Do cretinists admit speciation or NOT? I cant figure it out.
Generic454381810
in Genesis goes further and says that creationism DEMANDS speciation to account
for post-flood biodiversity. They even say that recent evidence of rapid
speciation in NW salmon is GOOD for creationism. Yet is seems that many rank
and file creationists will not admit speciation. Now, I understand that their
combined intellect couldnt process a 3 line txt file but shouldnt there be some
kind of consistancy on this?
Have creationists recently redefined microevolution to include speciation or
have they always considered speciation to be microevolution? There seems to be
some disconnect between the cretin leadership and the followers.
Okimoto, Ronald
Generic454381810 wrote:
20 years ago creationists flatly denied that speciation was possible (look up
Morris' Scientific Creationism), but most of them now acknowledge that speciation
does and can occur. Some of their Ark stories depend on rapid speciation of the
few thousand "kinds" that could fit on the Ark into the millions of species that
we observe today.
We still see creationist posters to this newgroup that deny that speciation is
possible. This seems to be due to a major problem with creationist literature.
Creationist can't seem to admit a mistake and would rather keep perpetuating the
misconception rather than say that they were wrong. This seems to work very well
for them, and they have had no reason to stop the practice. It seems strange to
me that it is OK for them to lie to the true believers when they no longer use the
same arguments in public debate, because they know that they are lies. All the
arguments are bogus anyway, so I guess it is not worth their time to fix certain
arguments and not others.
Ron Okimoto
Tom
"Okimoto, stated..."
>
>
>
>Generic454381810 wrote:
>
>>I noticed Ken Ham admitted speciation in that interview on english tv. Answers
>>in Genesis goes further and says that creationism DEMANDS speciation to account
>> for post-flood biodiversity. They even say that recent evidence of rapid
>> speciation in NW salmon is GOOD for creationism. Yet is seems that many rank
>> and file creationists will not admit speciation. Now, I understand that their
>>combined intellect couldnt process a 3 line txt file but shouldnt there be some
>> kind of consistancy on this?
>>
>> Have creationists recently redefined microevolution to include speciation or
>>have they always considered speciation to be microevolution? There seems to be
>> some disconnect between the cretin leadership and the followers.
>
>20 years ago creationists flatly denied that speciation was possible (look up
>Morris' Scientific Creationism), but most of them now acknowledge that
>speciation
>does and can occur. Some of their Ark stories depend on rapid speciation of the
>few thousand "kinds" that could fit on the Ark into the millions of species that
>we observe today.
What many "creationists" say is that speciation is possible, but
there is no way that a new "kind" can appear without a god doing it.
Some like to use the fancy term "baramin". (By the way, it is
amusing that the Hebrew "bara min", if read literally, is a statement
changing the opening of Genesis, "bara elohim", "God created", so that
God is no longer the creator; "min", "a kind", is the creator. The
Hebrew expression "min baru" corresponds to English "created kind".)
As a number of people have pointed out, "kind" turns out to be
something like "whatever I can feel comfortable with denying that
evolution can cross". The demands of comfort include, most
importantly, that no yucky living things are in "human-kind" (yucky,
that is, in a physical sense, it does not exclude morally yucky
types like Torquemada, but it does exclude harmless animals like
Binti Jua) ... and, secondarily, that there is no evidence for
crossing, such that I can make up standards that it does not meet
(I must try to maintain that I am being scientific).
Tom
Buckfan328
evolutionists admit, natural selection only deletes genes or increses the
frequency of gene appearance in the gene pool. This is, in fact, not evolution
at all but simply the redistribution of already existing genes. The problem
with evolution comes when genes need to be added to the gene pool. Mutation is
the only process which can do this. The rate of the occurance of mutation, the
small percentege of mutations that are beneficial, and the small numbers of
genes that actually remain long enough to become multiplied through natural
selection cause the actual rate of genes entering the gene pool to be far too
low to allow for the huge numbers different species that have "evolved", even
in 3 1/2 billion years. Therefore, what most creationists(the ones that study
the scientific aspects of creation)believe is that natural selection acted
after the flood to form different species(which is simply a man-defined term)
by concentrating genes from the already existing gene pool in distinct
populations. An example of this would be the possiblity of Indian, and African
elephants as well as woolly mammoths developing from on type of elephant that
came after the flood. This does not demonstrate evolution at all, as the gene
pool is actually becoming smaller, not larger as evolution requires.
Buckfan328
only approximately 36.5% of the Ark, this number included a 'fudge' for
thousands of species now extinct. Secondly, has not the evolutionary model
changed over time?
Trey
> only approximately 36.5% of the Ark, this number included a 'fudge' for
> thousands of species now extinct.
Where in the hell did you get that figure? Are you saying that 2 of every
unclean and 7 of every clean species of animal (Gen. 7:2) would fit in a
boat that's only about 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high? We're
talking millions upon millions of animals here. Insects, birds, mammals,
reptiles, amphibians, and on and on. PLUS, what about what they're going to
be eating? That's a lot of food. PLUS, what about fish? The salinity
levels of water would kill many species of fish so they would have to be
preserved, too. PLUS, what about the plants? If all of the Earth is going
to be submerged underwater for 150 days (Gen. 7:24), how could anything have
survived? Every type of plant would also have to be put on board the ark.
It is impossible for a boat with these specifications to pull this off. I
don't care where you got that 36.5% figure.
Trey
There's no consistency in their Bible or in their churches, so why should
their train of thought be any different?
Adam Marczyk
news:9b2rng$skr$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> > all the species that are alive today would fill
> > only approximately 36.5% of the Ark, this number included a 'fudge' for
> > thousands of species now extinct.
>
> Where in the hell did you get that figure? Are you saying that 2 of every
> unclean and 7 of every clean species of animal (Gen. 7:2) would fit in a
> boat that's only about 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high?
We're
> talking millions upon millions of animals here. Insects, birds, mammals,
> reptiles, amphibians, and on and on. PLUS, what about what they're going
to
> be eating? That's a lot of food. PLUS, what about fish? The salinity
> levels of water would kill many species of fish so they would have to be
> preserved, too.
And don't forget those deep-sea fish that need extreme pressure to survive.
The Ark must've had some really good pressurized tanks made out of gopher
wood or whatever. We won't even go into the physical impossibilities of
seven people caring for millions of animals per day, or the incredible
breeder for disease the Ark must've been, what with species of every kind
crammed up in close proximity and less than sanitary conditions. (What about
those species-specific diseases that would've died out if there hadn't been
anyone to host them? Who on the Ark had gonorrhea? AIDS?)
> PLUS, what about the plants? If all of the Earth is going
> to be submerged underwater for 150 days (Gen. 7:24), how could anything
have
> survived? Every type of plant would also have to be put on board the ark.
> It is impossible for a boat with these specifications to pull this off. I
> don't care where you got that 36.5% figure.
And also keep in mind the structural impossibilities of building a
450-foot-long wooden boat. The longest ones ever built in recorded history
were only about 300 feet, and leaked so badly they needed to be reinforced
with iron straps. A 450-foot wooden boat without a metal framework would
have no chance -- it would break up and sink as soon as it hit the water.
--
When I am dreaming,
I don't know if I'm truly asleep, or if I'm awake.
When I get up,
I don't know if I'm truly awake, or if I'm still dreaming...
--Forest for the Trees, "Dream"
To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"
Adam Marczyk
news:20010411191824...@ng-bd1.aol.com...
> Many creationists will admit that in fact, natural selection does work,
but as
> evolutionists admit, natural selection only deletes genes or increses the
> frequency of gene appearance in the gene pool. This is, in fact, not
evolution
> at all but simply the redistribution of already existing genes.
Natural selection was never claimed to produce new genes. Mutations can and
do perform that function; beneficial mutations have been observed many times
in nature, in species from bacteria to humans.
> The problem
> with evolution comes when genes need to be added to the gene pool.
Mutation is
> the only process which can do this. The rate of the occurance of
mutation, the
> small percentege of mutations that are beneficial, and the small numbers
of
> genes that actually remain long enough to become multiplied through
natural
> selection cause the actual rate of genes entering the gene pool to be far
too
> low to allow for the huge numbers different species that have "evolved",
even
> in 3 1/2 billion years.
Right. Let's see some actual numbers and then I'll take that argument
seriously.
[snip]
mel turner
[Buckfan328] wrote...
>
>Many creationists will admit that in fact, natural selection does work, but as
>evolutionists admit, natural selection only deletes genes or increses the
>frequency of gene appearance in the gene pool.
Yes, selection and drift don't create the new alleles. It's
mutation that does that.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html
>This is, in fact, not evolution
>at all
Yes, it is, by definition.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~ecolevol/fulldoc.html#fact
>but simply the redistribution of already existing genes.
But selection is continually working with new "already
existing" alleles that are continually arising by new
mutations. Yes, they have to exist before selection can
'use' them, but new ones are always coming to exist.
>The problem
>with evolution comes when genes need to be added to the gene pool.
You probably mean "alleles" [alternative versions of a single
gene locus]
Mutation is
>the only process which can do this.
And it does do that.
>The rate of the occurance of mutation, the
>small percentege of mutations that are beneficial,
Any may be enough.
>and the small numbers of
>genes that actually remain long enough to become multiplied through natural
>selection cause the actual rate of genes entering the gene pool to be far too
>low to allow for the huge numbers different species that have "evolved", even
>in 3 1/2 billion years.
Incorrect. Let's see your calculations of the rates required
vs. references on the actually-observed rates.
Or, nevermind, since population geneticists would disagree with
you that this 'problem' is real. Mutations are always happening and
always feeding new variation into the population's gene pool
for selection, drift, etc to work with.
>Therefore, what most creationists(the ones that study
>the scientific aspects of creation)
Are there really any scientific aspects of creation? Most of
"creationism" seems to merely consist of attacks on
evolutionary science, not any positive evidence for
creation.
>believe is that natural selection acted
>after the flood to form different species(which is simply a man-defined term)
Species is indeed a human-defined term [as are all terms].
The things it refers to [reproductively isolated populations
of organisms] do exist.
>by concentrating genes from the already existing gene pool
What already-existing gene pool? Doesn't the Ark story reduce
all gene pools to one or seven pairs of individuals? How many
different alleles at each locus would such drastic population
bottlenecks allow? Some Ark apologists seem to think there are
ways to compress all the future genetic "information" of large
numbers of descendant species into just one or a few common-
ancestral pairs on the ark, but genes don't work that way...
>in distinct
>populations. An example of this would be the possiblity of Indian, and
African
>elephants as well as woolly mammoths developing from on type of elephant that
>came after the flood.
So, the different elephants and mammoths are a single "kind"?
How do we tell if this is the case? What about their fossil
relatives whose remains are down in what many creationists will
claim are Flood-deposited strata? If they only evolved after the
Flood, why are they and their various close relatives known as
fossils? [Both Loxodonta and Elephas have separate fossil records,
as do various mammoths and mastodons, etc.]
If these different genera of the family Elephantidae are really
all one "kind", then shouldn't humans, chmpanzees, gorillas and
orangutans similarly have evolved since the flood from a single
type of ancestor? The approximate degree of differences [different
genera of the family Hominidae] are arguably similar [though chimps
and humans are likely much closer than are Indian and African
elephants].
>This does not demonstrate evolution at all, as the gene
>pool is actually becoming smaller, not larger as evolution requires.
Evolution is any change in the gene pool over generations. Mutations
add new variation, selection [and drift] filter it...
cheers
* semyaza *
> Secondly, has not the evolutionary model
>changed over time?
Uh...yeah. It's called "progress". You may have heard of it.
* semyaza *
-- Atheist #1915 : Just another fallen angel
http://www.primenet.com/~heuvelc
Buckfan328
appx. 101,000 sq.ft. of deck space. Also many of the animals on the ark would
have been teenagers, able to support themselves, but also not full grown. The
average size of the animals on the ark is appx. the size of a sheep. Some
railroad cars can hold up to 220 sheep. The ark would have had the capacity
equal to 500-700 of these rail cars. Insects would not take up very much space
because of their size. As for food, it is possible that the conditions on the
ark put the animals in a state of hibernation, or (though this would not be
acceptable to you) that it was simply an act of God. In regards to marine
life, indeed, much of it went extinct(trilobytes for example). For fresh water
fish, the massive runoff from rainfall on the continent would create a buffer
of fresh water around the continent where the fish could survive (for more
information on this I would refer you to this website
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-222.htm)
Most of the plants were buried and formed todays coal. However many plants
produce spores that could live for 150 days. Most plant seeds could have
survived the flood.
Buckfan328
the Bible. Furthermore, is there not inconsistency in evolutionary circles as
well? talkorigins.org itself complains of this.
Tom H.
"Thats speciation not evolution"
I must say I found that a rather odd thing to say.............
Adam Marczyk
> First, the ark had three decks. With the dimensions given, it would
contain
> appx. 101,000 sq.ft. of deck space. Also many of the animals on the ark
would
> have been teenagers, able to support themselves, but also not full grown.
The
> average size of the animals on the ark is appx. the size of a sheep. Some
> railroad cars can hold up to 220 sheep. The ark would have had the
capacity
> equal to 500-700 of these rail cars.
"Approximately the size of a sheep"? I don't buy it. What about the
dinosaurs? Were they not on the Ark? If not, why not?
> Insects would not take up very much space
> because of their size. As for food, it is possible that the conditions on
the
> ark put the animals in a state of hibernation, or (though this would not
be
> acceptable to you) that it was simply an act of God.
Not acceptable, no, at least if you want to claim this is in any way
scientific.
> In regards to marine
> life, indeed, much of it went extinct(trilobytes for example). For fresh
water
> fish, the massive runoff from rainfall on the continent would create a
buffer
> of fresh water around the continent where the fish could survive (for more
> information on this I would refer you to this website
> http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-222.htm)
A "buffer?" I find this extremely implausible to say the least. Currents and
waves powerful enough to drastically reshape the entire surface of the earth
can't penetrate a zone of fresh water and intermingle it with salt?
> Most of the plants were buried and formed todays coal. However many
plants
> produce spores that could live for 150 days. Most plant seeds could have
> survived the flood.
Not if they were buried under miles of sediment, they couldn't.
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-review.html and
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html point out some of the logical
impossibilities the Flood model entails.
Trey
contain
> appx. 101,000 sq.ft. of deck space. Also many of the animals on the ark
would
> have been teenagers, able to support themselves, but also not full grown.
The
> average size of the animals on the ark is appx. the size of a sheep. Some
> railroad cars can hold up to 220 sheep. The ark would have had the
capacity
> equal to 500-700 of these rail cars. Insects would not take up very much
space
> because of their size.
Apparently, you can't fathom the sheer number of animals we're talking about
here. If there were 2 of every unclean and 7 of the clean animals, take
those numbers, divide up the animals according to their "kosher" status, and
multiply. Millions upon millions of animals. They would not fit into
101,000 sq. ft. of space. Whether full grown or juvenile, hell, even fetus
or eggs, they would not fit.
>As for food, it is possible that the conditions on the
> ark put the animals in a state of hibernation, or (though this would not
be
> acceptable to you) that it was simply an act of God.
You're right. It's not acceptable. Anytime a creationist has tried to
wiggle out of an argument (I'm not saying you are) they've used the "God
intervened" clause. It's a cop-out.
> In regards to marine
> life, indeed, much of it went extinct(trilobytes for example). For fresh
water
> fish, the massive runoff from rainfall on the continent would create a
buffer
> of fresh water around the continent where the fish could survive (for more
> information on this I would refer you to this website
> http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-222.htm)
I thought God didn't want any animals to go extinct? As for the fresh water
fish, that article is a pipe dream. We're talking about enough water to
cover all of the Earth, including Mt. Everest. That would make the water
over 8,800 meters deep on top of sea level. At that depth, land would
provide very little in the form of a barrier. Water flows. It doesn't sit
still.
> Most of the plants were buried and formed todays coal. However many
plants
> produce spores that could live for 150 days. Most plant seeds could have
> survived the flood.
Not being a botanist, I don't know the shelf life of different seeds. But,
I do know it would be impossible for the entire growth process to occur in
the couple of weeks between the recession of the waters and the dove
bringing an olive branch back to Noah. Couldn't happen.
Adam Marczyk
> Well, I would like to see any instance you could produce of inconsistancy
in
> the Bible.
Sure. Here's a good one: Has anyone ever seen God?
(1 John 4:12) "No man hath seen God at any time."
(Exodus 33:11) "And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man
speaketh unto his friend."
> Furthermore, is there not inconsistency in evolutionary circles as
> well? talkorigins.org itself complains of this.
Inconsistency, no. Debate over relative importance of various mechanisms
such as genetic drift vs. natural selection, yes. But no one on either side
of these debates doubts the fact of evolution itself.
Trey
For talk.origins, there are differences of opinions, but when it comes to
the holy word of God, don't you think it should be consistent?
Here are a couple of my favorites:
"Should Christians continue to follow the laws of the Old Testament?"
Yes:
Lev.23:14,21,31
"It shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations."
Mt.5:18-19
"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the
law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these
least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in
the kingdom of heaven."
Lk.16:17
"It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to
fail."
No:
Lk.16:16
"The law and the prophets were until John [the Baptist]: since that time the
kingdom of heaven is preached."
Rom.7:4, 6
"Ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ .... We are
delivered from the law, that being dead."
Eph.2:15
"Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments
contained in ordinances."
Here's another one: "Is Salvation by Faith or Works?"
Faith alone:
Mk.16:16
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not
shall be damned."
Jn.3:18, 36
"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is
condemned already .... He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life:
and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God
abideth on him."
Acts 16:30-31
"Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus
Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house."
Works alone:
Ps.62:12
"For you render to each one according to his works."
Jer.17:10
"I the Lord ... give every man according to his ways, and according to the
fruit of his doings."
Mt.12:37
"For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be
condemned."
Mt.16:27
"For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels,
and then He will reward each according to his works."
There are many more examples of each.
I choose these two examples because these are fundamental things: "faith
or works?" and "obey the OT law or don't?" For centuries, believers have
disagreed over the answers to these questions and more. The Bible is
ambiguous and only fosters discord.
If you want flat out errors, contradictions and mistakes, I direct you to
these links:
Competing Genealogies of Jesus:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/gen%20_J%20_Mt_%20Lk.html
Contradictory Creation accounts:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html
Who went to the Jesus' tomb?:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/women_sepulchre.html
There's plenty more where that came from.
Gyudon Z
>First, the ark had three decks. With the dimensions given, it would contain
>appx. 101,000 sq.ft. of deck space.
And the ark can support only 50,000 tonnes of matter, whereas provisioning, the
mass of the ship itself, animals, etc. would be far larger.
>Also many of the animals on the ark would
>have been teenagers
Where is that mentioned in the bible?
"Between true science and erroneous doctrines, ignorance is in the middle."
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan
Gyudon Z
From Buckfan:
>Also many of the animals on the ark would
>have been teenagers, able to support themselves, but also not full grown.
Juvenile animals also eat more than adults. One runs into the provisioning
problem.
>The
>average size of the animals on the ark is appx. the size of a sheep.
In what way was this calculated?
>Some
>railroad cars can hold up to 220 sheep.
So?
>The ark would have had the capacity
>equal to 500-700 of these rail cars.
In volume, or in area? You have to get the volume to fit too.
>Insects would not take up very much space
>because of their size.
But there are over a million species of them, and they tend to move around a
lot. And there is the little matter of feeding them...
>As for food, it is possible that the conditions on the
>ark put the animals in a state of hibernation,
Not all animals hibernate.
I think the conditions on the ark would kill them all, what with the cramping
and the impossibility of eight people taking care of them all.
That, and the ark would be underwater with the load it had to carry.
>or (though this would not be
>acceptable to you) that it was simply an act of God.
It would not be acceptable because there is no evidence to support it.
>In regards to marine
>life, indeed, much of it went extinct(trilobytes for example).
And why did got not choose to save the humble trilobite?
And where in the bible does it say "Then shalt thou taketh into the ark two of
every living thing, exceptingeth the trilobites because they are an abomination
unto mine eyes"?
>For fresh
>water
>fish, the massive runoff from rainfall on the continent would create a buffer
>of fresh water around the continent where the fish could survive
Not forever; it is impossible to forever halt diffusion. And anyway, the runoff
would push the fish into salt water.
(for more
>information on this I would refer you to this website
>http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-222.htm)
>Most of the plants were buried and formed todays coal.
You do know that the carbon in the remaining coal deposits is about fifty times
the carbon in the current biomass of earth, don't you? Factor in oil and you
get hundreds of times greater.
>However many plants
>produce spores that could live for 150 days. Most plant seeds could have
>survived the flood.
But can they grow in the layers of unconsolidated briny silt left after the
flood, and would they last more than one generation with no pollinators?
Gyudon Z
>Well, I would like to see any instance you could produce of inconsistancy in
>the Bible.
How about dozens?
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html
GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and
darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the
fourth day.
GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.
GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.
GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.
GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.
GE 1:28 God encourages reproduction.
LE 12:1-8 God requires purification rites following childbirth which, in
effect, makes childbirth a sin. (Note: The period for purification following
the birth of a daughter is twice that for a son.)
GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.
(Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of
omniscience.)
GE 2:4, 4:26, 12:8, 22:14-16, 26:25 God was already known as "the Lord" (Jahveh
or Jehovah) much earlier than the time of Moses.
EX 6:2-3 God was first known as "the Lord" (Jahveh or Jehovah) at the time of
the Egyptian Bondage, during the life of Moses.
GE 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.
GE 5:5 Adam lived 930 years.
GE 2:15-17, 3:4-6 It is wrong to want to be able to tell good from evil.
HE 5:13-14 It is immature to be unable to tell good from evil.
GE 4:4-5 God prefers Abel's offering and has no regard for Cain's.
2CH 19:7, AC 10:34, RO 2:11 God shows no partiality. He treats all alike.
GE 4:9 God asks Cain where his brother Able is.
PR 15:3, JE 16:17, 23:24-25, HE 4:13 God is everywhere. He sees everything.
Nothing is hidden from his view.
GE 4:15, DT 32:4, IS 34:8 God is a vengeful god.
EX 15:3, IS 42:13, HE 12:29 God is a warrior. God is a consuming fire.
EX 20:5, 34:14, DT 4:24, 5:9, 6:15, 29:20, 32:21 God is a jealous god.
LE 26:7-8, NU 31:17-18, DT 20:16-17, JS 10:40, JG 14:19, EZ 9:5-7 The Spirit of
God is (sometimes) murder and killing.
NU 25:3-4, DT 6:15, 9:7-8, 29:20, 32:21, PS 7:11, 78:49, JE 4:8, 17:4,
32:30-31, ZP 2:2 God is angry. His anger is sometimes fierce.
2SA 22:7-8 (KJV) "I called to the Lord; ... he heard my voice; ... The earth
trembled and quaked, ... because he was angry. Smoke came from his nostrils.
Consuming fire came from his mouth, burning coals blazed out of it."
EZ 6:12, NA 1:2, 6 God is jealous and furious. He reserves wrath for, and takes
revenge on, his enemies. "... who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? His
fury is poured out like fire, and rocks are thrown down by him."
2CO 13:11, 14, 1JN 4:8, 16 God is love.
GA 5:22-23 The fruit of the Spirit of God is love, joy, peace, patience,
kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
GE 4:16 Cain went away (or out) from the presence of the Lord.
JE 23:23-24 A man cannot hide from God. God fills heaven and earth.
GE 6:4 There were Nephilim (giants) before the Flood.
GE 7:21 All creatures other than Noah and his clan were annihilated by the
Flood.
NU 13:33 There were Nephilim after the Flood.
GE 6:6. EX 32:14, NU 14:20, 1SA 15:35, 2SA 24:16 God does change his mind.
NU 23:19-20, IS 15:29, JA 1:17 God does not change his mind.
GE 6:19-22, 7:8-9, 7:14-16 Two of each kind are to be taken, and are taken,
aboard Noah's Ark.
GE 7:2-5 Seven pairs of some kinds are to be taken (and are taken) aboard the
Ark.
GE 7:1 Noah was righteous.
JB 1:1,8, JB 2:3 Job was righteous.
LK 1:6 Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous.
JA 5:16 Some men are righteous, (which makes their prayers effective).
1JN 3:6-9 Christians become righteous (or else they are not really Christians).
RO 3:10, 3:23, 1JN 1:8-10 No one was or is righteous.
GE 7:7 Noah and his clan enter the Ark.
GE 7:13 They enter the Ark (again?).
GE 11:7-9 God sows discord.
PR 6:16-19 God hates anyone who sows discord.
GE 11:9 At Babel, the Lord confused the language of the whole world.
1CO 14:33 Paul says that God is not the author of confusion.
GE 11:12 Arpachshad [Arphaxad] was the father of Shelah.
LK 3:35-36 Cainan was the father of Shelah. Arpachshad was the grandfather of
Shelah.
GE 11:26 Terah was 70 years old when his son Abram was born.
GE 11:32 Terah was 205 years old when he died (making Abram 135 at the time).
GE 12:4, AC 7:4 Abram was 75 when he left Haran. This was after Terah died.
Thus, Terah could have been no more than 145 when he died; or Abram was only 75
years old after he had lived 135 years.
GE 12:7, 17:1, 18:1, 26:2, 32:30, EX 3:16, 6:2-3, 24:9-11, 33:11, NU 12:7-8,
14:14, JB 42:5, AM 7:7-8, 9:1 God is seen.
EX 33:20, JN 1:18, 1JN 4:12 God is not seen. No one can see God's face and
live. No one has ever seen him.
GE 10:5, 20, 31 There were many languages before the Tower of Babel.
GE 11:1 There was only one language before the Tower of Babel.
GE 15:9, EX 20:24, 29:10-42, LE 1:1-7, 38, NU 28:1-29, 40 God details
sacrificial offerings.
JE 7:21-22 God says he did no such thing.
GE 16:15, 21:1-3, GA 4:22 Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac.
HE 11:17 Abraham had only one son.
GE 17:1, 35:11, 1CH 29:11-12, LK 1:37 God is omnipotent. Nothing is impossible
with (or for) God.
JG 1:19 Although God was with Judah, together they could not defeat the
plainsmen because the latter had iron chariots.
GE 17:7, 10-11 The covenant of circumcision is to be everlasting.
GA 6:15 It is of no consequence.
GE 17:8 God promises Abraham the land of Canaan as an "everlasting possession."
GE 25:8, AC 7:2-5, HE 11:13 Abraham died with the promise unfulfilled.
GE 17:15-16, 20:11-12, 22:17 Abraham and his half sister, Sarai, are married
and receive God's blessings.
LE 20:17, DT 27:20-23 Incest is wrong.
GE 18:20-21 God decides to "go down" to see what is going on.
PR 15:3, JE 16:17, 23:24-25, HE 4:13 God is everywhere. He sees everything.
Nothing is hidden from his view.
GE 19:30-38 While he is drunk, Lot's two daughters "lie with him," become
pregnant, and give birth to his offspring.
2PE 2:7 Lot was "just" and "righteous."
GE 22:1-12, DT 8:2 God tempts (tests) Abraham and Moses.
JG 2:22 God himself says that he does test (tempt).
1CO 10:13 Paul says that God controls the extent of our temptations.
JA 1:13 God tests (tempts) no one.
GE 27:28 "May God give you ... an abundance of grain and new wine."
DT 7:13 If they follow his commandments, God will bless the fruit of their
wine.
PS 104:5 God gives us wine to gladden the heart.
JE 13:12 "... every bottle shall be filled with wine."
JN 2:1-11 According to the author of John, Jesus' first miracle was turning
water to wine.
RO 14:21 It is good to refrain from drinking wine.
GE 35:10 God says Jacob is to be called Jacob no longer; henceforth his name is
Israel.
GE 46:2 At a later time, God himself uses the name Jacob.
GE 36:11 The sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, Gatam, and Kenaz.
GE 36:15-16 Teman, Omar, Zepho, Kenaz.
1CH 1:35-36 Teman, Omar, Zephi, Gatam, Kenaz, Timna, and Amalek.
GE 49:2-28 The fathers of the twelve tribes of Israel are: Reuben, Simeon,
Levi, Judah, Zebulun, Issachar, Dan, Gad, Asher, Naphtali, Joseph, and
Benjamin.
RE 7:4-8 (Leaves out the tribe of Dan, but adds Manasseh.)
GE 50:13 Jacob was buried in a cave at Machpelah bought from Ephron the
Hittite.
AC 7:15-16 He was buried in the sepulchre at Shechem, bought from the sons of
Hamor.
EX 3:1 Jethro was the father-in-law of Moses.
NU 10:29, JG 4:11 (KJV) Hobab was the father-in-law of Moses.
EX 3:20-22, DT 20:13-17 God instructs the Israelites to despoil the Egyptians,
to plunder their enemies.
EX 20:15, 17, LE 19:13 God prohibits stealing, defrauding, or robbing a
neighbor.
EX 4:11 God decides who will be dumb, deaf, blind, etc.
2CO 13:11, 14, 1JN 4:8, 16 God is a god of love.
EX 9:3-6 God destroys all the cattle (including horses) belonging to the
Egyptians.
EX 9:9-11 The people and the cattle are afflicted with boils.
EX 12:12, 29 All the first-born of the cattle of the Egyptians are destroyed.
EX 14:9 After having all their cattle destroyed, then afflicted with boils, and
then their first-born cattle destroyed, the Egyptians pursue Moses on
horseback.
EX 12:13 The Israelites have to mark their houses with blood in order for God
to see which houses they occupy and "pass over" them.
PR 15:3, JE 16:17, 23:24-25, HE 4:13 God is everywhere. He sees everything.
Nothing is hidden from God.
EX 12:37, NU 1:45-46 The number of men of military age who take part in the
Exodus is given as more than 600,000. Allowing for women, children, and older
men would probably mean that a total of about 2,000,000 Israelites left Egypt.
1KI 20:15 All the Israelites, including children, number only 7000 at a later
time.
EX 15:3, 17:16, NU 25:4, 32:14, IS 42:13 God is a man of war--he is fierce and
angry.
RO 15:33, 2CO 13:11, 14, 1JN 4:8, 16 God is a god of love and peace.
EX 20:1-17 God gave the law directly to Moses (without using an intermediary).
GA 3:19 The law was ordained through angels by a mediator (an intermediary).
EX 20:4 God prohibits the making of any graven images whatsoever.
EX 25:18 God enjoins the making of two graven images.
EX 20:5, 34:7, NU 14:18, DT 5:9, IS 14:21-22 Children are to suffer for their
parent's sins.
DT 24:16, EZ 18:19-20 Children are not to suffer for their parent's sins.
EX 20:8-11, 31:15-17, 35:1-3 No work is to be done on the Sabbath, not even
lighting a fire. The commandment is permanent, and death is required for
infractions.
MK 2:27-28 Jesus says that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the
Sabbath (after his disciples were criticized for breaking the Sabbath).
RO 14:5, CN 2:14-16 Paul says the Sabbath commandment was temporary, and to
decide for yourself regarding its observance.
EX 20:12, DT 5:16, MT 15:4, 19:19, MK 7:10, 10:19, LK 18:20 Honor your father
and your mother is one of the ten commandments. It is reinforced by Jesus.
MT 10:35-37, LK 12:51-53, 14:26 Jesus says that he has come to divide families;
that a man's foes will be those of his own household; that you must hate your
father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, and even your own life to be
a disciple.
MT 23:9 Jesus says to call no man on earth your father.
EX 20:13, DT 5:17, MK 10:19, LK 18:20, RO 13:9, JA 2:11 God prohibits killing.
GE 34:1-35:5 God condones trickery and killing.
EX 32:27, DT 7:2, 13:15, 20:1-18 God orders killing.
2KI 19:35 An angel of the Lord slaughters 185,000 men.
(Note: See Atrocities section for many more examples.)
EX 20:14 God prohibits adultery.
HO 1:2 God instructs Hosea to "take a wife of harlotry."
EX 21:23-25, LE 24:20, DT 19:21 A life for a life, an eye for an eye, etc.
MT 5:38-44, LK 6:27-29 Turn the other cheek. Love your enemies.
EX 23:7 God prohibits the killing of the innocent.
NU 31:17-18, DT 7:2, JS 6:21-27, 7:19-26, 8:22-25, 10:20, 40, 11:8-15, 20,
30-39, JG 11:30-39, 21:10-12, 1SA 15:3 God orders or approves the complete
extermination of groups of people which include innocent women and/or children.
(Note: See Atrocities section for many other examples of the killing of
innocents.)
EX 34:6, DT 7:9-10, TS 1:2 God is faithful and truthful. He does not lie.
NU 14:30 God breaks his promise.
EX 34:6, DT 7:9-10, TS 1:2 God is faithful and truthful. He does not lie.
1KI 22:21-23 God condones a spirit of deception.
EX 34:6, DT 7:9-10, TS 1:2 God is faithful and truthful. He does not lie.
2TH 2:11-12 God deludes people, making them believe what is false, so as to be
able to condemn them. (Note: some versions use the word persuade here. The
context makes clear, however, that deception is involved.)
EX 34:6-7, JS 24:19, 1CH 16:34 God is faithful, holy and good.
IS 45:6-7, LA 3:8, AM 3:6 God is responsible for evil.
EX 34:6-7, HE 9:27 God remembers sin, even when it has been forgiven.
JE 31:34 God does not remember sin when it has been forgiven.
LE 3:17 God himself prohibits forever the eating of blood and fat.
MT 15:11, CN 2:20-22 Jesus and Paul say that such rules don't matter--they are
only human injunctions.
LE 19:18, MT 22:39 Love your neighbor [as much as] yourself.
1CO 10:24 Put your neighbor ahead of yourself.
LE 21:10 The chief priest is not to rend his clothes.
MT 26:65, MK 14:63 He does so during the trial of Jesus.
LE 25:37, PS 15:1, 5 It is wrong to lend money at interest.
MT 25:27, LK 19:23-27 It is wrong to lend money without interest.
NU 11:33 God inflicts sickness.
JB 2:7 Satan inflicts sickness.
NU 15:24-28 Sacrifices can, in at least some case, take away sin.
HE 10:11 They never take away sin.
NU 25:9 24,000 died in the plague.
1CO 10:8 23,000 died in the plague.
NU 30:2 God enjoins the making of vows (oaths).
MT 5:33-37 Jesus forbids doing so, saying that they arise from evil (or the
Devil).
NU 33:38 Aaron died on Mt. Hor.
DT 10:6 Aaron died in Mosera.
NU 33:41-42 After Aaron's death, the Israelites journeyed from Mt. Hor, to
Zalmonah, to Punon, etc.
DT 10:6-7 It was from Mosera, to Gudgodah, to Jotbath.
DT 6:15, 9:7-8, 29:20, 32:21 God is sometimes angry.
MT 5:22 Anger is a sin.
DT 7:9-10 God destroys his enemies.
MT 5:39-44 Do not resist your enemies. Love them.
DT 18:20-22 A false prophet is one whose words do not come true. Death is
required.
EZ 14:9 A prophet who is deceived, is deceived by God himself. Death is still
required.
DT 23:1 A castrate may not enter the assembly of the Lord.
IS 56:4-5 Some castrates will receive special rewards.
DT 23:1 A castrate may not enter the assembly of the Lord.
MT 19:12 Men are encouraged to consider making themselves castrates for the
sake of the Kingdom of God.
DT 24:1-5 A man can divorce his wife simply because she displeases him and both
he and his wife can remarry.
MK 10:2-12 Divorce is wrong, and to remarry is to commit adultery.
DT 24:16, 2KI 14:6, 2CH 25:4, EZ 18:20 Children are not to suffer for their
parent's sins.
RO 5:12, 19, 1CO 15:22 Death is passed to all men by the sin of Adam.
DT 30:11-20 It is possible to keep the law.
RO 3:20-23 It is not possible to keep the law.
JS 11:20 God shows no mercy to some.
LK 6:36, JA 5:11 God is merciful.
JG 4:21 Sisera was sleeping when Jael killed him.
JG 5:25-27 Sisera was standing.
JS 10:38-40 Joshua himself captured Debir.
JG 1:11-15 It was Othniel, who thereby obtained the hand of Caleb's daughter,
Achsah.
1SA 8:2-22 Samuel informs God as to what he has heard from others.
PR 15:3, JE 16:17, 23:24-25, HE 4:13 God is everywhere. He sees and hears
everything.
1SA 9:15-17 The Lord tells Samuel that Saul has been chosen to lead the
Israelites and will save them from the Philistines.
1SA 15:35 The Lord is sorry that he has chosen Saul.
1SA 31:4-7 Saul commits suicide and the Israelites are overrun by the
Philistines.
1SA 15:7-8, 20 The Amalekites are utterly destroyed.
1SA 27:8-9 They are utterly destroyed (again?).
1SA 30:1, 17-18 They raid Ziklag and David smites them (again?).
1SA 16:10-11, 17:12 Jesse had seven sons plus David, or eight total.
1CH 2:13-15 He had seven total.
1SA 16:19-23 Saul knew David well before the latter's encounter with Goliath.
1SA 17:55-58 Saul did not know David at the time of his encounter with Goliath
and had to ask about David's identity.
1SA 17:50 David killed Goliath with a slingshot.
1SA 17:51 David killed Goliath (again?) with a sword.
1SA 17:50 David killed Goliath.
2SA 21:19 Elhanan killed Goliath. (Note: Some translations insert the words
"the brother of" before Elhanan. These are an addition to the earliest
manuscripts in an apparent attempt to rectify this inconsistency.)
1SA 21:1-6 Ahimalech was high priest when David ate the bread.
MK 2:26 Abiathar was high priest at the time.
1SA 28:6 Saul inquired of the Lord, but received no answer.
1CH 10:13-14 Saul died for not inquiring of the Lord.
1SA 31:4-6 Saul killed himself by falling on his sword.
2SA 2:2-10 Saul, at his own request, was slain by an Amalekite.
2SA 21:12 Saul was killed by the Philistines on Gilboa.
1CH 10:13-14 Saul was slain by God.
2SA 6:23 Michal was childless.
2SA 21:8 (KJV) She had five sons.
2SA 24:1 The Lord inspired David to take the census.
1CH 21:1 Satan inspired the census.
2SA 24:9 The census count was: Israel 800,000 and Judah 500,000.
1CH 21:5 The census count was: Israel 1,100,000 and Judah 470,000.
2SA 24:10-17 David sinned in taking the census.
1KI 15:5 David's only sin (ever) was in regard to another matter.
2SA 24:24 David paid 50 shekels of silver for the purchase of a property.
1CH 21:22-25 He paid 600 shekels of gold.
1KI 3:12 God made Solomon the wisest man that ever lived, yet ....
1KI 11:1-13 Solomon loved many foreign women (against God's explicit
prohibition) who turned him to other gods (for which he deserved death).
1KI 3:12, 4:29, 10:23-24, 2CH 9:22-23 God made Solomon the wisest king and the
wisest man that ever lived. There never has been nor will be another like him.
MT 12:42, LK 11:31 Jesus says: "... now one greater than Solomon is here."
1KI 4:26 Solomon had 40,000 horses (or stalls for horses).
2CH 9:25 He had 4,000 horses (or stalls for horses).
1KI 5:16 Solomon had 3,300 supervisors.
2CH 2:2 He had 3,600 supervisors.
1KI 7:15-22 The two pillars were 18 cubits high.
2CH 3:15-17 They were 35 cubits high.
1KI 7:26 Solomon's "molten sea" held 2000 "baths" (1 bath = about 8 gallons).
2CH 4:5 It held 3000 "baths."
1KI 8:12, 2CH 6:1, PS 18:11 God dwells in thick darkness.
1TI 6:16 God dwells in unapproachable light.
1KI 8:13, AC 7:47 Solomon, whom God made the wisest man ever, built his temple
as an abode for God.
AC 7:48-49 God does not dwell in temples built by men.
1KI 9:28 420 talents of gold were brought back from Ophir.
2CH 8:18 450 talents of gold were brought back from Ophir.
1KI 15:14 Asa did not remove the high places.
2CH 14:2-3 He did remove them.
1KI 16:6-8 Baasha died in the 26th year of King Asa's reign.
2CH 16:1 Baasha built a city in the 36th year of King Asa's reign.
1KI 16:23 Omri became king in the thirty-first year of Asa's reign and he
reigned for a total of twelve years.
1KI 16:28-29 Omri died, and his son Ahab became king in the thirty- eighth year
of Asa's reign. (Note: Thirty-one through thirty-eight equals a reign of seven
or eight years.)
1KI 22:23, 2CH 18:22, 2TH 2:11 God himself causes a lying spirit.
PR 12:22 God abhors lying lips and delights in honesty.
1KI 22:42-43 Jehoshaphat did not remove the high places.
2CH 17:5-6 He did remove them.
2KI 2:11 Elijah went up to heaven.
JN 3:13 Only the Son of Man (Jesus) has ever ascended to heaven.
2CO 12:2-4 An unnamed man, known to Paul, went up to heaven and came back.
HE 11:5 Enoch was translated to heaven.
2KI 4:32-37 A dead child is raised (well before the time of Jesus).
MT 9:18-25, JN 11:38-44 Two dead persons are raised (by Jesus himself).
AC 26:23 Jesus was the first to rise from the dead.
2KI 8:25-26 Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began his reign.
2CH 22:1 He was 42 when he began his reign.
2KI 9:27 Jehu shot Ahaziah near Ibleam. Ahaziah fled to Meggido and died there.
2CH 22:9 Ahaziah was found hiding in Samaria, brought to Jehu, and put to
death.
2KI 16:5 The King of Syria and the son of the King of Israel did not conquer
Ahaz.
2CH 28:5-6 They did conquer Ahaz.
2KI 24:8 Jehoiachin (Jehoiakim) was eighteen years old when he began to reign.
2CH 36:9 He was eight.
(Note: This discrepancy has been "corrected" in some versions.)
2KI 24:8 Jehoiachin (Jehoiakim) reigned three months.
2CH 36:9 He reigned three months and ten days.
2KI 24:17 Jehoiachin (Jehoaikim) was succeeded by his uncle.
2CH 36:10 He was succeeded by his brother.
2CH 3:11-13 The lineage is: Joram, Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, Azariah, Jotham.
MT 1:8-9 It is: Joram, Uzziah, Jotham, etc.
2CH 3:19 Pedaiah was the father of Zerubbabel.
ER 3:2 Shealtiel was the father of Zerubbabel.
2CH 19:7, AC 10:34, RO 2:11 There is no injustice or partiality with the Lord.
RO 9:15-18 God has mercy on (and hardens the hearts of) whom he pleases.
ER 2:3-64 (Gives the whole congregation as 42,360 while the actual sum of the
numbers is about 30,000.)
JB 2:3-6, 21:7-13, 2TI 3:12 The godly are persecuted and chastised but the
wicked grow old, wealthy, and powerful, unchastised by God.
PS 55:23, 92:12-14, PR 10:2-3, 27-31, 12:2, 21 The lives of the wicked are cut
short. The righteous flourish and obtain favor from the Lord.
PS 10:1 God cannot be found in time of need. He is "far off."
PS 145:18 God is near to all who call upon him in truth.
PS 22:1-2 God sometimes forsakes his children. He does not answer.
PS 46:1 God is a refuge, a strength, a very present help.
PS 30:5, JE 3:12, MI 7:18 God's anger does not last forever.
JE 17:4, MT 25:46 It does last forever. (He has provided for eternal
punishment.)
PS 58:10-11 The righteous shall rejoice when he sees vengeance.
PR 24:16-18 Do not rejoice when your enemy falls or stumbles.
PS 78:69, EC 1:4, 3:14 The earth was established forever.
PS 102:25-26, MT 24:35, MK 13:31, LK 21:33, HE 1:10-11, 2PE 3:10 The earth will
someday perish.
PR 3:13, 4:7, 19:8, JA 1:5 Happy is the man who finds wisdom. Get wisdom.
LK 2:40, 52 Jesus was filled with wisdom and found favor with God.
1CO 1:19-25, 3:18-20 Wisdom is foolishness.
PR 12:2, RO 8:28 A good man obtains favor from the Lord.
TI 3:12, HE 12:6 The godly will be persecuted.
PR 14:8 The wisdom of a prudent man is to discern his way.
MT 6:25-34 Take no thought for tomorrow. God will take care of you.
PR 14:15-18 The simple believe everything and acquire folly; the prudent look
where they are going and are crowned with knowledge.
MT 18:3, LK 18:17 You must believe as little children do.
1CO 1:20, 27 God has made the wisdom of the world foolish so as to shame the
wise.
PR 16:4 God made the wicked for the "day of evil."
MT 11:25, MK 4:11-12 God and Jesus hide some things from some people.
JN 6:65 No one can come to Jesus unless it is granted by God.
RO 8:28-30 Some are predestined to be called to God, believe in Jesus, and be
justified.
RO 9:15-18 God has mercy on, and hardens the hearts of, whom he pleases.
2TH 2:11-12 God deceives the wicked so as to be able to condemn them.
1TI 2:3-4, 2PE 3:9 [Yet] God wants all to be saved.
PR 8:13, 16:6 It is the fear of God that keeps men from evil.
1JN 4:18 There is no fear in love. Perfect love drives out fear.
1JN 5:2, 2JN 1:6 Those who love God keep his commandments.
PR 26:4 Do not answer a fool. To do so makes you foolish too.
PR 26:5 Answer a fool. If you don't, he will think himself wise.
PR 30:5 Every word of God proves true.
JE 8:8 The scribes falsify the word of God.
JE 20:7, EZ 14:9, 2TH 2:11-12 God himself deceives people.
(Note: Some versions translate deceive as "persuade." The context makes clear,
however, that deception is involved.)
IS 3:13 God stands to judge.
JL 3:12 He sits to judge.
IS 44:24 God created heaven and earth alone.
JN 1:1-3 Jesus took part in creation.
IS 53:9 Usually taken to be a prophecy re: Jesus, mentions burial with others.
MT 27:58-60, MK 15:45-46, LK 23:52-53, JN 19:38-42 Jesus was buried by himself.
JE 12:13 Some sow wheat but reap thorns.
MI 6:15 Some sow but won't reap anything.
MT 25:26, LK 19:22 Some reap without sowing.
2CO 9:6, GA 6:7 A man reaps what he sows.
JE 32:18 God shows love to thousands, but brings punishment for the sins of
their fathers to many children.
2CO 13:11, 14, 1JN 4:8, 16 God is a god of love.
JE 34:4-5 Zedekiah was to die in peace.
JE 52:10-11 Instead, Zedekaih's sons are slain before his eyes, his eyes are
then put out, he is bound in fetters, taken to Babylon and left in prison to
die.
EZ 20:25-26 The law was not good. The sacrifice of children was for the purpose
of horrifying the people so that they would know that God is Lord.
RO 7:12, 1TI 1:8 The law is good.
EZ 26:15-21 God says that Tyre will be destroyed and will never be found again.
(Nebudchanezzar failed to capture or destroy Tyre. It is still inhabited.)
DN 5:1 (Gives the title of "king" to Belshazzar although Belshazzar was
actually the "viceroy.")
DN 5:2 (Says that Nebuchadnezzar was the father of Belshazzar, but actually,
Nebonidus was the father of Belshazzar.) (Note: Some versions attempt to
correct this error by making the verse say that Nebuchadnezzar was the
grandfather of Belshazzar.)
ZE 11:12-13 Mentions "thirty pieces" and could possibly be thought to be
connected with the Potter's Field prophesy referred to in Matthew.
MT 27:9 Jeremiah is given as the source of the prophesy regarding the purchase
of the Potter's Field. (Note: There is no such prophesy in Jeremiah.)
MT 1:6-7 The lineage of Jesus is traced through David's son, Solomon.
LK 3:23-31 It is traced through David's son, Nathan.
(Note: Some apologists assert that Luke traces the lineage through Mary. That
this is untrue is obvious from the context since Luke and Matthew both clearly
state that Joseph was Jesus' father.)
MT 1:16 Jacob was Joseph's father.
LK 3:23 Heli was Joseph's father.
MT 1:17 There were twenty-eight generations from David to Jesus.
LK 3:23-38 There were forty-three.
MT 1:18-21 The Annunciation occurred after Mary had conceived Jesus.
LK 1:26-31 It occurred before conception.
MT 1:20 The angel spoke to Joseph.
LK 1:28 The angel spoke to Mary.
MT 1:20-23, LK 1:26-33 An angel announces to Joseph and/or Mary that the child
(Jesus) will be "great," the "son of the Most High," etc., and ....
MT 3:13-17, MK 1:9-11 The baptism of Jesus is accompanied by the most
extraordinary happenings, yet ....
MK 3:21 Jesus' own relatives (or friends) attempt to constrain him, thinking
that he might be out of his mind, and ....
MK 6:4-6 Jesus says that a prophet is without honor in his own house (which
certainly should not have been the case considering the Annunciation and the
Baptism).
MT 1:23 He will be called Emmanuel (or Immanuel).
MT 1:25 Instead, he was called Jesus.
MT 2:13-16 Following the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary flee to Egypt, (where
they stay until after Herod's death) in order to avoid the murder of their
firstborn by Herod. Herod slaughters all male infants two years old and under.
(Note: John the Baptist, Jesus' cousin, though under two is somehow spared
without fleeing to Egypt.)
LK 2:22-40 Following the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary remain in the area of
Jerusalem for the Presentation (about forty days) and then return to Nazareth
without ever going to Egypt. There is no slaughter of the infants.
MT 2:23 "And he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what
was said through the prophets: He will be called a Nazarene.'" (This prophecy
is not found in the OT and while Jesus is often referred to as "Jesus of
Nazareth", he is seldom referred to as "Jesus the Nazarene.")
MT 3:11-14, JN 1:31-34 John realized the true identity of Jesus (as the
Messiah) either prior to the actual Baptism, or from the Baptism onward. The
very purpose of John's baptism was to reveal Jesus to Israel.
MT 11:2-3 After the Baptism, John sends his disciples to ask if Jesus is the
Messiah.
MT 3:12, 13:42 Hell is a furnace of fire (and must therefore be light).
MT 8:12, 22:13, 25:30 Hell is an "outer darkness" (and therefore dark).
MT 3:16, MK 1:10 It was Jesus who saw the Spirit descending.
JN 1:32 It was John who saw the Spirit descending.
MT 3:17 The heavenly voice addressed the crowd: "This is my beloved Son."
MK 1:11, LK 3:22 The voice addressed Jesus: "You are my beloved Son...."
MT 4:1-11, MK 1:12-13 Immediately following his Baptism, Jesus spent forty days
in the wilderness resisting temptation by the Devil.
JN 2:1-11 Three days after the Baptism, Jesus was at the wedding in Cana.
MT 4:5-8 The Devil took Jesus to the pinnacle of the temple, then to the
mountain top.
LK 4:5-9 First to the mountain top, then to the pinnacle of the temple.
MT 4:18-20, MK 1:16-18 (One story about choosing Peter as a disciple.)
LK 5:2-11 (A different story.)
JN 1:35-42 (Still another story.)
MT 5:1 - 7:29 Jesus delivers his most noteworthy sermon while on the mount.
LK 6:17-49 Jesus delivers his most noteworthy sermon while on the plain. (Note:
No such sermons are mentioned in either MK or JN and Paul seems totally
unfamiliar with either the sermon on the mount or the sermon on the plain.)
MT 5:16 Good works should be seen.
MT 6:1-4 They should be kept secret.
MT 5:17-19, LK 16:17 Jesus underscores the permanence of the law.
LE 10:8 - 11:47, DT 14:3-21 The law distinguishes between clean and unclean
foods.
MK 7:14-15, MK 7:18-19 Jesus says that there is no such distinction.
TI 4:1-4 All foods are clean according to Paul.
MT 5:17-19, LK 16:17 Jesus did not come to abolish the law.
EP 2:13-15, HE 7:18-19 Jesus did abolish the law.
(And that's only half of them)
Bobby D. Bryant
> 20 years ago creationists flatly denied that speciation was possible (look up
> Morris' Scientific Creationism), but most of them now acknowledge that speciation
> does and can occur.
Which may explain why some of them are so intent on moving the battle to the
abiogenesis front.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Bobby D. Bryant
> As for food, it is possible that the conditions on the
> ark put the animals in a state of hibernation, or (though this would not be
> acceptable to you) that it was simply an act of God.
That part isn't in my copy of Genesis.
If a god were going to bother with that, why didn't s/he just put them in
suspended animation and not bother with the ark? Or just kill all those nasty
people with thunderbolts and be done with it?
The simple fact is, the culture that spawned the story didn't have the faintest
idea how many animals there are in the world. Seven pair of penguins?
Kangaroos? Pandas? Armadillos?
> For fresh water
> fish, the massive runoff from rainfall on the continent would create a buffer
> of fresh water around the continent where the fish could survive
Didn't all those continents completely disappear under water?
> However many plants
> produce spores that could live for 150 days. Most plant seeds could have
> survived the flood.
Even if I take your word about that "many" and "most", what about the ones that
don't fall into the "many" and "most" categories. If you subtract "many" and
"most" from "all", you've still got some that need explanations.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
p.s. - Why am I bothering?
Bobby D. Bryant
> >Some
> >railroad cars can hold up to 220 sheep.
>
> So?
> ...
> I think the conditions on the ark would kill them all, what with the cramping
> and the impossibility of eight people taking care of them all.
What do you suppose would happen if you packed 220 sheep into a railroad car and
sealed it up for six months?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Bobby D. Bryant
> On 11 Apr 2001 19:21:19 -0400, buckf...@aol.com (Buckfan328) wrote:
>
> > Secondly, has not the evolutionary model
> >changed over time?
>
> Uh...yeah. It's called "progress". You may have heard of it.
Not a safe bet.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Bobby D. Bryant
> The problem
> with evolution comes when genes need to be added to the gene pool. Mutation is
> the only process which can do this. The rate of the occurance of mutation, the
> small percentege of mutations that are beneficial, and the small numbers of
> genes that actually remain long enough to become multiplied through natural
> selection cause the actual rate of genes entering the gene pool to be far too
> low to allow for the huge numbers different species that have "evolved", even
> in 3 1/2 billion years.
Give us the numbers you are using in this calculation (including sources).
> Therefore, what most creationists(the ones that study
> the scientific aspects of creation)
Idlers, eh?
> believe is that natural selection acted
> after the flood to form different species(which is simply a man-defined term)
> by concentrating genes from the already existing gene pool in distinct
> populations.
So those different species can still interbreed, right? After all, according to
your model the only difference is the allele frequencies in separate populations.
Are humans and bonobos just different concentrations of the hominid gene pool?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Bobby D. Bryant
> Buckfan328 <buckf...@aol.com> wrote...
> > Well, I would like to see any instance you could produce of inconsistancy
> in
> > the Bible.
>
> Sure. Here's a good one: Has anyone ever seen God?
>
> (1 John 4:12) "No man hath seen God at any time."
>
> (Exodus 33:11) "And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man
> speaketh unto his friend."
And elsewhere yet, we discover that Moses only saw God's "hindquarter".
(Whatever that means when applied to a deity. Surely not the location of the
face, or so I would guess.)
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Sverker Johansson
>
> Many creationists will admit that in fact, natural selection does work, but as
> evolutionists admit, natural selection only deletes genes or increses the
> frequency of gene appearance in the gene pool. This is, in fact, not evolution
> at all but simply the redistribution of already existing genes. The problem
> with evolution comes when genes need to be added to the gene pool. Mutation is
> the only process which can do this.
So far so good, if we allow "mutation" to cover a whole spectrum of
different processes that modify DNA in various ways.
> The rate of the occurance of mutation, the
> small percentege of mutations that are beneficial, and the small numbers of
> genes that actually remain long enough to become multiplied through natural
> selection cause the actual rate of genes entering the gene pool to be far too
> low to allow for the huge numbers different species that have "evolved", even
> in 3 1/2 billion years.
Have you actually tried to put any numbers into this? Seems not...
The rate of mutation varies a bit between species, but a typical number
is
on the order of one new mutation for every new individual.
Human babies are born at a rate of a few per second, or 100-something
million per year. This means more than a hundred million new mutations
entering the human gene pool each year. Throughout most of human
history,
the population has been smaller, but we're nevertheless talking about
hundreds of billions of mutations in the human lineage alone.
Most of these mutations are neutral (in which case it's a tossup whether
they're retained or not), many are bad (and selected away), and a tiny
fraction are good (and positively selected). A tiny fraction of
hundreds
of billions is quite enough to cover the differences between us and
chimps
(which is not all that many mutations).
If you run through the numbers for the whole history of life, you'll
reach a similar conclusion: the total number of mutations is
astronomical, but the actual diversity at a genetic level isn't
all that overwhelming. Lots and lots of genes are highly similar
even between very different life forms, thus decreasing the total
number of mutations needed to explain the diversity of species.
> Therefore, what most creationists(the ones that study
> the scientific aspects of creation)believe is that natural selection acted
> after the flood to form different species(which is simply a man-defined term)
> by concentrating genes from the already existing gene pool in distinct
> populations. An example of this would be the possiblity of Indian, and African
> elephants as well as woolly mammoths developing from on type of elephant that
> came after the flood. This does not demonstrate evolution at all, as the gene
> pool is actually becoming smaller, not larger as evolution requires.
The gene pool of a pair of unclean animals fresh off the ark,
is four alleles for each gene, maximum (two animals, two alleles
each). The current number of alleles in wild populations
of most animals is much larger than four. New alleles must
have been added, increasing the gene pool.
Concerning whether this is evolution or not, see my .sig below :->
--
Best regards, HLK, Physics
Sverker Johansson U of Jonkoping
----------------------------------------------
Definitions:
Micro-evolution: evolution for which the evidence is so
overwhelming that even the ICR can't deny it.
Macro-evolution: evolution which is only proven beyond
reasonable doubt, not beyond unreasonable doubt.
Sverker Johansson
>
> Well, I would like to see any instance you could produce of inconsistancy in
> the Bible.
Check out the last word of Christ on the Cross. No two gospels agree.
> Furthermore, is there not inconsistency in evolutionary circles as
> well? talkorigins.org itself complains of this.
Nobody is arguing for a fundamentalist literal interpretation
of evolutionary science. A lot of people _are_ arguing for such
an interpretation of the Bible - but an inconsistent text cannot be
taken literally.
Ken Cox
> As to this statement first, all the species that are alive today would fill
> only approximately 36.5% of the Ark, this number included a 'fudge' for
> thousands of species now extinct.
Is that Woodmorappe's number? His calculations fudge more
that the number of extinct species.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Ken Cox
> Some railroad cars can hold up to 220 sheep.
Mind you, the sheep are only on those cars for the few
days that it takes to get them to the slaughterhouses.
Even at that, it's vital that the sheep be taken *off*
the car once a day, or you end up with a bunch of dead
sheep. Sadly, this is not an option with the Ark.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Ken Cox
> From Buckfan:
> >Some railroad cars can hold up to 220 sheep.
> >equal to 500-700 of these rail cars.
> In volume, or in area? You have to get the volume to fit too.
Well, since he's elsewhere said that the Ark had a floor area of
about 100,000 square feet, that would mean each car has an area
of about 200 square feet -- which means you can put one sheep in
one square foot of floor space. That doesn't seem right, so he
may be referring to volume.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Derek Stevenson
> Therefore, what most creationists(the ones that study
> the scientific aspects of creation)believe is that natural selection acted
> after the flood to form different species(which is simply a man-defined term)
> by concentrating genes from the already existing gene pool in distinct
> populations. An example of this would be the possiblity of Indian, and African
> elephants as well as woolly mammoths developing from on type of elephant that
> came after the flood.
So you're claiming that mammoths evolved and then became extinct, all
within the last few thousand years?
As an aside, you seem to be suffering from the common creationist
misconception that none of us have heard any creationist arguments
before you popped up, and that therefore you're offering us pearls of
wisdom that we have never before considered.
Think again.
Not only have we seen every argument you've mustered time and again,
we've probably seen far more. Go visit the FAQs at www.talkorigins.org,
not just so that you can achieve a basic grasp of what you're arguing
about, but also so that you can get a sense of what's been presented to
us time and again.
Who knows, you might actually be able to come up with something new.
--
Posted from internet.scc.ca [205.206.6.3]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Gyudon Z
You'd probably get some nice rotted flesh to use as compost for all those
plants you have to plant again.
ReidRover
>> Some railroad cars can hold up to 220 sheep.
the extrapolation from a railroad car filled with sheep for a couple of days
at the most, to a massive wooden vessel sailing on mountainous seas for many
weeks filled with thousands of different species,including all the parasites
etc, is mind boggling!
Sheesh and we dare to say Creationism isnt science! How ignorant of us!
ReidRover
>about 100,000 square feet, that would mean each car has an area
>of about 200 square feet -- which means you can put one sheep in
>one square foot of floor space. That doesn't seem right, so he
>may be referring to volume.
or maybe Noah trained the sheep to stand on two legs : )
David Jensen
> Many creationists will admit that in fact, natural selection does work,
but as
> evolutionists admit, natural selection only deletes genes or increses the
> frequency of gene appearance in the gene pool.
Okay.
> This is, in fact, not evolution
> at all but simply the redistribution of already existing genes.
It's part of evolution, a necessary part.
> The problem
> with evolution comes when genes need to be added to the gene pool.
Mutation is
> the only process which can do this.
Okay.
> The rate of the occurance of mutation, the
> small percentege of mutations that are beneficial, and the small numbers
of
> genes that actually remain long enough to become multiplied through
natural
> selection cause the actual rate of genes entering the gene pool to be far
too
> low to allow for the huge numbers different species that have "evolved",
even
> in 3 1/2 billion years.
No. That assertion has no evidence to support it.
> Therefore, what most creationists(the ones that study
> the scientific aspects of creation)
There are no scientific aspects to creationism. It's a religious belief.
> believe is that natural selection acted
> after the flood to form different species(which is simply a man-defined
term)
There is no scientific evidence that a universal flood happened.
> by concentrating genes from the already existing gene pool in distinct
> populations.
You cannot really do that.
> An example of this would be the possiblity of Indian, and African
> elephants as well as woolly mammoths developing from on type of elephant
that
> came after the flood.
How will you get such fast speciation? Wooly mammoths were in North America
in the last Ice Age--How did they speciate and get there so quickly after
the Flood that didn't happen?
> This does not demonstrate evolution at all, as the gene
> pool is actually becoming smaller, not larger as evolution requires.
No, you have provided no evidence that the gene pool is getting smaller.
David Jensen
Many assertions in the Bible if read literally are inconsistent with the
reality found on this planet. There is no evidence to support any of the
stories of Genesis and the evidence that does exist is inconsistent with
those stories.
Howard Hershey
Buckfan328 wrote:
>
> First, the ark had three decks. With the dimensions given, it would contain
> appx. 101,000 sq.ft. of deck space.
With the dimensions given, it would also be unseaworthy in calm seas.
In a tempest, it would be a deathtrap. Unless, of course, you invoke
miracle and magic.
> Also many of the animals on the ark would
> have been teenagers, able to support themselves, but also not full grown. The
> average size of the animals on the ark is appx. the size of a sheep.
The "average" size is misleading. Animal size is not distributed as a
normal curve, but as a strongly skewed curve with most animals being
small but a few being very large. What matters most is the size of
the large animals, because the decrease in animal volume (the cube of
length) is faster than the increase in species numbers for any
particular length. Several tens of thousands of mice species could
fit in the same space as an elephant (if you could stack them as
cordwood). You probably could physically fit all currently living
species in the ark, *if* it didn't matter if you kept them alive. If
it does matter that they survive, then you will have to resort to
magic or acts of God.
> Some
> railroad cars can hold up to 220 sheep. The ark would have had the capacity
> equal to 500-700 of these rail cars.
It is an historical fact that, if you fill railroad cars with 200+
humans and ship them for a much shorter distance for a much shorter
time, many of them will not survive.
> Insects would not take up very much space
> because of their size. As for food, it is possible that the conditions on the
> ark put the animals in a state of hibernation, or (though this would not be
> acceptable to you) that it was simply an act of God.
Yes, indeed. You will have to repeatedly resort to magic. So often
that it is silly to pretend that it could happen without magic. If
you are going to resort to magic in this way, there is no reason to
try to explain the ark as a physical necessity. Your magician could
simply have suspended all the species and Noah in a tiny bubble and
simply implanted the idea that there was a world-wide flood. That
would, then, also explain the absence of any physical evidence that
there was a flood. The flood was all magic. The ark was magic. The
destruction of the entire world's civilizations was magic. That would
certainly explain the absence of evidence for these events and the
counter evidence against it.
> In regards to marine
> life, indeed, much of it went extinct(trilobytes for example).
And why did they get buried in a particular order whereas crabs did
not get buried in those layers? How did whales survive to only wind
up in the top layers whereas ichthyosaurs and mososaurs did not?
> For fresh water
> fish, the massive runoff from rainfall on the continent would create a buffer
> of fresh water around the continent where the fish could survive (for more
> information on this I would refer you to this website
> http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-222.htm)
Do you realize how ridiculous this is? And how inconsistent with the
actual pattern of burial of fossil species, where fresh-water species
are found in sediments that contain inland plant pollen and not mangroves.
> Most of the plants were buried and formed todays coal. However many plants
> produce spores that could live for 150 days. Most plant seeds could have
> survived the flood.
But the ones that survived are not *selectively* those with the
greatest tolerance for the conditions that existed. Is this more of
the magic you need to pretend these events actually happened?
Adam Marczyk
news:3AD5BFAF...@research.bell-labs.com...
Wouldn't that mean the sheep would have to be literally stacked on top of
each other?
Okimoto, Ronald
Trey wrote:
> >shouldnt there be some kind of consistancy on this?
>
> There's no consistency in their Bible or in their churches, so why should
> their train of thought be any different?
This is wrong. As Buckfan328 clearly demonstrates their inferences and
interpretations are consistently incorrect.
Ron Okimoto
Okimoto, Ronald
ReidRover wrote:
In this thread I've seen six months and a few weeks, but the animals were on the
ark for more than 300 days, 40 days and nights of intense storm and the rest
waiting for the water to recede. That is a lot of poop to scoop, even for
creationists. I'm sure that someone will correct me if my interpretation is
incorrect.
Ron Okimoto
wf...@ptd.net
>Many creationists will admit that in fact, natural selection does work, but as
>evolutionists admit, natural selection only deletes genes or increses the
>frequency of gene appearance in the gene pool. This is, in fact, not evolution
>at all but simply the redistribution of already existing genes. The problem
>with evolution comes when genes need to be added to the gene pool. Mutation is
>the only process which can do this. The rate of the occurance of mutation, the
>small percentege of mutations that are beneficial, and the small numbers of
>genes that actually remain long enough to become multiplied through natural
>selection cause the actual rate of genes entering the gene pool to be far too
>low to allow for the huge numbers different species that have "evolved", even
>in 3 1/2 billion years.
how do you know this?
Therefore, what most creationists(the ones that study
>the scientific aspects of creation)believe is that natural selection acted
>after the flood to form different species(which is simply a man-defined term)
>by concentrating genes from the already existing gene pool in distinct
>populations. An example of this would be the possiblity of Indian, and African
>elephants as well as woolly mammoths developing from on type of elephant that
>came after the flood. This does not demonstrate evolution at all, as the gene
>pool is actually becoming smaller, not larger as evolution requires.
except mutations exist. so the gene pool is becoming 'larger',
contrary to your statement. in fact you admit mutations 'add' to the
gene pool above.
wf...@ptd.net
>Well, I would like to see any instance you could produce of inconsistancy in
>the Bible. Furthermore, is there not inconsistency in evolutionary circles as
>well? talkorigins.org itself complains of this.
>
ok here ya go:
exodus chapter 12, v. 41 says the israelites remained in egypt 430
yrs...to the day.
genesis chapter 15, v. 13 says 400 yrs.
QED.
Howard Hershey
Buckfan328 wrote:
>
> Many creationists will admit that in fact, natural selection does work, but as
> evolutionists admit, natural selection only deletes genes or increses the
> frequency of gene appearance in the gene pool.
Natural selection acts on phenotypic effects of genes. *Any*
alteration of a gene, including deletion *and* duplication and
modification is potentially selectable. But alterations of genes that
do not affect phenotypes undergo increase or decrease in frequency by
chance alone. Duplications, which are common, typically are initially
selectively neutral (although they can be beneficial, as in some cases
of pesticide resistance, or deleterious, as in Barr eye). But gene
duplications are the fuel of evolutionary change by providing a second
copy of information (increasing information content) which can
specialize in a different direction than the other copy of the gene.
> This is, in fact, not evolution
> at all but simply the redistribution of already existing genes.
It would help if you were to learn the distinction between the word
'allele' and the word 'gene' before you make such claims. But I agree
that selection only works on phenotypes caused by alleles that really
exist and not by some imaginary non-existent alleles. Were you
expecting selection to work on imaginary alleles? The ultimate source
of every variant allele ever seen in nature is mutation (and
mutational mechanisms can easily explain those variants whose initial
appearance time is unknown without resorting to magic). Do you have
evidence against mutation being the source of all allelic variation?
Do you have evidence preventing duplication and divergence preventing
the formation of, say, hemoglobin from a form of myoglobin?
> The problem
> with evolution comes when genes need to be added to the gene pool. Mutation is
> the only process which can do this.
Yes. Duplication is quite common, as is mutation.
> The rate of the occurance of mutation, the
> small percentege of mutations that are beneficial, and the small numbers of
> genes that actually remain long enough to become multiplied through natural
> selection cause the actual rate of genes entering the gene pool to be far too
> low to allow for the huge numbers different species that have "evolved", even
> in 3 1/2 billion years.
And your source for this is? I ask because these statements about
rates and frequencies are counterfactual. In fact, they are lies.
Mutations are *classified* as selctively beneficial, or harmful, or
neutral (neutral being the most common type of mutation) on the basis
of their effects in particular organisms in particular environments.
It is not a property inherent to the variant alone. For example, a
mutation that causes melanism can be beneficial in one environment and
detrimental in a different one and neutral in yet a third.
> Therefore, what most creationists(the ones that study
> the scientific aspects of creation)believe is that natural selection acted
> after the flood to form different species(which is simply a man-defined term)
All terms are man-defined. In the case of species, as opposed to
larger groupings, there is a general biological reality (gene flow
within a species and not without) that, with consideration for some
fuzzy boundaries between closely related species expected because of
evolution, really do exist.
> by concentrating genes from the already existing gene pool in distinct
> populations.
How do you "concentrate" genes from a "gene pool"? Do you heat them
to evaporate the water?
> An example of this would be the possiblity of Indian, and African
> elephants as well as woolly mammoths developing from on type of elephant that
> came after the flood.
So the woolly mammoth only emerged *after* the flood? What existed
before the flood? And why is the last evidence of living mammoths
much older than the ark times?
> This does not demonstrate evolution at all, as the gene
> pool is actually becoming smaller, not larger as evolution requires.
So how does this work? Was the genome of the ur-mammoth-several
mastadon-Indian-African-elephant 64-ploidy, with subsequent meioses
without fusion producing progeny by parthenogenesis? How do you see
this working? I am having some considerable difficulty. But perhaps
you are confused about the distinction between genome, gene pool,
allele, and several other terms you seem to be using in a decidedly
non-standard way.
Al Petterson
Buckfan328 wrote:
>
> Many creationists will admit that in fact, natural selection does
> work, but as evolutionists admit, natural selection only deletes
> genes or increses the frequency of gene appearance in the gene pool.
You're using a different definition of 'evolution' than the one
typically used by scientists, but we'll let that pass.
> but simply the redistribution of already existing genes. The problem
> with evolution comes when genes need to be added to the gene pool.
> Mutation is the only process which can do this. The rate of the
> occurance of mutation, the small percentege of mutations that are
> beneficial, and the small numbers of genes that actually remain long
> enough to become multiplied through natural selection cause the
> actual rate of genes entering the gene pool to be far too low to
> allow for the huge numbers different species that have "evolved",
> even in 3 1/2 billion years.
Could you please show your work? Start with your experimentally derived
rate of viable mutation, show your assumptions for how much this rate
can vary, show your experimentally derived value for the amount of
diversity (number of mutations required), give your empirically-shown
estimate for the number of reproduction events in the biosphere over 3.5
billion years, and then show why it doesn't work. Because when I do the
math and base it on actual data, it works out fine.
> Therefore, what most creationists(the ones that study the scientific
> aspects of creation)believe is that natural selection acted after the
> flood
Which flood? Could you show us some evidence of it, please? Geologists
who study the planet have found no evidence of a global flood. Do you
have something the rest of the researchers don't? In what peer-reviewed
journal is this data going to be published?
> to form different species(which is simply a man-defined term)
It can be. It can also refer to specific traits, such as reproductive
isolation.
> by concentrating genes from the already existing gene pool in
> distinct populations.
Um, your assertion would be that this happens solely through elimination
of genes in some locales -- but you're also asserting an absurdly low
(two individuals) "starting" gene pool, much smaller than we see today
(see below). This is a fundamental inconsistency in your claims.
> An example of this would be the possiblity of Indian, and African
> elephants as well as woolly mammoths developing from on type of
> elephant that came after the flood.
If you're referring to the Genesis flood, wouldn't that population have
had to diverge from two elephants? That's an easy thing to check (and
disprove) -- if any gene anywhere on elephant DNA has more than four
expressions, we've disproven this hypothesis. In fact, if any group
has more than four different viable expressions at any given locus,
they can't have descended exclusively from the same two ancestors.
Would it surprise you to learn that most species do in fact have loci
with more than four viable genes, and that this demonstrates that they
haven't passed through a genetic bottleneck anytime in the recent past,
at least not without a *phenomenal* rate of favorable mutation, much
greater than we see today -- and a high rate of favorable mutations
would seem to contradict your claim at the beginning of this article.
Could you comment, please?
> This does not demonstrate evolution at all, as the gene
> pool is actually becoming smaller, not larger as evolution requires.
I'm dubious of this claim. Please show your work, especially in light
of the above. We've observed gene pools enlarge through mutation. Could
you cite the rates you'd like to claim and defend?
A more general question: if your claims could be shown to be incorrect,
would you revisit your conclusion, or does your conclusion (that there
was a global flood and no common descent) follow from something other
than this evidence?
John Monrad
ebon...@excite.com says...
> Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:3AD5BFAF...@research.bell-labs.com...
> > Gyudon Z wrote:
> > > From Buckfan:
> > > >Some railroad cars can hold up to 220 sheep.
> > > >The ark would have had the capacity
> > > >equal to 500-700 of these rail cars.
> >
> > > In volume, or in area? You have to get the volume to fit too.
> >
> > Well, since he's elsewhere said that the Ark had a floor area of
> > about 100,000 square feet, that would mean each car has an area
> > of about 200 square feet -- which means you can put one sheep in
> > one square foot of floor space. That doesn't seem right, so he
> > may be referring to volume.
A typical US stock car into the 1960s had interior length of 40 ft 3 in,
interior width of 8 ft 5 in, and interior height of 7 ft 6 in. The
stenciled volume was 2541 cu ft. Single deck cars had available floor
space of about 340 sq ft. Many of these and some later 50-ft cars were
double-decked to transport smaller (well, at least shorter) stock,
bringing maximum available floor space up to about 850 sq ft. In the
mid-60s, the Northern Pacific introduced 85-ft-long "Pig Palace" double-
deck cars for transporting pigs and sheep. Available floor space was on
the order of 1500 sq ft.
There is no record of any US common carrier utilizing dinosaur, mammoth,
giraffe, or whale cars, nor of any triple-deck cars.
> Wouldn't that mean the sheep would have to be literally stacked on top of
> each other?
It could, or something could be stacked on top of the sheep. If the
latter, I would guess that most of those came to Noah from Montana or
Australia.
--
John Monrad
ReidRover
>> In regards to marine
>> life, indeed, much of it went extinct(trilobytes for example).
>
Ive often wondered why flat fish ( sole ,haddock etc) arent found in the same
"bottom "layer fossils as trilobytes?
How can Flood creationists explain this?
Also why arent Crocodilians found with early swamp dwelling amphibians..they
inhabit basically the same low lying areas?
Buckfan328
>dinosaurs? Were they not on the Ark? If not, why not?
I must repeat myself again and say that many of the animals would have been
young(teenage), and therefore not nearly as large as full grown dinosaurs.
Buckfan328
deleted did not cause the benefit.
Buckfan328
Dolphins, Zebras + Donkeys etc...
Ronald Okimoto
"Bobby D. Bryant" wrote:
It does sound pretty bad to have God mooning his head prophet when they are
supposed to be discussing serious matters.;-)
I'm sorry, but I just can't seem to take this stuff seriously today.
Ron Okimoto
Adam Marczyk
This doesn't solve your problem for several reasons:
1. Animals grow. Fast. A human takes 18-20 years or so to reach physical
maturity; just about every other animal does it in two or three, at the
most. So these young animals would be growing all the time they were on the
Ark, which means they need even more food than usual.
2. Many animals are social or pack animals and won't survive on their own,
or even if there were only two of them.
3. Lots of juvenile animals need parents to teach them hunting and other
behaviors they need to survive. If they grow up in captivity, they'll never
learn those things.
4. As other people have pointed out, even allowing for "approximately the
size of a sheep" on average, there's still no way you could fit millions of
species into any leaky boat.
And none of that addresses the vast number of other problems with the Ark
scenario: architectural, genetic, logistic and so on.
Adam Marczyk
> Please tell me of some beneficial mutatations where genetic material being
> deleted did not cause the benefit.
*chuckle* The "no increases in information" argument? How original. All
right, here are a few:
1) Park IS, Lin CH, and Walsh CT. (1996 Aug 13). Gain of D-alanyl-D-lactate
or D-lactyl-D-alanine synthetase activities in
three active-site mutants of the Escherichia coli D-alanyl-D-alanine ligase
B. Biochemistry, 35, 10464-71.
This mutation involved E.coli bacteria gaining resistance to the antibiotic
vancomycin by _duplicating_ a section of the genome which coded for an
unrelated enzyme. The duplicated gene then underwent a point mutation that
changed the protein it produced to one capable of degrading vancomycin. Note
that the original copy of the gene remained unaltered, so no genetic
material or function was lost.
2) C Mouches, Y Pauplin, M Agarwal, L Lemieux, M Herzog, M Abadon, V
Beyssat-Arnaouty, O Hyrien, BRdS Vincent, GP Georghiou and N Pasteur.
Characterization of amplification core and esterase B1 gene responsible for
insecticide resistance in Culex. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1990 Apr 87(7):
2574-2578
Another case of pesticide resistance, this time in the mosquito species
Culex pipiens. The mosquitoes already produced a gene that could break down
a common organophosphate insecticide; however, by duplicating this gene lots
of times (up to 250 times in some strains), they gained an exponentially
amplified version of the resistance. This is how natural selection works: it
starts on inefficient but functional traits and makes them more efficient.
3) Negoro S, Kato K, Fujiyama K, Okada H, 1994. "The nylon oligomer
biodegradation system of Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas." Biodegradation
5:185-194
This one is particularly interesting. A species of bacteria gained the
ability to digest nylon oligomers -- by-products of the nylon production
process that occur nowhere in nature. The enzyme that enabled it to do this
was the result of a frame-shift mutation in a sequence of junk (non-coding)
DNA that turned it into functional DNA.
Those few should do for a start. Let me know if you want to know about more.
Adam Marczyk
> In some cases, yes they can still interbreed (Lions + Tigers, Psuedorcas
and
> Dolphins, Zebras + Donkeys etc...
Care to make a bet on which are more similar genetically -- lions and tigers
or humans and chimpanzees?
ReidRover
>young(teenage), and therefore not nearly as large as full grown dinosaurs.
Teenage animals?...relativlly few species make it into the teens.
I assume you mean immature pairs..this is also a problem..though many animal
actions are instinctual..some like Lions...Chimps even Elephants have to be
'taught" certain things, by older members of the pride, herd etc.
Take the way lions hunt..hunting in felines may be instinctual but hunting as a
team certainlly isnt...young lions watch several hunts before they can
participate.
So a pair of immature lions would have not much idea how to function and
would probably die pretty soon...as either the prey would be too quick for two
lions( the prey animals also being youngish..no older , sick or juvenile ones
to pick off)..or they would manage to kill the prey animals too quicklly and
thus starve.
How do creationist get arouns this? ive heard of fast breeding but the Gnus,
Zebras would have had to breed like bacteria for enough food to susutain
lions and other predators.
Gyudon Z
>In some cases, yes they can still interbreed (Lions + Tigers, Psuedorcas and
>Dolphins, Zebras + Donkeys etc...
What on earth are you talking about?
Before you answer, do you see that little button at the bottom of the Original
Message Text window that says "Quote"? People like it more when you highlight
what you're responding to and "Quote" it. That way, they know what the hell
you're talking about.
Gyudon Z
>Please tell me of some beneficial mutatations where genetic material being
>deleted did not cause the benefit.
Only if you tell us of some beneficial mutations where genetic matieral being
deleted did cause the benefit.
Gyudon Z
Do you have any data on how large a teenage dinosaur is and how much they grow
in a year, or anything else along the lines of actual evidence?
mel turner
[Buckfan328] wrote...
>
>Please tell me of some beneficial mutatations where genetic material being
>deleted did not cause the benefit.
links in:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
may contain such information. Also:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
<http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/duplication.html>
<http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/dup_favorable.html>
<http://groups.google.com/groups?th=a239372009bd8636&rnum=20&seld=999309747&ic=1>
<http://groups.google.com/groups?th=3d83dd7085095379&seld=941551206&ic=1>
<http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1&th=b79d26fd73df45af&seekd=982933070#982933070>
<http://groups.google.com/groups?th=a239372009bd8636&rnum=41&seld=998896198&ic=1>
cheers
seaotter
been
> young(teenage), and therefore not nearly as large as full grown dinosaurs.
How dare you apologize for the inspired word of the lord? Burn in hell with
the other heathen.
seaotter
Pat James
(in message <20010411221609...@ng-fr1.aol.com>):
> First, the ark had three decks. With the dimensions given, it would contain
> appx. 101,000 sq.ft. of deck space. Also many of the animals on the ark
> would
> have been teenagers, able to support themselves, but also not full grown.
> The
> average size of the animals on the ark is appx. the size of a sheep. Some
> railroad cars can hold up to 220 sheep. The ark would have had the capacity
> equal to 500-700 of these rail cars. Insects would not take up very much
> space
> because of their size. As for food, it is possible that the conditions on
> the
> ark put the animals in a state of hibernation, or (though this would not be
> acceptable to you) that it was simply an act of God. In regards to marine
> life, indeed, much of it went extinct(trilobytes for example). For fresh
> water
> fish, the massive runoff from rainfall on the continent would create a buffer
> of fresh water around the continent where the fish could survive (for more
> information on this I would refer you to this website
> http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-222.htm)
> Most of the plants were buried and formed todays coal. However many plants
> produce spores that could live for 150 days. Most plant seeds could have
> survived the flood.
>
O-kay... my problem with _anyone_ who takes creationism seriously is that it
simply doesn't add up. Let's take my fav example, Ye Arke.
So, depending on what you use for a cubit, Ye Arke is about 450 feet long, 75
wide, and 45 tall, right? I work best in metres, so lets do a bit of
conversion: that's 137.16 by 22.86 by 13.716 metres, right? For ease of
calculation, let's call it 140 x 23 x 14. This give you 45.080e+3 cubic
metres. One cubic metre of pure water is one metric tonne. Salt water is a
bit more dense. Be nice, add another thousand tonnes or so... Ye Arke
displaces 46,000 tonnes. Maybe 46,400 at max. And I'm being generous.
Problem 1: The sheer size. HMS _Victory_, still preserved at Portsmouth, was
186 feet long on the gundeck. HMS _Victoria_, the last full-rigged 1st rate
ship of the line to serve as flag of the Channel Fleet, built in 1859, was
250 feet long on the gundeck. And she had a steel frame because the RN had
found that building wooden ships much bigger than 225 feet long was not a
good idea because they tended to straddle or to hog on being launched; that
is, they tended to bend, their bows and sterns to stick up out of the water
at an angle, (thatąs straddling) or to bend the other way, the bows and
sterns supported by waves but the midships sections out of the water (or at
least not as well supported) (thatąs hogging) and either way their keels
tended to crack under the strain. Even with steel frames, wooden ships bigger
than 250 feet long tended to hog or straddle. Don't take my word for it, look
it up for yourself. One possible source: _The Wooden Fighting Ship In the
Royal Navy, 897-1860_, EHH Archibald, Blandford Press, London. Sorry, my copy
was published back before ISBNs. Edward Archibald was at the time of writing
the curator of the National Maritime Museum, Portsmouth, England. Or build a
wooden boat 250 feet long and see what happens. Ye Arke was the size of _two_
1st rate line of battleships, laid end-to-end. Noah was a shepherd. He knew
better than the shipwrights at Chatham who built the ships with which the RN
dominated the world for 150 years? If I'm wrong, and it is possible to build
a 450 foot wooden vessel, by all means demonstrate it. I'll even put up some
of the money... so long as I get to record the launch of said vessel. And so
long as those who say that such a craft would be safe are willing to stay on
it while it's being launched. Me, I figure that I'd get some _great_ pix.
Problem 2: Even though it's too big to work, Ye Arke is too _small_ to do its
job. Noah was at sea for a year. The Bible explicitly states that he carried
food for himself, his family, and the animals... where did he put it? John
Woodmorappe (who is, BTW, a creationist) in his book _Noahąs Ark: A
Feasibility Study_, published by the Institute for Creation Research, El
Cajon, California, (the ICR is not merely creationist; it _requires_ that all
who work there take an oath that they feel that the Bible is inerrant, as
demonstrated on their web site) calculates that Noah's ark carried 5.5
million kilos by weight of animals. (I disagree with this figure, as itąs
much too low, but for purposes of argument Iąll use it.) He also estimates
that each animal, on average, ate one thirtieth of its body weight per day.
Let's see... 5.5 million kilos is 5,500 tonnes. Divide by 30, multiply by
365... 66.917e+3. (Ye Arke was at sea for over a year, according to Gen 7 and
8. Iąll just use one year to keep things simple and to give Woody as much
slack as possible. Wouldnąt want anyone to say that I was railroading him.)
Hmm. 67 thousand tonnes of food, by Woody's own figures. But... if you
remember, we calculated that Ye Arke could displace a max of 46,000 tonnes,
or 46,400 if we were being generous. And that included the mass of the boat
itself, and the animals. (Archimedesą Principle, you know) Looks like y'all
need two Arkes just to carry the food, depending on what percentage of the
boat's displacement is taken up by internal structure. (Most wooden ships use
10-15% of their displacement in their structure. Any less and they break up
under the stress of wind and wave. Don't take my word for it, check it out
for yourself.) I once tried to work out just how big an Arke would have had
to have been to carry the assorted animals and their food and have space for
proper cages and exercise areas so that the animals' muscles don't atrophy...
after I got to 900,000 tonnes displacement and still hadn't accounted for all
the good stuff, I stopped. That's _three times the size of a supertanker_. Or
_nine times the size of a nuke aircraft carrier_. There's simply no way that
a wooden vessel could ever be that big. No way at all.
Problem 3: In order to get the mass of the animals down, Woody pared things
down. He tried to define 'kind' so as to have, say, one pair of cat-like
whatevers, and have all present day cats, from house cats to lions,
descendants of that pair. Nice... except that doing it that way _requires_
evolution on a scale so massive and rapid that _no_ evolutionary biologist
would dare suggest it. And Woody does that with _all_ animals... It's the
only way he could get 'em to fit.
Problem 4: Even after he pares down the list (he posits 15,754 'kinds') he
has a problem. In order for there to be physically enough space inside Ye
Arke, Woody uses the _median_ to work out the size of cages. He says that if
you have hippos, elephants, rats, and dogs, you can use the _median_ size
animal and build cages for 'em, and they'll all fit. The median size,
according to Woody, that of a sheep. Using that, he can shoehorn enough cages
into Ye Arke to hold his 15,754 kinds... but only just. And the cages would
be sized so that an animal in it would be able to stand up, but not move
about... which means it gets no exercise, and its muscles will atrophy. And
it won't live to see the end of the voyage. Unfortunately, Woody can't think
of any other way to fit 'em all in.
Problem 5: Remember that 67,000 tonnes of food? What goes in must come out...
Noah and his crew (all eight of 'em) are gonna be kinda busy moving that
67,000 tonnes in one end, and removing the whatever amount of tonnes of waste
products out the other. _Each_ member of the crew would have about 2,000
'kinds' of animals to feed every day... and remember, some of those, the
clean ones, would be in sevens, and the others in pairs. Let's see. 15,754
divided by eight is a tad over 1,969. Number of seconds/day is 86,400. Noah &
Co. had 43.875 _seconds_ per 'kind' per day if they worked continously 24/7
for the year they were at sea to feed and clean 'em. Must've been trailing
bloody Cherenkov radiation as they ran about the boat, or at least sonic
booms. And, of course, if there were more 'kinds' than Woody's 15,754, Noah &
Co. would have had less time per 'kind', while if there were less 'kinds',
the hyperevolution problem would be worse.
Problem 6: Ye Floode itself. It covered the 'high hills and mountains'.
Hmm... Some creationists say that there was massive amounts of mountain
building post-Floode, which is why Everest, for example, is as tall as it is.
For the purposes of argument, I'll take 'em at their word. How tall _were_
the 'high hills and mountains', though? 100 feet? 1000 feet? 2000 feet? Well,
they'd better have been less than 250 feet, 'cause if you put that much water
above coral reefs, the reefs die. (You can check it for yourself.) Every
coral reef in the world should be dead... unless Noah carried a few corals
with him on Ye Arke, which gives him some extra problems. And which is not
supported by the Bible, anyway. It's easy to work out how much water would be
required for a Floode that size. Now, divide by 24 by 40, and you see how
much fell in the 40 days and 40 nights... and that's one hell of a lot of
water, even if you restrict it to 250 feet extra. I've been in two
hurricanes. They didn't dump anywhere _near_ that kind of water. Not even
within three orders of magnitude. No way a wooden boat's gonna survive that.
None. I won't bother go into varves, sandstones, and salt domes...
Problem 7: Plants. Not only would Noah have had to carry food for all the
animals (and, if predators such as tigers were then carnivores, this would
include extra animals to furnish food for said predators, while if they were
vegetarians, this would require extra fodder and an explanation as to when
and why they changed...) but heąs gonna have to carry all the various plants
as well. All of them. Land plants donąt care for major floods, and would all
die. Fresh-water plants donąt like too much salt, and would all die. Marine
plants donąt like too little salt and would all die. Estuary plants, who
donąt care about the salt content, do care about water pressure... and would
all die long before the corals (see above) would. After Ye Floode would come
Ye Dust Storm, as the wind dries up the mud and blows away the topsoil
because thereąs no ground cover left to preserve it, itąs all dead in Ye
Floode.
Problem 8: Aquatic life. Gen 7-8 simply does not mention aquatic life,
animals or plant. Perhaps fish donąt have Śthe breath of lifeą, as they donąt
breath air, but whales and seals and such do. Did Noah carry whales on Ye
Arke, too, and if so were they clean or unclean? The vast majority of marine
animals donąt like it if thereąs too little salt, or too much water pressure,
or both; a Floode that could reach above Everest would kill them all. (Some
marine life _loves_ pressure, and die if thereąs too little, which creates a
different problem, see below) The vast majority of fresh-water animals donąt
like it if thereąs too much salt, and are far less pressure-resistant than
marine life (how deep can you go in a lake, anyway?) so Ye Floode would kill
them, too. Worse, the Bible expressly states that all creatures not on board
Ye Arke died in Ye Floode. Noah now has to have large aquaria on his wooden
barge... Iąm kinda curious as to how Noah kept the pressure on the tanks
containing the deep-ocean life, so that they wouldnąt die from decompression.
Problem 9: Disease/parasites. Tapeworm, AIDs, leprosy, etc, theyąre all
living creatures too. If they were not on Ye Arke, they died. Some of them
_require_ a _living_ host. Which one or ones of Noahąs crew carried herpes,
which hookworm, which Ebola? How about ticks, fleas, lice?
There's more, but this has gotten too long already. If you _really_ want to
see why I use that sig, check out the t.o FAQs and run the calcs for
yourself. It's not difficult to do. It's simple. Anyone who takes Ye Arke
seriously either hasn't done the math or can't add.
--
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive ignorance with
incredible arrogance.
Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A person
incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible true believer.
Pat James
(in message <3AD5BCF7...@research.bell-labs.com>):
> Buckfan328 wrote:
>> As to this statement first, all the species that are alive today would fill
>> only approximately 36.5% of the Ark, this number included a 'fudge' for
>> thousands of species now extinct.
>
> Is that Woodmorappe's number? His calculations fudge more
> that the number of extinct species.
>
>
Woody said that there were 15,754 kinds.
Bobby D. Bryant
> "Buckfan328" <buckf...@aol.com> wrote
> > An example of this would be the possiblity of Indian, and African
> > elephants as well as woolly mammoths developing from on type of elephant
> that
> > came after the flood.
>
> How will you get such fast speciation? Wooly mammoths were in North America
> in the last Ice Age--How did they speciate and get there so quickly after
> the Flood that didn't happen?
It's funny how these devout attempts to discredit evil-ution now resort to
"evolution on speed" to bolster their argument.
My conclusion from BF's claims is that evolution is OK, so long as it only
happened within the last 4-5Kyears.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Sean Timpa
*snip!
Not that it wasn't a really good chuckle, but I didn't want to clutter
up the board too much.
Let's try problem #10 (this is my personal favorite): Latent heat
of vaporisation. Do you know how much heat water releases when it
turns from vapour to liquid? Ever have a steam burn? 1g of steam
condenses to 1g of liquid water plus 2261 joules! A cubic meter of
water is a million grams and the surface of the Earth is 5.09 x 10^8
km2 or 5.09 x1014 m2. Thus, if we drop a measely meter of water a day
for 40 days, the amount of energy released is 2261 joules/g *
1,000,000 g/m3 * 5.09*10^14 m3 per day or 1.15 * 10^24 joules a day or
249,300,000 megatonnes/day! The pentagon would envy such an arsenal.
Put another way, for every m of water level increase, we have to
release 2.261 billion joules/m2. At a rate of 1 m/day, this comes to
2.261 billion joules/day/m2 or a radiance of 26 kilowatts/m2, roughly
20 times the brightness of the sun!
Result: The atmosphere rapidly turns into incandescent plasma
incinerating Noah and the Ark. Nothing survives, the oceans boil and
the land is baked into pottery.
Gyudon Z
>On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 9:34:38 -0500, Ken Cox wrote
>(in message <3AD5BCF7...@research.bell-labs.com>):
>
>> Buckfan328 wrote:
>>> As to this statement first, all the species that are alive today would
>fill
>>> only approximately 36.5% of the Ark, this number included a 'fudge' for
>>> thousands of species now extinct.
>>
>> Is that Woodmorappe's number? His calculations fudge more
>> that the number of extinct species.
>>
>>
>
>Woody said that there were 15,754 kinds.
But does anyone know why woody picked exactly that figure?
Generic454381810
>My conclusion from BF's claims is that evolution is OK, so long as it only
>happened within the last 4-5Kyears.
>
>Bobby Bryant
>Austin, Texas
And so long as humans didnt evolve. We all know thats what the whole stink is
really about.
Pat James
(in message <3ad68aff...@news.uvic.ca>):
You you mind if I add that to my good ol' Torpedo Ye Arke! reguripost?
WickedDyno
buckf...@aol.com (Buckfan328) wrote:
> Please tell me of some beneficial mutatations where genetic material being
> deleted did not cause the benefit.
>
Nylon oligomerase, for one. Cased by a frame-shift mutation.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
WickedDyno
buckf...@aol.com (Buckfan328) wrote:
Oh, wait, you're including all extinct animals on the ark as well?
*ROFL!*
WickedDyno
<ebon...@excite.com> wrote:
> 4. As other people have pointed out, even allowing for "approximately
> the size of a sheep" on average, there's still no way you could fit
> millions of species into any leaky boat.
s/millions/billions/, as Buckfan seems to think they carried all animals
that are extinct now (except the trilobite), not that there's the least
bit of biblical support for that.
WickedDyno
reid...@aol.com (ReidRover) wrote:
Flat fish are the result of sin/the devil/Adam's fall twisting and
distorting normal fish since the flood. Crocodiles were
mountain-dwelling before the flood.
;)
seaotter
is
> really about.
Hit nail head
seaotter
Bob Pease
Pat James <patj...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:01HW.B6FC66110...@enews.newsguy.com...
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2001 0:59:46 -0500, Sean Timpa wrote
> (in message <3ad68aff...@news.uvic.ca>):
>
> > On 13 Apr 2001 00:19:16 -0400, Pat James <patj...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >
> > *snip!
> >
> > Not that it wasn't a really good chuckle, but I didn't want to clutter
> > up the board too much.
> >
> > Let's try problem #10 (this is my personal favorite): Latent heat
> > of vaporisation
snip science stuff.
Freddy Fundo sez:
"Yeah, that would be true if it happened now, but th' Laws O' Physics was
not in effect until AFTER th' time O' Noah!!!
I would rather believe the Christian Educators than you commies!!"
JISTASKKIN
young animals because they would weigh less, eat less, and sleep more. Also,
after the flood they would live longer to produce more offspring. No one
knows for sure how many animals were on the ark. Limiting it down to two of
each kind does not mean there were two of each species or variety that we
have today. There seem to be about 8000 basic kinds of animal in the world.
Also, many animals become dormant, lethargic or even hibernate during stormy
weather.
Through the instructions that God gave or through the wisdom of Noah he was
given the ability to provide a watering mechanism to disperse water to the
animals throughout the ark and possibly even a food distribution system. In
Genesis 1:29-30, the Bible teaches that before the flood all the animals
were vegetarians so there was not a problem with, for example, the lion
trying to eat the lamb. Some have suggested that there was a moon pool, a
hole in the center of the floor, which would provide a place for fishing
and, if necessary, a way to dispense animal waste from the ark.
The minor problems that the Bible believers cannot always answer are nothing
compared to the problems and questions that the evolutionists cannot answer.
Although I do not know exactly how Noah took care of all the animals on the
ark, I am going to believe the Bible until it is proven wrong instead of
doubt the Bible until it is proven right. For someone to reject the bible
and then accept the story that we all came from a rock is silly!
"Pat James" <patj...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:01HW.B6FBE8650...@enews.newsguy.com...
> at an angle, (thatıs straddling) or to bend the other way, the bows and
> sterns supported by waves but the midships sections out of the water (or
at
> least not as well supported) (thatıs hogging) and either way their keels
> Woodmorappe (who is, BTW, a creationist) in his book _Noahıs Ark: A
> Feasibility Study_, published by the Institute for Creation Research, El
> Cajon, California, (the ICR is not merely creationist; it _requires_ that
all
> who work there take an oath that they feel that the Bible is inerrant, as
> demonstrated on their web site) calculates that Noah's ark carried 5.5
> million kilos by weight of animals. (I disagree with this figure, as itıs
> much too low, but for purposes of argument Iıll use it.) He also estimates
> that each animal, on average, ate one thirtieth of its body weight per
day.
> Let's see... 5.5 million kilos is 5,500 tonnes. Divide by 30, multiply by
> 365... 66.917e+3. (Ye Arke was at sea for over a year, according to Gen 7
and
> 8. Iıll just use one year to keep things simple and to give Woody as much
> slack as possible. Wouldnıt want anyone to say that I was railroading
him.)
> Hmm. 67 thousand tonnes of food, by Woody's own figures. But... if you
> remember, we calculated that Ye Arke could displace a max of 46,000
tonnes,
> or 46,400 if we were being generous. And that included the mass of the
boat
> itself, and the animals. (Archimedesı Principle, you know) Looks like
> and why they changed...) but heıs gonna have to carry all the various
plants
> as well. All of them. Land plants donıt care for major floods, and would
all
> die. Fresh-water plants donıt like too much salt, and would all die.
Marine
> plants donıt like too little salt and would all die. Estuary plants, who
> donıt care about the salt content, do care about water pressure... and
would
> all die long before the corals (see above) would. After Ye Floode would
come
> Ye Dust Storm, as the wind dries up the mud and blows away the topsoil
> because thereıs no ground cover left to preserve it, itıs all dead in Ye
> Floode.
>
> Problem 8: Aquatic life. Gen 7-8 simply does not mention aquatic life,
> animals or plant. Perhaps fish donıt have Othe breath of lifeı, as they
donıt
> breath air, but whales and seals and such do. Did Noah carry whales on Ye
> Arke, too, and if so were they clean or unclean? The vast majority of
marine
> animals donıt like it if thereıs too little salt, or too much water
pressure,
> or both; a Floode that could reach above Everest would kill them all.
(Some
> marine life _loves_ pressure, and die if thereıs too little, which creates
a
> different problem, see below) The vast majority of fresh-water animals
donıt
> like it if thereıs too much salt, and are far less pressure-resistant than
> marine life (how deep can you go in a lake, anyway?) so Ye Floode would
kill
> them, too. Worse, the Bible expressly states that all creatures not on
board
> Ye Arke died in Ye Floode. Noah now has to have large aquaria on his
wooden
> barge... Iım kinda curious as to how Noah kept the pressure on the tanks
> containing the deep-ocean life, so that they wouldnıt die from
decompression.
>
> Problem 9: Disease/parasites. Tapeworm, AIDs, leprosy, etc, theyıre all
> living creatures too. If they were not on Ye Arke, they died. Some of them
> _require_ a _living_ host. Which one or ones of Noahıs crew carried
Bob Pease
You have ignored or cannot understand the posts here.
Please go to church and be happy with your religion.
Please, don't try to pass laws making the rest (98% of the world) practice
your religion.
JISTASKKIN <no...@nospamnadda.com> wrote in message
news:g6FB6.1280$zw2.4...@news1.telusplanet.net...
Trey
JISTASKKIN <no...@nospamnadda.com> wrote in message
news:g6FB6.1280$zw2.4...@news1.telusplanet.net...
were
> young animals because they would weigh less, eat less, and sleep more.
Young animals, as many others have posted previously, are growing and
therefore require lots of food.
> Also, after the flood they would live longer to produce more offspring. No
one
> knows for sure how many animals were on the ark. Limiting it down to two
of
> each kind does not mean there were two of each species or variety that we
> have today. There seem to be about 8000 basic kinds of animal in the
world.
> Also, many animals become dormant, lethargic or even hibernate during
stormy
> weather.
Genesis 7:2 says Noah got 7 of every clean animal and 2 of the unclean.
Define "kind" however you want, but, for the Flood myth to be correct, you
would have to embrace speciation wholeheartedly. If you took only one kind
of jungle cat onto the ark, it would have to develop into the dozens (?) of
different kinds today. Ditto with all the other mammals, birds, reptiles,
and -- oh yeah -- the millions upon millions of insect species. As for the
animals hibernating, they would have to eat at some point, since they were
on the ark for well over 6 months.
> Through the instructions that God gave or through the wisdom of Noah he
was
> given the ability to provide a watering mechanism to disperse water to the
> animals throughout the ark and possibly even a food distribution system.
Uh-huh. And what miraculous system was this? Was it used back on dry land
once the affair was over?
> In Genesis 1:29-30, the Bible teaches that before the flood all the
animals
> were vegetarians so there was not a problem with, for example, the lion
> trying to eat the lamb.
Why then do so many animals have sharp pointy teeth? For ripping into
flesh, that's why. Your God made animals with carnivore's teeth and then
made them graze? I don't think so.
> The minor problems that the Bible believers cannot always answer are
nothing
> compared to the problems and questions that the evolutionists cannot
answer.
Such as? And by the way, I don't think the creation of the universe is a
"minor" problem for believers to deal with.
> Although I do not know exactly how Noah took care of all the animals on
the
> ark, I am going to believe the Bible until it is proven wrong instead of
> doubt the Bible until it is proven right. For someone to reject the bible
> and then accept the story that we all came from a rock is silly!
No, for some one to reject the cumulative efforts of thousands of scientists
and hundreds of years of work in favor of a 4,000 year-old myth is silly.
Plus, the burden of proof for the Bible's validity is on you. You have to
convince others that it's the way things were done, not the other way
'round. Your blind devotion to your ancient text will be your undoing.
Also, you seem to have little grasp of evolutionary theory and what
abiogenesis is. I refer you to http://www.talkorigins.org
There are plenty of answers there.
Boikat
>
> It is reasonable to assume that the larger types of animals on the Ark were
> young animals because they would weigh less, eat less, and sleep more. Also,
> after the flood they would live longer to produce more offspring.
What did they eat in the days and weeks after the
flood? Especially the predators? What did the
herbivores eat after the flood? Also, since the
purpose fo the flood was to rid the world of the
evilness of man, why should that have affected the
animals? Why should a renewed wold, now free of
evil men, make lions and tigers and voles, and so
on, into predators? How caome all cat-like
species turned into predators? Why isn't there a
statistical mix, of say, 10 % of all felidia are
carnivore, and the remaining 90% vegitarian? Or
did the 10 % that were carnivore eat the
vegitarian cats? Where are the 10 % species of
equines that should be predators? Why are all
equines herbivores? Why didn't the carnivorous
equines eat all the herbivorous equines like the
carnivorous cats ate the herbivorous cats?
> No one
> knows for sure how many animals were on the ark.
That's easy. "Goose egg". No ark ever existed.
Problem solved.
> Limiting it down to two of
> each kind does not mean there were two of each species or variety that we
> have today.
Ands seven pairs of clean "kinds".
> There seem to be about 8000 basic kinds of animal in the world.
What's a "basic animal" An earthworm is a "basic
animal", but then again so is a hawk, or mouse,
or a zebra.
> Also, many animals become dormant, lethargic or even hibernate during stormy
> weather.
Name some animals that become dormant during
storms. Also, for them to stay dormant for any
amount of time during the flood, they would have
to have been "fattened up", prior to the flood.
No mention of that in the Bible. Matter of fact,
didn't the animals arrive just in the nick of
time?
>
> Through the instructions that God gave or through the wisdom of Noah he was
> given the ability to provide a watering mechanism to disperse water to the
> animals throughout the ark and possibly even a food distribution system.
Unsubstantiated speculation.
> In
> Genesis 1:29-30, the Bible teaches that before the flood all the animals
> were vegetarians
Explain the fact that fossils supposedly deposited
during the flood contain tooth marks.
> so there was not a problem with, for example, the lion
> trying to eat the lamb.
Except that the lions digestive system cannot
sustain a loin on a vegetarian diet.
> Some have suggested that there was a moon pool, a
> hole in the center of the floor, which would provide a place for fishing
> and, if necessary, a way to dispense animal waste from the ark.
Unsubstantiated speculation. Not mentioned in the
Bible, where it clearly says the only remaining
opening was a one by one cubit window.
>
> The minor problems
The ark disintegrating in the first heave of the
stormy flood is not a "minor problem".
> that the Bible believers cannot always answer are nothing
> compared to the problems and questions that the evolutionists cannot answer.
Especially when all it takes for "bible believers"
to say, "And God spoke thusly, and it was so."
Problem solved. That's not science, and yes, it's
real easy to answer question like that, since you
do not have to present any evidence to support the
claim. Science is hobbled in that it cannot solve
problems by simple proclamations. But then again,
that's why science advances, instead of simply
repeating the same old dogma, century after
century. (Unless it's got some damn good evidence,
in which case, it's not the same as the "religious
dogma".)
> Although I do not know exactly how Noah took care of all the animals on the
> ark, I am going to believe the Bible until it is proven wrong instead of
> doubt the Bible until it is proven right. For someone to reject the bible
> and then accept the story that we all came from a rock is silly!
You can believe whatever you want for whatever
reason, just don't pretend it's science. It
annoys those that actually understand science.
> > at an angle, (thatšs straddling) or to bend the other way, the bows and
> > sterns supported by waves but the midships sections out of the water (or
> at
> > least not as well supported) (thatšs hogging) and either way their keels
> > Woodmorappe (who is, BTW, a creationist) in his book _Noahšs Ark: A
> > Feasibility Study_, published by the Institute for Creation Research, El
> > Cajon, California, (the ICR is not merely creationist; it _requires_ that
> all
> > who work there take an oath that they feel that the Bible is inerrant, as
> > demonstrated on their web site) calculates that Noah's ark carried 5.5
> > million kilos by weight of animals. (I disagree with this figure, as itšs
> > much too low, but for purposes of argument Išll use it.) He also estimates
> > that each animal, on average, ate one thirtieth of its body weight per
> day.
> > Let's see... 5.5 million kilos is 5,500 tonnes. Divide by 30, multiply by
> > 365... 66.917e+3. (Ye Arke was at sea for over a year, according to Gen 7
> and
> > 8. Išll just use one year to keep things simple and to give Woody as much
> > slack as possible. Wouldnšt want anyone to say that I was railroading
> him.)
> > Hmm. 67 thousand tonnes of food, by Woody's own figures. But... if you
> > remember, we calculated that Ye Arke could displace a max of 46,000
> tonnes,
> > or 46,400 if we were being generous. And that included the mass of the
> boat
> > itself, and the animals. (Archimedesš Principle, you know) Looks like
> > and why they changed...) but hešs gonna have to carry all the various
> plants
> > as well. All of them. Land plants donšt care for major floods, and would
> all
> > die. Fresh-water plants donšt like too much salt, and would all die.
> Marine
> > plants donšt like too little salt and would all die. Estuary plants, who
> > donšt care about the salt content, do care about water pressure... and
> would
> > all die long before the corals (see above) would. After Ye Floode would
> come
> > Ye Dust Storm, as the wind dries up the mud and blows away the topsoil
> > because therešs no ground cover left to preserve it, itšs all dead in Ye
> > Floode.
> >
> > Problem 8: Aquatic life. Gen 7-8 simply does not mention aquatic life,
> > animals or plant. Perhaps fish donšt have Othe breath of lifeš, as they
> donšt
> > breath air, but whales and seals and such do. Did Noah carry whales on Ye
> > Arke, too, and if so were they clean or unclean? The vast majority of
> marine
> > animals donšt like it if therešs too little salt, or too much water
> pressure,
> > or both; a Floode that could reach above Everest would kill them all.
> (Some
> > marine life _loves_ pressure, and die if therešs too little, which creates
> a
> > different problem, see below) The vast majority of fresh-water animals
> donšt
> > like it if therešs too much salt, and are far less pressure-resistant than
> > marine life (how deep can you go in a lake, anyway?) so Ye Floode would
> kill
> > them, too. Worse, the Bible expressly states that all creatures not on
> board
> > Ye Arke died in Ye Floode. Noah now has to have large aquaria on his
> wooden
> > barge... Išm kinda curious as to how Noah kept the pressure on the tanks
> > containing the deep-ocean life, so that they wouldnšt die from
> decompression.
> >
> > Problem 9: Disease/parasites. Tapeworm, AIDs, leprosy, etc, theyšre all
> > living creatures too. If they were not on Ye Arke, they died. Some of them
> > _require_ a _living_ host. Which one or ones of Noahšs crew carried
Henry Barwood
JISTASKKIN wrote:
Snip of contortions and jumping through hoops .
> The minor problems that the Bible believers cannot always answer are nothing
> compared to the problems and questions that the evolutionists cannot answer.
> Although I do not know exactly how Noah took care of all the animals on the
> ark, I am going to believe the Bible until it is proven wrong instead of
> doubt the Bible until it is proven right. For someone to reject the bible
> and then accept the story that we all came from a rock is silly!
Congratulations! You definitely qualify as a true believer. Now please
tell me how being created by "God" from "earth" (soil or powdered rock)
is significantly different from "the story we all came from a rock"?
Heck, all abiogenesis needs is some organics, water, and UV. A creation
event would have created a radiation flux of awesome magnitude as "God"
rearranged the atoms from Si, Al, O, etc. to C, H, N, etc.
Barwood
John Monrad
no...@nospamnadda.com says...
[...]
> For someone to reject the bible
> and then accept the story that we all came from a rock is silly!
Refresh my memory -- what was the raw material used to create Adam?
--
John Monrad
CHMC
Gyudon Z <gyu...@aol.com> wrote in article
<20010413020655...@ng-fi1.aol.com>...
> From Pat James:
>
> >On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 9:34:38 -0500, Ken Cox wrote
> >(in message <3AD5BCF7...@research.bell-labs.com>):
> >
> >> Buckfan328 wrote:
> >>> As to this statement first, all the species that are alive today
would
> >fill
> >>> only approximately 36.5% of the Ark, this number included a 'fudge'
for
> >>> thousands of species now extinct.
> >>
> >> Is that Woodmorappe's number? His calculations fudge more
> >> that the number of extinct species.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Woody said that there were 15,754 kinds.
>
> But does anyone know why woody picked exactly that figure?
>
Because picking an exact figure makes it sound like you know some kind of
fact.
Howard Hershey
JISTASKKIN wrote:
>
> It is reasonable to assume that the larger types of animals on the Ark were
> young animals because they would weigh less, eat less, and sleep more. Also,
> after the flood they would live longer to produce more offspring. No one
> knows for sure how many animals were on the ark. Limiting it down to two of
> each kind does not mean there were two of each species or variety that we
> have today. There seem to be about 8000 basic kinds of animal in the world.
Could you point me to some book or web site that explicitly lists
these "basic kinds" and the reasoning that produced this 'natural'
description of (what? vertebrates? tetrapods?)? I have never seen
such a list aside from the fact that each creationist who posts here
seems to make up the list out of the highest form of scientific
literature that they have read (children's picturebooks of animals).
Thus we see the "kittie" kind, the "doggie" kind, the "horsie" kind,
the "bug" kind, the "monkey" kind, and the "mommy and daddy" kind.
Like the map of the U.S. in the mind of a Manhattanite, the picture
one gets a tad distorted.
> Also, many animals become dormant, lethargic or even hibernate during stormy
> weather.
You mean that horses do not get upset during thunderstorms? They fall
asleep? You seem to be waving your hands rather furiously, perhaps
hoping we will not notice the words.
>
> Through the instructions that God gave or through the wisdom of Noah he was
> given the ability to provide a watering mechanism to disperse water to the
> animals throughout the ark and possibly even a food distribution system.
And this system was? And how did all the necessary freshwater lakes
and streams and swamps reappear in a post-flood landscape filled with
brackish water and salty soils? Are you going to have to invoke yet
another miracle?
> In
> Genesis 1:29-30, the Bible teaches that before the flood all the animals
> were vegetarians so there was not a problem with, for example, the lion
> trying to eat the lamb.
And ticks and mosquitos ate plant sap? The wasps that inject their
darling litter into caterpillars to eat like the alien of "Alien" did
on humans switched to this "perverted lifestyle" only after the flood?
Vultures dined on watermelon? Crocodiles ate water lillies?
Sabertooth 'tigers' used the teeth to dig out potatoes? You sure live
in a funny world. To bad it isn't the real one.
> Some have suggested that there was a moon pool, a
> hole in the center of the floor, which would provide a place for fishing
> and, if necessary, a way to dispense animal waste from the ark.
On a wooden boat this long (already unseaworthy), you would weaken the
center keel by introducing a break?
>
> The minor problems that the Bible believers cannot always answer are nothing
> compared to the problems and questions that the evolutionists cannot answer.
Minor problems? You call the utter and complete impossibility of your
ark story (absent repeated miracles *and* the deceptive removal of all
possible physical evidence that it happened) a 'minor problem'? What
problem in the evolution of life compares to that?
> Although I do not know exactly how Noah took care of all the animals on the
> ark, I am going to believe the Bible until it is proven wrong instead of
> doubt the Bible until it is proven right. For someone to reject the bible
> and then accept the story that we all came from a rock is silly!
One does not have to reject "the Bible" as a religious document. One
does have to reject a simple-minded literalistic interpretation of the
Bible. At least one does if one hopes not to be considered a
simple-minded, naive, or gullible primitive.
>
[snip many points that have not been answered]
Adam Marczyk
news:g6FB6.1280$zw2.4...@news1.telusplanet.net...
were
> young animals because they would weigh less, eat less,
No, they would eat _more_. And many animals live in packs, or need to be
taught hunting, mating or foraging behavior by their parents.
> and sleep more. Also,
> after the flood they would live longer to produce more offspring. No one
> knows for sure how many animals were on the ark. Limiting it down to two
of
> each kind does not mean there were two of each species or variety that we
> have today. There seem to be about 8000 basic kinds of animal in the
world.
Okay, which means after the flood, to diversify into the _millions_ of
species we have today, they'd have to undergo hyper-rapid periods of
modification. Congratulations, you're proposing evolution on a scale much
greater than any of its supporters claim.
> Also, many animals become dormant, lethargic or even hibernate during
stormy
> weather.
Uh-huh. Like which ones?
> Through the instructions that God gave or through the wisdom of Noah he
was
> given the ability to provide a watering mechanism to disperse water to the
> animals throughout the ark and possibly even a food distribution system.
What was this system? Did Noah have conveyor belts and internal combustion
engines or what?
> In
> Genesis 1:29-30, the Bible teaches that before the flood all the animals
> were vegetarians so there was not a problem with, for example, the lion
> trying to eat the lamb.
News flash: You can't use the Bible to prove the Bible. If you think animals
that are today carnivores used to be vegetarians, prove it. Find a
sabretooth tiger or a velociraptor skeleton with flat, grinding teeth. Heck,
just about all those animals that lived before the Flood ought to be
preserved exceptionally well with the rapid rates of sedimentation, so it
shouldn't be hard. And where did these adaptations for predatory
lifestyles - fangs and claws and venom and spinnerets for web-weaving and
infrared-sensitive pits for detecting prey, to name a few - come from after
the Flood?
> Some have suggested that there was a moon pool, a
> hole in the center of the floor, which would provide a place for fishing
> and, if necessary, a way to dispense animal waste from the ark.
Someone's still gotta shovel it all. 16,000 animals that need servicing per
day, all to be taken care of by a crew of how many people again, eight?
Right. Call a large zoo sometime and ask how many people they hire to take
care of everything.
> The minor problems that the Bible believers cannot always answer are
nothing
> compared to the problems and questions that the evolutionists cannot
answer.
"Minor problems?" Don't make me laugh. The Flood story is ruled out
conclusively by every available piece of evidence from architecture,
genetics, paleontology and geology, to name a few. You didn't even try to
answer any of the points Pat James raised, for a few, and here are at least
a hundred more:
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/evolution/flood.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
Now tell us, what are the problems evolutionists can't answer? Name even
one - I dare you.
> Although I do not know exactly how Noah took care of all the animals on
the
> ark, I am going to believe the Bible until it is proven wrong instead of
> doubt the Bible until it is proven right. For someone to reject the bible
> and then accept the story that we all came from a rock is silly!
Christ. You've been reading Kent Hovind's site, haven't you? Don't do that.
[snip]
--
When I am dreaming,
I don't know if I'm truly asleep, or if I'm awake.
When I get up,
I don't know if I'm truly awake, or if I'm still dreaming...
--Forest for the Trees, "Dream"
To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"
ReidRover
>> Also, many animals become dormant, lethargic or even hibernate during
>stormy
>> weath
but they hibernate in specially made dens usually or in some other quiet
place..i cant see any of them hibernating in small cages surrounded by 1000s
of other animals while be tossed around by giant tsunami like waves...or is
this another case of "Creation Sciences" greatest theorem.."Goddidit"?
By the way most animals DONT hibernate they just dont have the means to store
the right amounts of "brown fat" as compared to 'white fat".>
>> Genesis 1:29-30, the Bible teaches that before the flood all the animals
>> were vegetarians so there was not a problem with, for example, the lion
>> trying to eat the lamb.
>
were exactlly is the non-Biblical proof for this..has a tiger fossil been
found with herbivorous teeth?..maybe vampire bats sucked sap?
If you want creation to be taught as science you have to come up with some
proof..other than "Goddidit"
Anyway are there any "pre-flood" fossils at all??lol if not why not?>
>> The minor problems that the Bible believers cannot always answer are
>nothing
>> compared to the problems and questions that the evolutionists cannot
>answer.
>
MINOR problems we just totally trashed the "Flood Story" totally annihalated
it by reason and pretty basic elementary biological , geological and
playschool level engineering!
Now give us the problems in evolutionary theory that dwarf that of the
flood"?
>> and then accept the story that we all came from a rock is silly!
>
well is it any sillier than from a bunch of dust?
Pat James
(in message <g6FB6.1280$zw2.4...@news1.telusplanet.net>):
> It is reasonable to assume that the larger types of animals on the Ark were
> young animals because they would weigh less, eat less, and sleep more.
the also eat a lot more. The Bible also says 'the male and his mate'; young
animals aren't sexually mature and don't have mates.
> Also,
> after the flood they would live longer to produce more offspring.
where is this written in the Bible?
> No one
> knows for sure how many animals were on the ark.
zero.
> Limiting it down to two of
> each kind does not mean there were two of each species or variety that we
> have today. There seem to be about 8000 basic kinds of animal in the world.
and you calculated this figure (which contradicts Woody's figure) how? And
how, exactly, do you get from the 8,000 kinds then to millions now _without_
massive evolutionary changes... which I covered in Problem 3:
Problem 3: In order to get the mass of the animals down, Woody pared things
down. He tried to define 'kind' so as to have, say, one pair of cat-like
whatevers, and have all present day cats, from house cats to lions,
descendants of that pair. Nice... except that doing it that way _requires_
evolution on a scale so massive and rapid that _no_ evolutionary biologist
would dare suggest it. And Woody does that with _all_ animals... It's the
only way he could get 'em to fit.
You didn't actually _read_ my post, now did you, eh?
> Also, many animals become dormant, lethargic or even hibernate during stormy
> weather.
very few. And none for more than four months at a time. Ye Arke was allegedly
at sea for a year and you would require _all_ the animals to hibernate.
>
> Through the instructions that God gave or through the wisdom of Noah he was
> given the ability to provide a watering mechanism to disperse water to the
> animals throughout the ark and possibly even a food distribution system. In
> Genesis 1:29-30, the Bible teaches that before the flood all the animals
> were vegetarians
Gen 1:29-30 does not say anything of the kind.
> so there was not a problem with, for example, the lion
> trying to eat the lamb.
and as I said in problem 7:
Problem 7: Plants. Not only would Noah have had to carry food for all the
animals (and, if predators such as tigers were then carnivores, this would
include extra animals to furnish food for said predators, while if they were
vegetarians, this would require extra fodder and an explanation as to when
and why they changed...) but hešs gonna have to carry all the various plants
as well. All of them. Land plants donšt care for major floods, and would all
die. Fresh-water plants donšt like too much salt, and would all die. Marine
plants donšt like too little salt and would all die. Estuary plants, who
donšt care about the salt content, do care about water pressure... and would
all die long before the corals (see above) would. After Ye Floode would come
Ye Dust Storm, as the wind dries up the mud and blows away the topsoil
because therešs no ground cover left to preserve it, itšs all dead in Ye
Floode.
where is ol' Noah gonna get the plants necessary to feed 'em? Why did the
cats (and _all_ of the cats) become meat-eaters? When did they do so? It must
have been fairly damn quick after Ye Floode, 'cause the Bible has many
examples of Close Encounters with killer cats. (The Book of Daniel, for
one...)
> Some have suggested that there was a moon pool, a
> hole in the center of the floor, which would provide a place for fishing
> and, if necessary, a way to dispense animal waste from the ark.
that's a _great_ idea: taking something which was badly designed in the first
place and weakening it! Y'all want to show where in the Bible this is
suggested? Please?
As for fishing... problem 8:
Problem 8: Aquatic life. Gen 7-8 simply does not mention aquatic life,
animals or plant. Perhaps fish donšt have Othe breath of lifeš, as they
donšt
breath air, but whales and seals and such do. Did Noah carry whales on Ye
Arke, too, and if so were they clean or unclean? The vast majority of marine
animals donšt like it if therešs too little salt, or too much water
pressure,
or both; a Floode that could reach above Everest would kill them all. (Some
marine life _loves_ pressure, and die if therešs too little, which creates a
different problem, see below) The vast majority of fresh-water animals donšt
like it if therešs too much salt, and are far less pressure-resistant than
marine life (how deep can you go in a lake, anyway?) so Ye Floode would kill
them, too. Worse, the Bible expressly states that all creatures not on board
Ye Arke died in Ye Floode. Noah now has to have large aquaria on his wooden
barge... Išm kinda curious as to how Noah kept the pressure on the tanks
containing the deep-ocean life, so that they wouldnšt die from
decompression.
_which_ fish? If Ye Floode was true, then all the marine fish are _dead_! and
all the fresh-water fish are _deader_! And beside, the Bible quite clearly
says in Gen 7:23 "and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him
in the ark". _Anything not on the big barge was *dead*_! so says the Bible!
>
> The minor problems that the Bible believers cannot always answer are nothing
> compared to the problems and questions that the evolutionists cannot answer.
so name a few of these questions.
> Although I do not know exactly how Noah took care of all the animals on the
> ark, I am going to believe the Bible until it is proven wrong instead of
> doubt the Bible until it is proven right. For someone to reject the bible
> and then accept the story that we all came from a rock is silly!
Gen 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground" so you're
saying that the Bible is wrong, eh? Heretic! You'll burn in hell forever!
>
[snipity... y'all really should snip the stuff you're not going to reply to.]
John Wilkins
Shouldn't that be
head
Hit----
nail
?
--
John Wilkins at home
<http://www.users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/darwiniana.html>
John Wilkins
Well, he did do it in a supernova some billions of years earlier, but
that's basically what happened :-)
Dick C.
<20010412185829...@ng-ba1.aol.com>:
>>Approximately the size of a sheep"? I don't buy it. What about the
>>dinosaurs? Were they not on the Ark? If not, why not?
>
>I must repeat myself again and say that many of the animals would have
>been young(teenage), and therefore not nearly as large as full grown
>dinosaurs.
Try reading the bible instead of Woodmorappe. Nothing in the bible
indicates that. What Woody does is invent all sorts of plausible
sounding (to those who do not think about the problems) scenarios as
an attempt to convince the believers that the ark really was possible.
he defined kind at the genus level, simply because it yields a large
sounding number of animals, but is sufficiently small enough that
he could come up with someway of fitting them all into the ark, with
some twisting and tweaking. Such as claiming that they are juveniles.
He tries to dodge out of the obvious problems by inventing some
strange methods of caring for the animals, but the reality of it is that
animals in captivity take a tremendous amount of care. And they take
a tremoundous amount of food, and put out an equally large amount of
waste. And they all need fresh water, many of them a lot of fresh water.
And the thing about juveniles is that they grow very fast, and need alot
of food. Much more so that adults. And if you do not give them enough
food, they suffer greatly, and will not develop properly. Possibly
not even be able to breed.
A few years ago we had quite a discussion on this, and the amount of
food needed was more than Woody had allowed for, and many animals need
a diet of meat, which Woody did not allow for. He also tried to apply
modern methods of food storage, which does not apply because there is
no reason to think that Noah would even know about them.
Another thing about the food. The conditions inside the ark would be
quite warm and humid. Which would do several nasty things to the
food. It would encourage mold, a lot of mold. It would also cause the
the grasses to compost, which in itself causes heat and sometimes fire.
Dangerous on a ship at sea.
And the number of animals on that ship was not enough to account for the
diversity and sheer numbers we see today. The story of Noah and the Ark
is so wrong on so many levels it is a wonder to me how anyone over the
age of ten could possibly believe it. As a matter of fact, I know some
very religious, fundamentalists who think the story referred to a local
flood.
To me, the story sounds like someone who is loading up his farm animals.
It says even the ostrich. Which may be kind of an odd farm animal, but
if it was referring to all the animals, then why not even the kangaroo,
or aardvark, or crocodile, or 3 toed sloth, or any number of animals
that would be highly dangerous, exotic,unlikely and undesirable to
have on a ship.
No matter what tack you wish to take with the story, it strikes me
as extremely unlikely that it happened the way Woody tried to make
it happen.
--
Dick #1349
People think that libraries are safe places, but they're not,
they have ideas.
email: dic...@uswest.net
Homepage http://www.users.uswest.net/~dickcr/
Dick C.
<amg39.REMOVETHIS-51...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>:
>In article <20010412182754...@ng-fc1.aol.com>,
>reid...@aol.com (ReidRover) wrote:
>
>> >
>> >> In regards to marine life, indeed, much of it went
>> >> extinct(trilobytes for example).
>> >
>>
>> Ive often wondered why flat fish ( sole ,haddock etc) arent found in
>> the same "bottom "layer fossils as trilobytes? How can Flood
>> creationists explain this? Also why arent Crocodilians found with
>> early swamp dwelling amphibians..they inhabit basically the same low
>> lying areas?
>>
>
>Flat fish are the result of sin/the devil/Adam's fall twisting and
>distorting normal fish since the flood. Crocodiles were
>mountain-dwelling before the flood.
those short legs would help keep the center of gravity close to
the ground on really steep slopes. And the tail would be a lot of
assistance in climbing.
>
>;)
>
:-)
Dick C.
ba1.aol.com>:
>Please tell me of some beneficial mutatations where genetic material being
>deleted did not cause the benefit.
>
Mutation that causes some people in Italy to metabolize cholesterol,
I think that is what it is, this places them at a far lesser risk
of heart attacks than everyone else.
tui...@earthlink.net
"Buckfan328" <buckf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010412185829...@ng-ba1.aol.com...
> >Approximately the size of a sheep"? I don't buy it. What about the
> >dinosaurs? Were they not on the Ark? If not, why not?
>
> I must repeat myself again and say that many of the animals would have
been
> young(teenage), and therefore not nearly as large as full grown dinosaurs.
Even giving there were 7 pairs of every clean animal - and that the
predators were non-predatory while on the ark, how soon after disembarcation
did the lions re-develp a taste for red meat - and how did their prey
survive those first few hours afterwards?
>
Robin Levett
> First, the ark had three decks.
Yes - but with only 15 feet of headroom each (save the upper deck of
course - provided that pesky firmament has been moved out of the way).
> With the dimensions given, it would contain
> appx. 101,000 sq.ft. of deck space.
That's about 34,000 square feet each deck. The proportions of each deck
were 6 long by one broad (300 cubits by 50). That makes the "Ark" about 450
feet long by 75 wide; assuming its rectangular, which makes for an
interesting ride! Assuming any degree of narrowing at bow and stern, the
length goes over 500 feet; was this gopher wood steel, by any chance?
And how much of that deck space is given over to the humans on the "Ark"?
> Also many of the animals on the ark would
> have been teenagers, able to support themselves, but also not full grown.
The
> average size of the animals on the ark is appx. the size of a sheep. Some
> railroad cars can hold up to 220 sheep. The ark would have had the
capacity
> equal to 500-700 of these rail cars.
Let's see now - 101,000 sq ft divided by 500 rail cars = 202 sq ft per rail
car; 220 sheep??? Have you ever seen a sheep? They don't stack very well,
either on end or on one another.
> Insects would not take up very much space
> because of their size.
Except that there are so many that, what with one thing and another, the air
space in the "Ark" would have been so thick with organic material that most
anumals aboard would become inadvertent insectivores.
> As for food, it is possible that the conditions on the
> ark put the animals in a state of hibernation
Death, not hibernation, given the atmosphere aboard. In any event,
comparatively few animals alive today have the capacity for hibernation.
> , or (though this would not be
> acceptable to you) that it was simply an act of God.
No, unacceptable - see my sig.
> In regards to marine
> life, indeed, much of it went extinct(trilobytes for example). For fresh
water
> fish, the massive runoff from rainfall on the continent
Which continent? You are arguing for a worldwide flood; that doesn't leave
much room for continents.
> would create a buffer
> of fresh water around *the continent *
Vide supra.
> where the fish could survive (for more
> information on this I would refer you to this website
> http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-222.htm)
> Most of the plants were buried and formed todays coal. However many
plants
> produce spores that could live for 150 days. Most plant seeds could have
> survived the flood.
>
Exactly how much sediment are you allowing for?
--
________________________________________________________________
Robin Levett
rle...@ibmattglobal.net
(address munged by addition of Big Blue)
Atheist = knows of and uses Occam's Razor
Agnostic = knows of but isn't sure whether to use Occam's Razor
Theist = what's Ockam's erasure?
___________________________________________________
SUDSM
the impression that some mountains, later named Ararat [no early geographers or
maps refer to it], is where the alleged Ark is supposed to have landed. As I
would translate it Gen 8:4 should say, with the Hebrew word "ararat"
translated:
8:4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on seventeenth day of the
month, on the tops of the high hills.
It was customary in the biblical idiom to speak of new dynasties as "sons" and
to refer to them as though referring to individuals, as we still do. Thus
Monaco, in 1997, celebrated the 700th birthday of Grimaldi which meant the
Grimaldi dynasty and did not mean that the present Grimaldi was 700 years old!
So it was in the 600th year of the dynasty of Noah that the land collapse
occurred. It is also clear that the dynasty of Noah was appointed to
administer settlements outside the Tarim Basin [assuming that was "the PNI
ADMH"]. He [Noah] established three settlements 100 years before the collapse,
since we read:
Gen 5:32 And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and
Japheth.
And no doubt he carried to those settlements domesticated grain and live stock
as it was developed [in the Adamic Kingdom], hence the story of the "Ark".
The dynasty of Noah was appointed 1056 years after the founding of the dynasty
of Adam. It was founded at the Autumnal Equinox [Rosh Hashanah] of 4000 BC [we
will assume because working it out from the evidence would make this already
long article much too long]. Then the 600th year of Noah was 1656 years from
the zero date [Autumnal Equinox = 22 Sept.] we have assumed. Using the
calendar system described above, the 2nd day of the 17th month corresponds to
our own "Festival of the Dead" -- Halloween -- the night beginning 1 November,
as pointed out by Frazer and others.
In modern popular thinking, shaped as it is by our infatuation with the idea of
"science" [called "religion" until recently], Copernicus and the Darwinian
Revolution are viewed as marking historical turning points dividing modern
enlightenment from the follies and superstitions of the Dark Ages. But we now
know that the heliocentric theory, attributed to Copernicus, was used by the
ancient Egyptians but dropped by the ancient Greeks because Archimedes had
ridiculed it.
Aleister Crowley's Cat
>On Wed, 11 Apr 2001 21:17:32 -0500, Buckfan328 wrote
>(in message <20010411221609...@ng-fr1.aol.com>):
>
>> First, the ark had three decks. With the dimensions given, it would contain
>> appx. 101,000 sq.ft. of deck space. Also many of the animals on the ark
>> would
>> have been teenagers, able to support themselves, but also not full grown.
>> The
>> average size of the animals on the ark is appx. the size of a sheep. Some
>> railroad cars can hold up to 220 sheep. The ark would have had the capacity
>> equal to 500-700 of these rail cars. Insects would not take up very much
>> space
>> because of their size. As for food, it is possible that the conditions on
>> the
>> ark put the animals in a state of hibernation, or (though this would not be
>> acceptable to you) that it was simply an act of God. In regards to marine
>> life, indeed, much of it went extinct(trilobytes for example). For fresh
>> water
>> fish, the massive runoff from rainfall on the continent would create a buffer
>> of fresh water around the continent where the fish could survive (for more
>> information on this I would refer you to this website
>> http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-222.htm)
>> Most of the plants were buried and formed todays coal. However many plants
>> produce spores that could live for 150 days. Most plant seeds could have
>> survived the flood.
>>
>
>O-kay... my problem with _anyone_ who takes creationism seriously is that it
>simply doesn't add up. Let's take my fav example, Ye Arke.
>
>So, depending on what you use for a cubit, Ye Arke is about 450 feet long, 75
>wide, and 45 tall, right? I work best in metres, so lets do a bit of
>conversion: that's 137.16 by 22.86 by 13.716 metres, right? For ease of
>calculation, let's call it 140 x 23 x 14. This give you 45.080e+3 cubic
>metres. One cubic metre of pure water is one metric tonne. Salt water is a
>bit more dense. Be nice, add another thousand tonnes or so... Ye Arke
>displaces 46,000 tonnes. Maybe 46,400 at max. And I'm being generous.
>
>Problem 1: The sheer size. HMS _Victory_, still preserved at Portsmouth, was
>186 feet long on the gundeck. HMS _Victoria_, the last full-rigged 1st rate
>ship of the line to serve as flag of the Channel Fleet, built in 1859, was
>250 feet long on the gundeck. And she had a steel frame because the RN had
>found that building wooden ships much bigger than 225 feet long was not a
>good idea because they tended to straddle or to hog on being launched; that
>is, they tended to bend, their bows and sterns to stick up out of the water
>at an angle, (thatąs straddling) or to bend the other way, the bows and
>sterns supported by waves but the midships sections out of the water (or at
>least not as well supported) (thatąs hogging) and either way their keels
>tended to crack under the strain. Even with steel frames, wooden ships bigger
>than 250 feet long tended to hog or straddle. Don't take my word for it, look
>it up for yourself. One possible source: _The Wooden Fighting Ship In the
>Royal Navy, 897-1860_, EHH Archibald, Blandford Press, London. Sorry, my copy
>was published back before ISBNs. Edward Archibald was at the time of writing
>the curator of the National Maritime Museum, Portsmouth, England. Or build a
>wooden boat 250 feet long and see what happens. Ye Arke was the size of _two_
>1st rate line of battleships, laid end-to-end. Noah was a shepherd. He knew
>better than the shipwrights at Chatham who built the ships with which the RN
>dominated the world for 150 years? If I'm wrong, and it is possible to build
>a 450 foot wooden vessel, by all means demonstrate it. I'll even put up some
>of the money... so long as I get to record the launch of said vessel. And so
>long as those who say that such a craft would be safe are willing to stay on
>it while it's being launched. Me, I figure that I'd get some _great_ pix.
>
>Problem 2: Even though it's too big to work, Ye Arke is too _small_ to do its
>job. Noah was at sea for a year. The Bible explicitly states that he carried
>food for himself, his family, and the animals... where did he put it? John
>Woodmorappe (who is, BTW, a creationist) in his book _Noahąs Ark: A
>Feasibility Study_, published by the Institute for Creation Research, El
>Cajon, California, (the ICR is not merely creationist; it _requires_ that all
>who work there take an oath that they feel that the Bible is inerrant, as
>demonstrated on their web site) calculates that Noah's ark carried 5.5
>million kilos by weight of animals. (I disagree with this figure, as itąs
>much too low, but for purposes of argument Iąll use it.) He also estimates
>that each animal, on average, ate one thirtieth of its body weight per day.
>Let's see... 5.5 million kilos is 5,500 tonnes. Divide by 30, multiply by
>365... 66.917e+3. (Ye Arke was at sea for over a year, according to Gen 7 and
>8. Iąll just use one year to keep things simple and to give Woody as much
>slack as possible. Wouldnąt want anyone to say that I was railroading him.)
>Hmm. 67 thousand tonnes of food, by Woody's own figures. But... if you
>remember, we calculated that Ye Arke could displace a max of 46,000 tonnes,
>or 46,400 if we were being generous. And that included the mass of the boat
>itself, and the animals. (Archimedesą Principle, you know) Looks like y'all
>need two Arkes just to carry the food, depending on what percentage of the
>boat's displacement is taken up by internal structure. (Most wooden ships use
>10-15% of their displacement in their structure. Any less and they break up
>under the stress of wind and wave. Don't take my word for it, check it out
>for yourself.) I once tried to work out just how big an Arke would have had
>to have been to carry the assorted animals and their food and have space for
>proper cages and exercise areas so that the animals' muscles don't atrophy...
>after I got to 900,000 tonnes displacement and still hadn't accounted for all
>the good stuff, I stopped. That's _three times the size of a supertanker_. Or
>_nine times the size of a nuke aircraft carrier_. There's simply no way that
>a wooden vessel could ever be that big. No way at all.
>
>Problem 3: In order to get the mass of the animals down, Woody pared things
>down. He tried to define 'kind' so as to have, say, one pair of cat-like
>whatevers, and have all present day cats, from house cats to lions,
>descendants of that pair. Nice... except that doing it that way _requires_
>evolution on a scale so massive and rapid that _no_ evolutionary biologist
>would dare suggest it. And Woody does that with _all_ animals... It's the
>only way he could get 'em to fit.
>
>Problem 7: Plants. Not only would Noah have had to carry food for all the
>animals (and, if predators such as tigers were then carnivores, this would
>include extra animals to furnish food for said predators, while if they were
>vegetarians, this would require extra fodder and an explanation as to when
>and why they changed...) but heąs gonna have to carry all the various plants
>as well. All of them. Land plants donąt care for major floods, and would all
>die. Fresh-water plants donąt like too much salt, and would all die. Marine
>plants donąt like too little salt and would all die. Estuary plants, who
>donąt care about the salt content, do care about water pressure... and would
>all die long before the corals (see above) would. After Ye Floode would come
>Ye Dust Storm, as the wind dries up the mud and blows away the topsoil
>because thereąs no ground cover left to preserve it, itąs all dead in Ye
>Floode.
>
>Problem 8: Aquatic life. Gen 7-8 simply does not mention aquatic life,
>animals or plant. Perhaps fish donąt have Śthe breath of lifeą, as they donąt
>breath air, but whales and seals and such do. Did Noah carry whales on Ye
>Arke, too, and if so were they clean or unclean? The vast majority of marine
>animals donąt like it if thereąs too little salt, or too much water pressure,
>or both; a Floode that could reach above Everest would kill them all. (Some
>marine life _loves_ pressure, and die if thereąs too little, which creates a
>different problem, see below) The vast majority of fresh-water animals donąt
>like it if thereąs too much salt, and are far less pressure-resistant than
>marine life (how deep can you go in a lake, anyway?) so Ye Floode would kill
>them, too. Worse, the Bible expressly states that all creatures not on board
>Ye Arke died in Ye Floode. Noah now has to have large aquaria on his wooden
>barge... Iąm kinda curious as to how Noah kept the pressure on the tanks
>containing the deep-ocean life, so that they wouldnąt die from decompression.
>
>Problem 9: Disease/parasites. Tapeworm, AIDs, leprosy, etc, theyąre all
>living creatures too. If they were not on Ye Arke, they died. Some of them
>_require_ a _living_ host. Which one or ones of Noahąs crew carried herpes,
>which hookworm, which Ebola? How about ticks, fleas, lice?
>
>There's more, but this has gotten too long already. If you _really_ want to
>see why I use that sig, check out the t.o FAQs and run the calcs for
>yourself. It's not difficult to do. It's simple. Anyone who takes Ye Arke
>seriously either hasn't done the math or can't add.
>--
>Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive ignorance with
>incredible arrogance.
>Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A person
>incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible true believer.
>
>
"Let Mary inviolate be torn upon wheels: for her sake let all chaste women be utterly despised among you!" - Aleister Crowley, The Book of the Law
E-mail: dave AT valinor DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
WWW: http://www.valinor.freeserve.co.uk OR http://www.kharne.net
pz
mango...@my-dejanews.com (Aleister Crowley's Cat) wrote:
> On 13 Apr 2001 00:19:16 -0400, Pat James <patj...@newsguy.com>
> scribed:
>
[snip arkishness]
I disagree that this is POTM material. There's nothing wrong with it,
but dissing Noah's Ark is really just good for a laugh -- it's not stuff
from which we can learn anything.
--
pz
Dick C.
>"Dick C." wrote:
>>
>> buckf...@aol.com (Buckfan328) wrote in
>> <20010412190849.06279.00002874@ng- ba1.aol.com>:
>>
>> >Please tell me of some beneficial mutatations where genetic material
>> >being deleted did not cause the benefit.
>> >
>>
>> Mutation that causes some people in Italy to metabolize cholesterol,
>> I think that is what it is, this places them at a far lesser risk
>> of heart attacks than everyone else.
>
>The article is here:
>
>http://komotv.com/news/nindexaction.asp?id=5816
>
>May I be forgiven for sending anyone to Komo.
Thanks for the link, as far as sending someone to KOMO goes,
there are no decent sites for local news in the PNW. They all
take too long to load, and none of them keep up with local news.
The newspaper sites have more news, but only updates once a day,
unless something major happens, such as an earthquake.
The radio and tv sites update when a story that they are interested
in occurs, but they all omit major portions of the news.
Aleister Crowley's Cat
scribed:
>On Sun, 15 Apr 2001 10:37:24 -0500, Aleister Crowley's Cat wrote
>(in message <3ad9c027...@news.freeserve.net>):
>
>
>sorry. Can't be a POTM.
>
>1 it's a repost; I reguripost it when I get sick of creationist wacko of the
>month yapping on and on and on about Ye Arke.
>
>2 a lot of people have helped in it. Some of 'em are regulars here. Others
>are not.
>
>3 it really ain't that hot, not alongside the stuff that McRae (to name just
>one poster) used to turn out.
>
>
What's he doing at the mo'?
Best Regards,
Dave
Jon Fleming
wrote:
>
>Sean Timpa <sean...@fastmail.ca> wrote in message
>news:3ad9b890....@news.uvic.ca...
>> On 13 Apr 2001 09:15:23 -0400, Pat James <patj...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 13 Apr 2001 0:59:46 -0500, Sean Timpa wrote
>> >(in message <3ad68aff...@news.uvic.ca>):
>> >
>> >> On 13 Apr 2001 00:19:16 -0400, Pat James <patj...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> *snip!
>> >>
>> >> Not that it wasn't a really good chuckle, but I didn't want to clutter
>> >> up the board too much.
>> >>
>> >> Let's try problem #10 (this is my personal favorite): Latent heat
>> >> of vaporisation. Do you know how much heat water releases when it
>> >> turns from vapour to liquid? Ever have a steam burn? 1g of steam
>> >> condenses to 1g of liquid water plus 2261 joules!
>> >>
>> >
>The water in the Flood came from Holy Vapour in the Canopy.
>I had just enough latent heat to keep the ARCQUE warm.
>I calculate 540 PICO calories per Teragram woulda did it!!!
So, you just change the latent heat of vaporization of water by
several orders of magnitude, and it all comes out OK, hum? Right.
Those (apparently few) creationists who actually try to think about
their "theories" have pretty much given up on the vapor canopy. From
<http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/flood-waters.asp>
"A major problem with the canopy theory
Vardiman[11] recognized a major difficulty with the canopy theory. The
best canopy model still gives an intolerably high temperature at the
surface of the earth. Rush and Vardiman have attempted a
solution,[12] but found that they had to drastically reduce the
amount of water vapor in the canopy from a rain equivalent of 40 feet
(12 meters) to only 20 inches (.5 meters). Further modelling
suggested that a maximum of 2 meters (6.5 feet) of water could be
held in such a canopy, even if all relevant factors were adjusted to
the best possible values to maximize the amount of water stored.[13]
Such a reduced canopy would not significantly contribute to the 40
days and nights of rain at the beginning of the flood.
Many creation scientists are now either abandoning the water vapor
canopy model[14] or no longer see any need for such a concept,
particularly if other reasonable mechanisms could have supplied the
rain.[15] In the catastrophic plate tectonics model for the flood,[16]
volcanic activity associated with the breaking up of the pre-flood
ocean floor would have created a linear geyser (like a wall) of
superheated steam from the ocean, causing intense global rain. [and
the death of every living thing on Earth - JRF]
Nevertheless, whatever the source or mechanism, the scriptural
statement about the windows of heaven opening is an apt description of
global torrential rain. A vapor canopy holding more than 7 feet (two
meters) of rain would cause the earth's surface to be intolerably hot,
so a vapor canopy could not have been a significant source of the
flood waters."
See also <http://www.icr.org/research/lv/lv-r05.htm> and
<http://www.reasons.org/resources/faf/91q2faf/reason.htm>. For a
non-creationist take on it see
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/canopy.html> and
<http://chem.tufts.edu/science/FrankSteiger/canopy.htm>.
--
Change "nospam" to "group" to email
Jon Fleming
wrote:
>
>Sean Timpa <sean...@fastmail.ca> wrote in message
>news:3ad9b890....@news.uvic.ca...
>> On 13 Apr 2001 09:15:23 -0400, Pat James <patj...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 13 Apr 2001 0:59:46 -0500, Sean Timpa wrote
>> >(in message <3ad68aff...@news.uvic.ca>):
>> >
>> >> On 13 Apr 2001 00:19:16 -0400, Pat James <patj...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> *snip!
>> >>
>> >> Not that it wasn't a really good chuckle, but I didn't want to clutter
>> >> up the board too much.
>> >>
>> >> Let's try problem #10 (this is my personal favorite): Latent heat
>> >> of vaporisation. Do you know how much heat water releases when it
>> >> turns from vapour to liquid? Ever have a steam burn? 1g of steam
>> >> condenses to 1g of liquid water plus 2261 joules!
>> >>
>> >
>The water in the Flood came from Holy Vapour in the Canopy.
>I had just enough latent heat to keep the ARCQUE warm.
>I calculate 540 PICO calories per Teragram woulda did it!!!
>
Whoops. I need <fund idiocy> </fundy idiocy> markers ...
Bob Pease
Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:dkrjdtovpjqsmdcp1...@4ax.com...
> On 15 Apr 2001 13:28:30 -0400, "Bob Pease" <bobp...@concentric.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Sean Timpa <sean...@fastmail.ca> wrote in message
> >news:3ad9b890....@news.uvic.ca...
> >> On 13 Apr 2001 09:15:23 -0400, Pat James <patj...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Fri, 13 Apr 2001 0:59:46 -0500, Sean Timpa wrote
> >> >(in message <3ad68aff...@news.uvic.ca>):
> >> >
> >> >> On 13 Apr 2001 00:19:16 -0400, Pat James <patj...@newsguy.com>
wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> *snip!
> >> >>
> >> >> Not that it wasn't a really good chuckle, but I didn't want to
clutter
> >> >> up the board too much.
> >> >>
> >> >> Let's try problem #10 (this is my personal favorite): Latent
heat
> >> >> of vaporisation. Do you know how much heat water releases when it
> >> >> turns from vapour to liquid? Ever have a steam burn? 1g of steam
> >> >> condenses to 1g of liquid water plus 2261 joules!
> >> >>
> >> >
> >The water in the Flood came from Holy Vapour in the Canopy.
> >I had just enough latent heat to keep the ARCQUE warm.
> >I calculate 540 PICO calories per Teragram woulda did it!!!
>
> So, you just change the latent heat of vaporization of water by
> several orders of magnitude, and it all comes out OK, hum? Right.
I think I changed it by TWELVE orders of magnitude.
If you change it any, twelve is as good as anything else.
The amazing thing here is:
It is obviously not possible to get crazy enough when parodying fundies.
Does this mean that they're SO nutz that practically any attempt at parody
would be taken seriously??
Parody only works if it is so extreme as to be obvious to anyone.