely,
> or you're a troll.
> That you are unable to come up with any idea other than "magic"
> informs me that rephrasing would not help. I believe what I said was
> pretty clear. But I have little doubt that you are sincerely in the
> dark about the specific position I have offered here, almost certainly
> your query of my "position" includes more than what I have offered
> here. To satisfy you the subject would have to be completely changed;
> "How easily those who refuse to believe in the Sacred Scriptures
> find"..."reasons to do so."
The above has about the same content as the
"Yuh huh, so, nuh uh."
you posted before.