The Ark size
Stephen Wolstenholme
problems the number of separate cages and containers needed on the Ark
would be about 500,000. It becomes clear that a boat about 15 miles
long would have been needed or is there another explanation.
Steve
alextangent
Friar Broccoli
wrote:
I am sure All-Seeing-I will agree that the Ark contained only a few
kinds that rapidly speciated into all the varieties we see today. Or
perhaps he has a better explanation?
marks...@yahoo.com
Baraminology !
Friar Broccoli
I suppose a couple of bottles of vodka would help, but I think other
drugs would be needed to make it seem like science.
Burkhard
Well, there is that remote possibility ;o)
Other more realistic ones are:
a)
"Kind" does not refer to species, but to something much larger, say
family or order. This of course would mean that after they landed,
there was a period of extensive hyperevolution to create all the
species we find today. You'd go to bed with your trusted companion
that looked liek this purring on the sofa
http://www.iacuc.arizona.edu/training/cats/images/Tabby1-DomesticCat-Closeup.jpg
and when they woke up you had a full litter of these:
http://www.wildlife-pictures-online.com/image-files/lion-cub_son-0422g.jpg
which was irritating since by noon, they had become like this:
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/buffalo-lion-1.jpg
This process stopped _just_ before we be came aware of what was going
on and could document/observe it.
b)
The larger animals were miraculously reduced in size to about 1 cm.
c)
only parts of the Ark were actually in this dimension, a large part
protruded into another one where the animals were kept
d)
The language is metaphorical. Noah did not take the actual animals,
but cell samples. He then cloned them after the flood, using the
well documented Sumerian in vitro techniques - obviously, the only
available wombs would have been his wife/inlaws.
e) the animals were stored within each other, like russian dolls. The
fly was kept in the spider, the spider in the bird, the bird in a
cat, the cat in a dog, the dog in a goat, the goat in a cow etc.
Memories of the event have survived in our collective conscience and
sometimes resurface at strange places.
f) the animals were all stored in boxes with Geiger counters that
contains a tiny bit of radioactive substance. If and only if one of
the atoms decays, the counter tube discharges, and through a relay
releases a hammer that shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid.
As a result, all animals will be in a state of quantum uncertainty
(unless someone looks, of course) and in this state don;t take up any
space at all, indeed, they can be superimposed.
I'm sure I can come up with some others, all perfectly normal as you
can see
All-seeing-I
> wrote:
>
> > Allowing for the estimated 18,000,000 species
Actual estimate: 18,000
>and compatibility
> > problems the number of separate cages and containers needed on the Ark
> > would be about 500,000. It becomes clear that a boat about 15 miles
> > long would have been needed or is there another explanation.
>
> I am sure All-Seeing-I will agree that the Ark contained only a few
> kinds that rapidly speciated into all the varieties we see today. �Or
> perhaps he has a better explanation?
They produced variations of land, sea and air creatures. "each after
his own kind" just as we can witness happening today.
Many were brought in as juveniles.
Some as eggs.
Food storage techniques were available and even fed the Egyptians (and
surronding areas) for more then 7 years at a time during a drought.
They had a long time to orchistrate the boat and all of the plans
Not all of the animals went on the boat. The ones that "layed down" in
front of the ark entered. The rest we can only assume God made other
plans for; perhaps some were simply destroyed as is reflected in the
fossil record.
The "fountains of the deep" broke up. Even today scientists have found
major oceans of water under the earth's crust
People were instructed all over the world of the impending danger, as
Noah was.
The ark was sea worthy even during a huge storm:
The above information comes from extra biblical books that were not
allowed in the bible. Bottom line? A world wide flood that killed much
of life was in fact possible if these ancient texts are accurate.
Some modern day evidence:
SHEARER & ASSOC.
P.O. BOX 9576
METAIRIE, LA 70055
(504) 836-6009
FAX (504) 831-8431
NAVAL ARCHITECTS . MARINE ENGINEERS . MARINE SURVEYORS
NEW ORLEANS . HOUSTON . NASHVILLE
February 7, 2000
Forefront Communications Group
5837 Bartlett Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15217
Subject: Noah's Ark. References: (a) Your letter received January 10,
2000.
I appreciate the opportunity to read and offer comments on Mr. Joe
Silver's manuscript about Noah's Ark. His research and findings seem
quite extensive and well-founded. My profession involves my reviewing
acceptability and workability of marine designs developed by my firm
as well as others and submission to various regulatory agencies for
approval. In this case, I am reviewing the design of a vessel
developed by G-d; Who even supercedes the demands of the United States
Coast Guard. My concern in reviewing this manuscript was if I found a
design flaw, who is at fault?
The vessel's size, according to Mr. Silver, is 627' long X 104'-6"
wide (beam) X 62'- 8 3/8" overall depth at the side. (On page 100, he
calculates the depth at 62.07' which is actually 62.70 ft.) The second
deck is 20'-10 7/8" above the lowest deck, the third deck 20'-10 7/8"
above the second and the "roof" 20'-10 7/8" above the third deck with
a one cubit (2'-1") crown. Based on Mr. Silver's structural
arrangement given on page 113, the 'tween deck height between the hold
and the second deck is about 16'- 4 3/4"; the 'tween deck height
between the second and third decks is about 16'-10 7/8" and the 'tween
deck height between the third deck and the roof is about 20'- 4 3/4"
at the side.
This size makes it one of the larger vessels ever built. The new
"VOYAGER OF THE SEAS" was buiit by Kvaerner-Masa Yards in Finland for
Royal Caribbean is touted as the World's largest cruise ship. She is
1021' long (overall) X 156' beam X 70' depth (to the promenade deck).
She has a 28' design draft and can carry 1180 crew and 3840
passengers. The new tanker "ARCO ENDEAVOUR" being built by Litton-
Avondale for ARCO is 846' long X 152' beam X 83' depth with an
operating draft of 58'.
We modeled (digitized) Noah's Ark using "HECSALV" software developed
by Hebert Engineering Corp. of San Francisco. "HRCSALV" is used
extensively by the U. S. Navy and Coast Guard in their engineering and
salvage analyses. Figure 1 [left side] is the plot of the digitized
plot of the Ark using "HECSALV."
Figure 2 [not shown] is a plot of the curves of form for the Ark, and
Table 1 [not shown] is the hydrostatic tables.
The length to depth ratio of the "ARCO ENDEAVOUR" is 10.19:1; the
"VOYAGER OF THE SEA" has a length-depth ratio of 14.58; the Ark has a
length-depth ratio of 10.01. Mr. Silver addresses the hull strength of
the Ark on page 104 by mentioning the cells' construction, so it
appears that longitudinal strength is not a problem.
On page 103, Mr. Silver concedes that the entire roof area is made of
a transparent material. This would indicate that the uppermost deck
(the "roof") is not a structural member contributing to the
longitudinal hull girder strength of the vessel. On page 113, he
calculates the "roof" weight of wood at 6" thick which, presumably,
accounts for the transparent material. Considering this, the hull
depth of the Ark for structural considerations is only twenty cubits
(41'- 9 5/8") which calculates to a length-depth ratio of 15:1 which
is still acceptable.
As an aside, the American Bureau of Shipping "Rule of Thumb" for ocean-
going deck barges is that they should have a length-depth ratio of
15:1 or larger. The Ark can be considered a barge and, therefore, is
in compliance with one of the world's foremost regulatory bodies.
With the uniform hydrostatic loading of the Ark and the fact that the
"cargo" (the animals) are confined to areas that distribute their load
evenly, longitudinal strength is not considered to be a great factor
in the design. But, again, the Designer must have transmitted the
structural design to Noah and I am not one to question His
specifications.
Page 101 of Mr. Silver's manuscript states that the Ark was made of
Cypress Wood and weighed (light ship) 14,150.66 long tons (2240 lb/
LT). His weight estimate seems to be reasonable as he not only
includes the weight of the sides, ends and bottom but internal decks,
the roof, bulkheads and longitudinal walls. This internal framing
(bulkheads arid longitudinal walls) would contribute to the overall
hull girder strength of the Ark.
Table 2 [not shown] is the General & Lightship Data for the Ark. The
vertical center of gravity of the Ark (centroid of all vertical
weights) is assumed to be approximately 50% of the overall depth of
the Ark, a conservative estimate. The longitudinal center of gravity
(centroid of all longitudinal weights) is assumed to be at the half-
length of the Ark (amidships) due to the Ark's symmetry. Draft Mark
locations were included by the software and do not have a bearing on
the analysis. Table 3 [not shown] is the Trim & Stability Summary for
the Ark in the light ship condition. The Ark has a light ship draft of
about 7'- 8 1/2".
I will use Mr. Silver's estimates for the weights of animals, food,
soil, waste and humans on the Ark. However, on day 1, there would be
100% food and crops and practically no waste; on the last day, there
would be somewhat less food, but 100% waste. This is true, of course,
unless the waste was discharged overboard which would involve a large
human effort and an exemption from Coast Guard regulations on
discharge of sewage at sea. But, for our conservative estimates, we
will analyze the Ark with Mr. Silver's weights.
Table 4 [not shown] is the Miscellaneous Items Data giving the weights
and centers of gravity for all of the "cargo." All items are assumed
to be distributed over the entire length of the Ark. The animals are
located on the second deck; the soil, food (crops) and human
contingent on the third deck; and the waste in the hold. The vertical
centers of gravity of the animals and humans are assumed at 5'-0"
above the deck where located. Table 5 [not shown] is the Trim &
Stability Summary for the Ark loaded per Table 4 with 18,000 animals.
This indicates a loaded draft of about 17'-0" and a GMt value of
36.694 ft.
Table 6 [not shown] is the Trim & Stability Summary for the Ark loaded
with 36,000 animals. The Ark has a draft of about 20'-6" which makes
the waterline slightly above the second deck and a GMt value of 29.378
ft.. According to Mr. Silver's sketches, the opening for the loading
door is in the side of the Ark at the level of the second deck. As he
states on Page 104, the ramp was "pitched" when it was closed making
the hull watertight in this area.
GMt is a calculated value of the transverse stability of a marine
vessel. The lower the GMt, the less stable a vessel is and,
conversely, the larger the GMt, the more stable. The Code of Federal
Regulations, Title 46 (Shipping) Part 171, Subpart C is the
regulations for stability for large vessels carrying more than 150
passengers. Assuming that 18,000 (or 36,000) animals would constitute
passengers, this will be the criteria used to evaluate the fully-
loaded Ark. Paragraph 171.060 gives intact stability requirements for
a mechanically propelled or a nonself-propelled vessels: The formula
is
GM = Nb/[(K)(W)(tan(T)]
Where:
N = Number of passengers
b = distance in feet from the centerline of the vessel to the
geometric center of the passenger deck on one side of the centerline.
K = 24 passengers per long ton
W = displacement of the vessel in long tons
T = 14 degrees or the angle of heel at which the deck is first
immersed whichever is less.
N/K is equal to the weight of passengers.
b = is assumed to be Beam/6
For the Ark, GM (req'd) = [(6428.57)(17.417)]/[(31185.39)(0.249)] =
14.42 ft.
GM (actual) = 36.694 ft.
Increasing the animals to 36,000 increases the Ark's draft and lowers
the GMt (Table 6 - Not shown). Applying the same criteria in this
condition:
GM (req'd) = [(12857. 14)(17.417)]/[(37613.96)(0.249)] = 23.91 ft.
GM (actual) = 29.378 ft.
The actual GMt in both cases exceeds that required and, therefore, the
stability of the Ark is acceptable.
The Coast Guard also dictates survivability criteria for passenger
vessels. Location of watertight bulkheads, quantities and types of
damage and resultant minimum drafts and stability have to be
evaluated. The Ark has transverse bulkheads as described by Mr. Silver
on page 113 and as shown on pages 106 and 107. He makes no mention if
these are only structural or if they are watertight. From his
description of the feed, air and gas shafts, one can assume that the
bulkheads are non-tight as well as the two decks. Therefore, it is my
opinion that the Ark had no watertight integrity and, if damaged,
would have sunk. However, in the operating environment at that time
for the Ark, I would imagine there were very few obstructions and
other vessels that could cause damage.
Therefore, from the information supplied, it is my opinion that the
Ark is structurally sound, and has sufficient stability and buoyancy
for the cargo carried. Water-tight integrity is not present, but is
not required. But, it was G-d's design (Contract Plans and
Specifications) so I'm sure He incorporated all of the required design
features in the vessel.
We appreciate the opportunity to review the manuscript and offer our
comments. If you have any questions or need further information,
please feel free to call.
Sincerely,
SHEARER & ASSOC. INC
President
http://www.asknoah.org/html/arkdesign.html
You can run from this information. But you can't hide.
Nor can you explain it away as "goat herders" and their babblings.
That just does not hold water.
ta~
All Seeing I
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Jan 1, 5:43�pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 1, 6:15�pm, Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Allowing for the estimated 18,000,000 species
>
>Actual estimate: 18,000
>
>>and compatibility
>> > problems the number of separate cages and containers needed on the Ark
>> > would be about 500,000. It becomes clear that a boat about 15 miles
>> > long would have been needed or is there another explanation.
>>
>> I am sure All-Seeing-I will agree that the Ark contained only a few
>> kinds that rapidly speciated into all the varieties we see today. �Or
>> perhaps he has a better explanation?
>
>They produced variations of land, sea and air creatures. "each after
>his own kind" just as we can witness happening today.
what is a 'land, sea and air creature?' is a seagull a land, sea or
air creature?
creationism makes no sense at all
>
>Many were brought in as juveniles.
>
>Some as eggs.
>
>Food storage techniques were available and even fed the Egyptians (and
>surronding areas) for more then 7 years at a time during a drought.
were they on a boat?
>
>They had a long time to orchistrate the boat and all of the plans
>
>Not all of the animals went on the boat. The ones that "layed down" in
>front of the ark entered. The rest we can only assume God made other
>plans for; perhaps some were simply destroyed as is reflected in the
>fossil record.
the fossil record has no record of a flood.
>
>The "fountains of the deep" broke up. Even today scientists have found
>major oceans of water under the earth's crust
except you say science is always wrong. so which is it?
>
>People were instructed all over the world of the impending danger, as
>Noah was.
>
>The ark was sea worthy even during a huge storm:
>
>The above information comes from extra biblical books that were not
>allowed in the bible. Bottom line? A world wide flood that killed much
>of life was in fact possible if these ancient texts are accurate.
>
>Some modern day evidence:
>
>SHEARER & ASSOC.
>
>P.O. BOX 9576
>METAIRIE, LA 70055
>(504) 836-6009
>FAX (504) 831-8431
>
>NAVAL ARCHITECTS . MARINE ENGINEERS . MARINE SURVEYORS
i read this report. it contains nothing....NOTHING...on the
seaworthiness of the ark. AND it's obvious the marine engineer was
having a bit of a good time with the whole question:
>
>As an aside, the American Bureau of Shipping "Rule of Thumb" for ocean-
>going deck barges is that they should have a length-depth ratio of
>15:1 or larger. The Ark can be considered a barge and, therefore, is
>in compliance with one of the world's foremost regulatory bodies.
barges are not seaworthy on stormy waters.
>
>With the uniform hydrostatic loading of the Ark and the fact that the
>"cargo" (the animals) are confined to areas that distribute their load
>evenly, longitudinal strength is not considered to be a great factor
>in the design. But, again, the Designer must have transmitted the
>structural design to Noah and I am not one to question His
>specifications.
ah. the 'designer'...yes, the naval architect thought this was a joke.
only a creationist would take it seriously
>
>Nor can you explain it away as "goat herders" and their babblings.
>That just does not hold water.
>
the naval architect was having a good time. creationists can't
recognize a joke...
Free Lunch
<snip>
You are wrong. You are completely and totally wrong. You are so
profoundly ignorant that you don't even understand how wrong you are.
You make things up that are completely contrary to what the Bible says
and then try to shoehorn your doctrines into the Bible. You ignore all
of the evidence that there _never_ was such a flood.
Your hubris brings mockery to yourself and to God.
Baron Bodissey
<snip>
That marine architect story was blown out of the water amidst much
ridicule the last time you posted it. You have a very short memory.
Also:
How do you figure 18,000 species?
Baron Bodissey
Back off, man, I�m a scientist!
� Ghostbusters
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
Does that mean that the animals were kept in the Library of the Unseen
University?
alextangent
> vertical center of gravity of the Ark (centroid of all vertical
> weights) is assumed to be approximately 50% of the overall depth of
> the Ark, a conservative estimate. The longitudinal center of gravity
> (centroid of all longitudinal weights) is assumed to be at the half-
> length of the Ark (amidships) due to the Ark's symmetry. Draft Mark
> locations were included by the software and do not have a bearing on
> the Ark in the light ship condition. The Ark has a light ship draft of
> about 7'- 8 1/2".
>
> I will use Mr. Silver's estimates for the weights of animals, food,
> soil, waste and humans on the Ark. However, on day 1, there would be
> 100% food and crops and practically no waste; on the last day, there
> would be somewhat less food, but 100% waste. This is true, of course,
> unless the waste was discharged overboard which would involve a large
> human effort and an exemption from Coast Guard regulations on
> discharge of sewage at sea. But, for our conservative estimates, we
> will analyze the Ark with Mr. Silver's weights.
>
> Table 4 [not shown] is the Miscellaneous Items Data giving the weights
> and centers of gravity for all of the "cargo." All items are assumed
> to be distributed over the entire length of the Ark. The animals are
> located on the second deck; the soil, food (crops) and human
> contingent on the third deck; and the waste in the hold. The vertical
> centers of gravity of the animals and humans are assumed at 5'-0"
> above the deck where located. Table 5 [not shown] is the Trim&
> Stability Summary for the Ark loaded per Table 4 with 18,000 animals.
> This indicates a loaded draft of about 17'-0" and a GMt value of
> 36.694 ft.
>
>
> President
>
> http://www.asknoah.org/html/arkdesign.html
>
> You can run from this information. But you can't hide.
>
> Nor can you explain it away as "goat herders" and their babblings.
> That just does not hold water.
>
>
> ta~
>
> All Seeing I
>
<sniggers>
This reminds me of the calculations that prove heaven is hotter than
hell; http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hell.htm.
Friar Broccoli
> On Jan 1, 5:43�pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 1, 6:15�pm, Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk>
> > wrote:
.
> > > Allowing for the estimated 18,000,000 species
>
> Actual estimate: 18,000
mammals (excluding trilobites) ~5,000
amphibians ~5,000
reptiles ~8,000
birds ~9,000
snails and slugs ~70,000
insects 1,000,000++
http://animals.about.com/b/2007/08/13/how-many-species-on-earth.htm
To get from 18,000 species 4000 years ago to what we have today we
need RAPID speciation. (Ken Ham wouldn't lie!)
You may also want to read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livestock_carrier
and explain how the animals avoided asphyxiation (which was not
discussed in your cut and paste which I have deleted)
All-seeing-I
A 10 on the Squeal Meter!
Excellent.
And you did not even get to the navel engineer's part before you had
to stop, cut it out and then squeal!
All-seeing-I
You deleted it because you cannot addres it.
Address mine, I will address yours
Friar Broccoli
.
> You deleted it because you cannot addres it.
I don't need to since Kermit already demolished that idiocy here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/470f361e4590579a
and you failed to reply.
> Address mine, I will address yours
OK, it's your turn.
Boikat
"Squeal Meter" = ASS-I(diot's) new escape mechanism. When he deploys
it, it shows you've spanked him, and he knows it, and has no
*rational* rebuttal. He mistead the instruction sheet, and thinks the
higher the squeal, the more he's right, when in fact, he wired it up
backwards, and the higher the more spanked he is. It's his own
squealing that he's seeing.
<snip remaining idiocy>
Boikat
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
Don't you wish. Really, I am laughing at you and your foolishness.
All-seeing-I
> On 1 Jan, 23:25, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 1, 11:15�pm, Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Allowing for the estimated 18,000,000 species and compatibility
> > > problems the number of separate cages and containers needed on the Ark
> > > would be about 500,000. It becomes clear that a boat about 15 miles
> > > long would have been needed or is there another explanation.
>
> > > Steve
>
> > It never existed?
>
> Well, there is that remote possibility ;o)
> Other more realistic ones are:
>
> a)
> "Kind" does not refer to species, but to something much larger, say
> family or order. This of course would mean that after they landed,
> there was a period of extensive hyperevolution to create all the
> species we find today. �You'd go to bed with your trusted companion
> and when they woke up you had a full litter of these:http://www.wildlife-pictures-online.com/image-files/lion-cub_son-0422...
Normal? yes. Realistic? No.
Try something more realistic as described by Enoch and others. Why
rewrite what has already been recorded for posterity?
Not all of the animals went on the boat. All of them were summoned to
the boat, but only the ones that knelt down were led in to the boat.
Somehow I doubt a Dino knelt down because they are not only extinct
but they are in the fossil record too. I am sure some were protected
by God in other ways. many people were warned all over the world.
Also explained are tiger cubs that chased their parents away because
they did not kneel down. This suggest that there were others that were
taken on the boat as juveniles and not as full grown adults. Which
makes them much easier to handle and much easier to feed.
If these types of events are described by Enoch then I am sure some
species were brought on as eggs and allowed to hatch on the boat. It
would not be the first time one type of creature adopted another type
as their own when the young were babies/
You can spend MORE time rationalizing that Noah's Arc was not possible
then you can discovering was that it was.
There is the reality of it and
--it is just THAT simple.
All-seeing-I
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 16:12:02 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>
> wrote in talk.origins:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 1 Jan, 23:25, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 1, 11:15�pm, Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > Allowing for the estimated 18,000,000 species and compatibility
> >> > problems the number of separate cages and containers needed on the Ark
> >> > would be about 500,000. It becomes clear that a boat about 15 miles
> >> > long would have been needed or is there another explanation.
>
> >> > Steve
>
> >> It never existed?
>
> >Well, there is that remote possibility ;o)
> >Other more realistic ones are:
>
> >a)
> >"Kind" does not refer to species, but to something much larger, say
> >family or order. This of course would mean that after they landed,
> >there was a period of extensive hyperevolution to create all the
> >species we find today. �You'd go to bed with your trusted companion
> >that looked liek this purring on the sofa
> >and when they woke up you had a full litter of these:
> >which was irritating since by noon, they had become like this:
> >http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/buffalo-lion-1.jpg
>
> >This process stopped _just_ before we be came aware of what was going
> >on and could document/observe it.
>
> >b)
> >The larger animals were miraculously reduced in size to about 1 cm.
>
> >c)
> >only parts of the Ark were actually in this dimension, a large part
> >protruded into another one where the animals were kept
>
> Does that mean that the animals were kept in the Library of the Unseen
> University?
Naww... Just your brain
bpuharic
>
>Try something more realistic as described by Enoch and others. Why
>rewrite what has already been recorded for posterity?
>
>Not all of the animals went on the boat. All of them were summoned to
>the boat, but only the ones that knelt down were led in to the boat.
>Somehow I doubt a Dino knelt down because they are not only extinct
>but they are in the fossil record too. I am sure some were protected
>by God in other ways. many people were warned all over the world.
>
uh huh. protected by god. he tries to make a fairy tale into science
chris thompson
Wave height is a function of wind speed, wind duration, and fetch (the
distance of open water over which the wind blows.) If the planet is
covered in water fetch is infinite.
I doubt there is a single storm recorded in history with a wind
duration of 40 days.
The wind generated by a low pressure system able to inundate the
planet in 40 days is frankly terrifying.
On March 14, 1993, the _Gold Bond Conveyor_ was caught in what is now
called "The Storm of the Century." The ship- 586 feet long and all-
steel construction- was repeatedly hit by 90-foot waves. It capsized
and sank, and the entire crew was lost.
Around Dec. 17, 1944, Task Force 38 was hit by Typhoon Cobra, which
had 120 mph winds and 110-foot waves. Three destroyers (USS Spence,
376 feet long; USS Hull and USS Monaghan, both 341 feet) were sunk and
over 700 sailors and airmen drowned.
What the _Gold Bond Conveyor_ and Task Force 38 were subjected to
would be like ripples in a kiddy pool compared to a Noachian Deluge.
Only a willfully blind person could ever think anything like the story
of Noah was anything other than a myth. An unpowered wooden barge held
together by glue and hemp surviving that storm? Fail.
Chris
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Was that before or after you could not address the OP?
All-Seeing-I
> >> On Jan 1, 6:15 pm, Stephen Wolstenholme<st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> Allowing for the estimated 18,000,000 species
>
> > Actual estimate: 18,000
>
> >> and compatibility
> >>> problems the number of separate cages and containers needed on the Ark
> >>> would be about 500,000. It becomes clear that a boat about 15 miles
> >>> long would have been needed or is there another explanation.
>
> >> I am sure All-Seeing-I will agree that the Ark contained only a few
> >> perhaps he has a better explanation?
>
> > They produced variations of land, sea and air creatures. "each after
> > his own kind" just as we can witness happening today.
>
> > Many were brought in as juveniles.
>
> > Some as eggs.
>
> > Food storage techniques were available and even fed the Egyptians (and
> > surronding areas) for more then 7 years at a time during a drought.
>
> > They had a long time to orchistrate the boat and all of the plans
>
> > Not all of the animals went on the boat. The ones that "layed down" in
> > front of the ark entered. The rest we can only assume God made other
> > plans for; perhaps some were simply destroyed as is reflected in the
> > fossil record.
>
> > The "fountains of the deep" broke up. Even today scientists have found
> > major oceans of water under the earth's crust
>
> > People were instructed all over the world of the impending danger, as
> > Noah was.
>
> > The ark was sea worthy even during a huge storm:
>
> > The above information comes from extra biblical books that were not
> > allowed in the bible. Bottom line? A world wide flood that killed much
> > of life was in fact possible if these ancient texts are accurate.
>
> > Some modern day evidence:
>
> > vertical center of gravity of the Ark (centroid of all vertical
> > weights) is assumed to be approximately 50% of the overall depth of
> > the Ark, a conservative estimate. The longitudinal center of gravity
> > (centroid of all longitudinal weights) is assumed to be at the half-
> > length of the Ark (amidships) due to the Ark's symmetry. Draft Mark
> > locations were included by the software and do not have a bearing on
> > the Ark in the light ship condition. The Ark has a light ship draft of
> > about 7'- 8 1/2".
>
> > I will use Mr. Silver's estimates for the weights of animals, food,
> > soil, waste and humans on the Ark. However, on day 1, there would be
> > 100% food and crops and practically no waste; on the last day, there
> > would be somewhat less food, but 100% waste. This is true, of course,
> > unless the waste was discharged overboard which would involve a large
> > human effort and an exemption from Coast Guard regulations on
> > discharge of sewage at sea. But, for our conservative estimates, we
> > will analyze the Ark with Mr. Silver's weights.
>
> > Table 4 [not shown] is the Miscellaneous Items Data giving the weights
> > and centers of gravity for all of the "cargo." All items are assumed
> > to be distributed over the entire length of the Ark. The animals are
> > located on the second deck; the soil, food (crops) and human
> > contingent on the third deck; and the waste in the hold. The vertical
> > centers of gravity of the animals and humans are assumed at 5'-0"
> > above the deck where located. Table 5 [not shown] is the Trim&
> > Stability Summary for the Ark loaded per Table 4 with 18,000 animals.
> > This indicates a loaded draft of about 17'-0" and a GMt value of
> > 36.694 ft.
>
>
> > President
>
> >http://www.asknoah.org/html/arkdesign.html
>
> > You can run from this information. But you can't hide.
>
> > Nor can you explain it away as "goat herders" and their babblings.
> > That just does not hold water.
>
> > ta~
>
> > All Seeing I
>
> <sniggers>
>
> This reminds me of the calculations that prove heaven is hotter than
> hell;http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hell.htm.
Would that be before or after your lobotomy?
[big toothy smile]
You are still free to address the navel engineer's information if you
are able....
You would of course, have to stop singing "tatata lalala tatata
lalala" with your fingers in your ears first.
.
All-Seeing-I
too drunk to respond to my reply?
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
There was no mention of wind for 40 days dude.
Why do you want to rewrite the information?
To suit your agrument perhaps?
All-Seeing-I
Do you always rely on others to speak for you?
OK then, let's look at one of Kermit's "demolishing" statements:
"He didn't address a number of issues, such as construction,"
heh.... The entire article was about the construction!
From a Navel Engineering POV at that.
my word,
you are the most dishonest bunch of people collected in one place that
has ever been observed.
>
> > Address mine, I will address yours
>
> OK, it's your turn
you have not taken yours yet evo-freak
RAM
Dan Listermann
"All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
news:57b43607-7a24-4c2e...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> The "fountains of the deep" broke up. Even today scientists have found
> major oceans of water under the earth's crust
Another response for you to ignore.
I suppose you are talking about geysers here. Where are these "major oceans
of water under the earth's crust?" The only thing I am aware under the
Earth's crust is incredibly hot magma that does not get along with water
well.
Ignore as usual.
.
chris thompson
So you know nothing about weather I see. Do you think you can have a
40 day storm without a few fresh little breezes? That's how storms
work, you see.
This if course doesn't even address the issue of the heat of
condensation, which would have steamed the entire planet in the first
5 minutes of the rain.
Chris
Baron Bodissey
<snip>
I'm still waiting for a rationale for 18,000 species.
Baron Bodissey
When science is on the march, nothing stands in its way.
� Amazon Women on the Moon
Thurisaz the Einherjer
> Allowing for the estimated 18,000,000 species and compatibility
> problems the number of separate cages and containers needed on the Ark
> would be about 500,000. It becomes clear that a boat about 15 miles
> long would have been needed or is there another explanation.
<morontheist emulation>
Ebilushen sez we come from a ROCK!!!1!!!!1111!!!
</emulation>
*chuckle*
Sorry couldn't resist :)
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
Baron Bodissey
> On Jan 1, 7:23�pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
<snip>
You are still running away from my question about the basis for your
claim of 18,000 species on the ark.
Baron Bodissey
Tim Tebow for President!
� Baron Bodissey
Father Haskell
> problems the number of separate cages and containers needed on the Ark
> would be about 500,000. It becomes clear that a boat about 15 miles
> long
According to Gilgamesh, a reed boat, cube shaped,
600 x 600 x 600 feet. Whatever the bible claims is
immaterial, the Sumerian version came first.
> would have been needed or is there another explanation.
>
> Steve
They bonsaied the elephants. To mouse size, I think.
Devils Advocaat
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 16:12:02 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>
> wrote in talk.origins:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 1 Jan, 23:25, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 1, 11:15�pm, Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > Allowing for the estimated 18,000,000 species and compatibility
> >> > problems the number of separate cages and containers needed on the Ark
> >> > would be about 500,000. It becomes clear that a boat about 15 miles
> >> > long would have been needed or is there another explanation.
>
> >> > Steve
>
> >> It never existed?
>
> >Well, there is that remote possibility ;o)
> >Other more realistic ones are:
>
> >a)
> >"Kind" does not refer to species, but to something much larger, say
> >family or order. This of course would mean that after they landed,
> >there was a period of extensive hyperevolution to create all the
> >species we find today. �You'd go to bed with your trusted companion
> >that looked liek this purring on the sofa
> >and when they woke up you had a full litter of these:
> >which was irritating since by noon, they had become like this:
> >http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/buffalo-lion-1.jpg
>
> >This process stopped _just_ before we be came aware of what was going
> >on and could document/observe it.
>
> >b)
> >The larger animals were miraculously reduced in size to about 1 cm.
>
> >c)
> >only parts of the Ark were actually in this dimension, a large part
> >protruded into another one where the animals were kept
>
> Does that mean that the animals were kept in the Library of the Unseen
> University?
>
As we know, one of them still runs that library :P
TomS
<0e27caa6-ff59-4fa9...@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, Baron
Bodissey stated..."><snip>
>
>That marine architect story was blown out of the water amidst much
>ridicule the last time you posted it. You have a very short memory.
>
>Also:
>
>How do you figure 18,000 species?
Some creationists claim that only air-breathing vertebrates were
taken on the Ark.
I've heard it said that small invertebrates could have survived
by floating on rafts of plant matter.
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
All-Seeing-I
> On Jan 1, 10:12�pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:> On Jan 1, 7:23�pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> You are still running away from my question about the basis for your
> claim of 18,000 species on the ark.
You fisrt.
Where is the evidence there were an "estimated 18,000,000" as stated
in the OP
>
> Baron Bodissey
> Tim Tebow for President!
> � � � � � Baron Bodissey
Stephen Wolstenholme
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>On Jan 1, 11:55�pm, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 1, 10:12�pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:> On Jan 1, 7:23�pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> You are still running away from my question about the basis for your
>> claim of 18,000 species on the ark.
>
>You fisrt.
>Where is the evidence there were an "estimated 18,000,000" as stated
>in the OP
>
I'm the OP. The estimate is for all animal species. Current estimates
of species depends on which classification is used. It varies from
3,000,000 to 30,000,000. The variation shows just how complicated it
is to estimate animals. The other four Kingdoms are difficult to
estimate as well but it seems they were not included on the Ark.
Steve
--
Neural Planner Software Ltd www.NPSL1.com
Neural network applications, help and support.
Caranx latus
> On Jan 1, 10:12 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 1, 7:23 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
> <snip>
>
> You are still running away from my question about the basis for your
> claim of 18,000 species on the ark.
Like most of his claims, he read it somewhere. In this case, it might
have come from:
<http://www.asknoah.org/html/arkdesign.html>
in which it is baldly stated without justification that:
"According to this model, the ark was 627 feet long and 104.5 wide,
with 65,000 sq. feet of useable room on each floor! This provided enough
space to plant and grow crops to feed anywhere from 18,000 to 36,000
young animals."
John Harshman
> On Jan 1, 10:12 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 1, 7:23 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
> <snip>
>
> You are still running away from my question about the basis for your
> claim of 18,000 species on the ark.
It isn't his claim. It's a claim he cut and pasted. I doubt he even read
the material.
Baron Bodissey
You've got that answer from the OP. I was just wondering if you had
thought through the ramifications of your claim of 18,000 species.
Even if those were "kinds" it still would have required massive and
very rapid macroevolution and divergence to get from 18,000 to what we
see now in only 6,000 years.
Is *that* your position?
Baron Bodissey
You will find that the truth is often unpopular and the contest
between agreeable fancy and disagreeable fact is unequal.
� Adlai E. Stevenson
teresita
> "According to this model, the ark was 627 feet long and 104.5 wide,
> with 65,000 sq. feet of useable room on each floor! This provided enough
> space to plant and grow crops to feed anywhere from 18,000 to 36,000
> young animals."
Sure, and since the ark only had one window, they had to use electric
track lighting for their grow operation.
--
Teresita
http://hackylinux.blogspot.com/
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
That author is profoundly ignorant and appears to have never been on a
farm in his life. Still, such foolishness in defense of folk tales does
give me a laugh.
Friar Broccoli
> On Jan 1, 6:10 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snipping]
>>>> I am sure All-Seeing-I will agree that the Ark contained only a few
>>>> kinds that rapidly speciated into all the varieties we see today. Or
>>>> perhaps he has a better explanation?
>
>>> Baraminology !
>
>> I suppose a couple of bottles of vodka would help, but I think other
>> drugs would be needed to make it seem like science.
.
> too drunk to respond to my reply?
Since you are challenging me here I hope this means you will not be
engaging in your normal behavior of running away when the going gets
tough (as you did with Kermit on this same issue earlier in the
month). If you agree here not to run away (and make some effort to
actually address the issues), I will continue following this thread,
otherwise this will be my last post here.
The posts I am replying to are:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/77cd269043efe159
which appears to be a claim that a (not-constructed) proposed model of
Noah's Ark would be sea worthy.
and:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c85ff33eb9ae3d7d
where you agree to deal with two problems:
1- how we get from 18,000 "kinds"/species on the Ark to the far larger
number we see today without rapid evolution and speciation.
2- (more importantly for me) how those 18,000 pairs (or sevens) of
animals avoided asphyxiation (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livestock_carrier).
if I respond to the first post linked to the above.
So here is my response to:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/77cd269043efe159
with respect to the letter from the president of SHEARER & ASSOC.
(NAVAL ARCHITECTS/MARINE ENGINEERS)
which I assume is what interests you.
First, note that the letter is NOT an assessment of the proposed
vessel's realistic strength or sea worthiness. Most of the statements
are about whether the vessel meets maritime regulations relating to
dimensions and stability. The letter makes only one _direct_ strength
reference which reads: "... so it *appears* that longitudinal
strength is not a problem." [I added the *'s around "appears"]. I
have worked with construction engineers a great deal in my life and
they obsess about a wide range of strengths and failure modes. So it
looks to me as if some engineer found a strength parameter which might
have been adequate, presented that (to a potential customer?), and
forgot about all the others like bending, torsion, and flexion.
To determine how realistic the proposed vessel might actually be, I
looked at the wikipedia list of the largest wooden ships here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world's_largest_wooden_ships
Selecting the largest ship and largest barge known to have floated I
get:
__________Silver_Ark__Pret_Barge__Wyoming_Schooner
Length:______627'________338'__________450'
Width:_______105'________44'___________50'
Depth:_______63'_________23'___________35'
Note first that the Wyoming was actually under 350' since it gets an
extra 100' from the sail rigging beams.
More importantly however, the Wyoming had "90 diagonal iron cross-
bracings on each side" that's 180 in total.
and "had a tendency to flex in heavy seas, causing the long planks to
twist and buckle. This allowed sea water into the hold, which had to
be pumped out."
"the Pretoria included steel keelson plates, steel chords, steel
arches, and also it was diagonally strapped with steel. It needed a
donkey engine to run a pump to keep its interior dry."
So the two largest wooden vessels ever built had interior volumes that
were between 1/5th and 1/10 (do the math) of the proposal for Noah's
Ark, yet they required extensive steel elements (which Noah didn't
have) and they still leaked so much that they required constant
mechanical pumping (which Noah also didn't have.)
Here I note that the report you copied ends with:
"Water-tight integrity is not present, but is not required."
I will leave it to you to ponder what kind of boat does not require
"water-tight integrity"
It might help if you understood that wood expands and contracts
enormously in response to changes in humidity so beams in large wooden
vessels are not so much fastened together as strapped together, always
ensuring that at least one end and side of every wooden member can
expand freely. It is for this reason that large wooden vessels
REQUIRE a steel structure, but leak nevertheless.
Even with a steel structure Noah's ark at the specified size would
have sunk within hours or days of first floating. Without a steel
structure it would probably have sunk as it was beginning to float.
Joints would have opened up all over the place and it would have
flooded before leaving the ground.
My impression is that the folks at SHEARER & ASSOC. INC took the
entire project as a joke and responded accordingly - but creationists
are taking it seriously.
Now will you read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livestock_carrier
and explain how you think the animals avoided asphyxiation?
Sox
news:57351a12-fb86-42b0...@s3g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
It was about construction? LOL. Reading for comprehension is not your strong
suit, is it?
As others have pointed out, the article was largely tongue-in-cheek, but
even taking it at face value there is at most passing reference to
construction. The bulk of the piece was the result of using a modeling tool
(presumably legitimate) to give a preliminary indication of the ability of
the resulting design to float, and whether it was in compliance with
maritime regulations. While the article notes that the ark was assumed to be
made of cypress, it does not specify the dimensions or amount of cypress
required -- certainly a minimal requirement for any construction plans --
and is silent on the other materials involved with construction such as
nails, not to mention the tools, processes, and techniques to build it. And
is deliberately silent on the dimensions, amount or even type of material
for the "transparent cover."
In short, the article is NOT about construction, it is about using a
modeling tool. I would hesitate to use an argument by analogy with an
intelligent person but fortunately you do not qualify in that criteria, so,
here goes: you buy a large complicated toy with many pices. When you open
the box, there is not even a complete list of the materials or a list of the
tools required to put it together, let alone an instruction sheet for how to
assemble it. By your warped definition, that toy included "construction
plans". That's funny.
> From a Navel Engineering POV at that.
>
> my word,
> you are the most dishonest bunch of people collected in one place that
> has ever been observed.
>
>>
>> > Address mine, I will address yours
>>
>> OK, it's your turn
>
> you have not taken yours yet evo-freak
>
And once again, you demonstrate that you are profoundly stupid. What boggles
the mind is that you are so stupid about so MANY things. No, ASI, we are not
laughing with you, we are laughing at you.
Dan Listermann
"Friar Broccoli" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a0c611db-be24-4c47...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 1, 10:03 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> Since you are challenging me here I hope this means you will not be
> engaging in your normal behavior of running away when the going gets
> tough (as you did with Kermit on this same issue earlier in the
> month). If you agree here not to run away (and make some effort to
> actually address the issues), I will continue following this thread,
> otherwise this will be my last post here.
>
You call it "running away," ASI sees it as carefully picking his fights.
Perhaps he is way too "careful?"
.
Max
He probably read of the Beijing anomoly. Not "oceans" but an ocean
worth. Not enough to cover the earth and certainly couldn't get sucked
back in in 1 years time, but there it is.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070228_beijing_anomoly.html
Dan Listermann
"Max" <maxd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:983b3e20-b4c7-45d3...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
It will be fun to see him try to explain how the water in, what appears to
be solid rock, squirted out and then went back into the rock. Well he does
have that good old "magic" card.
.
TomS
<7uvsj5ph950eun5np...@4ax.com>, Stephen Wolstenholme stated..."
>
>Allowing for the estimated 18,000,000 species and compatibility
>problems the number of separate cages and containers needed on the Ark
>would be about 500,000. It becomes clear that a boat about 15 miles
>long would have been needed or is there another explanation.
>
>Steve
>
Some of the people who promote the idea of a literal, historical,
Noah's Ark use ways like these to reduce the number of animals on the
Ark.
First of all, only air-breathing animals need to be taken.
Then, only vertebrates.
And then, rather than representatives of each species, only "kinds"
(also known as "created kinds" or "baramins"), which may be
something like a taxonomic family.
Friar Broccoli
> "On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 23:15:00 +0000, in article
>
>
>
> >Allowing for the estimated 18,000,000 species and compatibility
> >problems the number of separate cages and containers needed on the Ark
> >would be about 500,000. It becomes clear that a boat about 15 miles
> >long would have been needed or is there another explanation.
>
> >Steve
>
> Some of the people who promote the idea of a literal, historical,
> Noah's Ark use ways like these to reduce the number of animals on the
> Ark.
>
> First of all, only air-breathing animals need to be taken.
.
> Then, only vertebrates.
Why did God go to the trouble of re-creating black flies after having
once got rid of them is what I want to know.
TomS
<7d5d07dc-822c-4e4e...@n31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>, Friar
Broccoli stated..."
The idea that these people are promoting is that non-vertebrates
could survive outside the Ark. By drifting on mats of vegetation,
for example. Not that they were drowned by the Flood and were
then re-created.
And don't forget the possibility, which would surely would have
occurred to the author of Genesis, of spontaneous generation of
things like flies. (Think of the fifth Plague of Egypt.)
Greg G.
> On Jan 12, 8:41�am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>
> > First of all, only air-breathing animals need to be taken.
>
> �.
>
> > Then, only vertebrates.
>
> Why did God go to the trouble of re-creating black flies after having
> once got rid of them is what I want to know.
Because of your evil nature, Hell isn't bad enough for the likes of
you. He couldn't wait for you to die to start annoying you.
Andre Lieven
> "On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 07:04:25 -0800 (PST), in article
> Broccoli stated..."
>
> >On Jan 12, 8:41�am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> "On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 23:15:00 +0000, in article
> >> <7uvsj5ph950eun5nprtko5dbgre9eu4...@4ax.com>, Stephen Wolstenholme stated..."
>
> >> >Allowing for the estimated 18,000,000 species and compatibility
> >> >problems the number of separate cages and containers needed on the Ark
> >> >would be about 500,000. It becomes clear that a boat about 15 miles
> >> >long would have been needed or is there another explanation.
>
> >> >Steve
>
> >> Some of the people who promote the idea of a literal, historical,
> >> Noah's Ark use ways like these to reduce the number of animals on the
> >> Ark.
>
> >> First of all, only air-breathing animals need to be taken.
>
> > .
>
> >> Then, only vertebrates.
>
> >Why did God go to the trouble of re-creating black flies after having
> >once got rid of them is what I want to know.
>
> The idea that these people are promoting is that non-vertebrates
> could survive outside the Ark. By drifting on mats of vegetation,
> for example. Not that they were drowned by the Flood and were
> then re-created.
This also leaves out the issue of people who already had boats,
such as fishermen and traders, who could also have ridden out
a "great flood", in fact, whose odds at riding it out would be pretty
good without a huge population of animals aboard to feed.
So, some animals are supposed to have survived on inadvertent
yet intelligent humans who already HAD boats and ships cannot
figure out how to use those devices ? That's, well, stoopid...
> And don't forget the possibility, which would surely would have
> occurred to the author of Genesis, of spontaneous generation of
> things like flies. (Think of the fifth Plague of Egypt.)
Andre
Nomen Publicus
> "On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 23:15:00 +0000, in article
> <7uvsj5ph950eun5np...@4ax.com>, Stephen Wolstenholme stated..."
>>
>>Allowing for the estimated 18,000,000 species and compatibility
>>problems the number of separate cages and containers needed on the Ark
>>would be about 500,000. It becomes clear that a boat about 15 miles
>>long would have been needed or is there another explanation.
>>
>>Steve
>>
>
> Some of the people who promote the idea of a literal, historical,
> Noah's Ark use ways like these to reduce the number of animals on the
> Ark.
>
> First of all, only air-breathing animals need to be taken.
>
> Then, only vertebrates.
Where did all the beetles come from then?
>
> And then, rather than representatives of each species, only "kinds"
> (also known as "created kinds" or "baramins"), which may be
> something like a taxonomic family.
Which then evolved and travelled across oceans?
--
Atheists are not anti-god, they are not at war with theists. They
just don't believe that gods, devils etc exist at all.
TomS
<d6c93906-4728-4b71...@l30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, Andre
Lieven stated..."
In any discussion of the Flood, it seems, there comes a point where
either the Ark-believer has to rely on a miracle, or else must resort
to mind-boggling contrivances. I would not want to speculate on what
contrivances they would resort to in this case, except to note that
just about all modern terrestrial invertebrates are quite small.
>
>> And don't forget the possibility, which would surely would have
>> occurred to the author of Genesis, of spontaneous generation of
>> things like flies. (Think of the fifth Plague of Egypt.)
>
>Andre
>
Mike Painter
<snip>
> This also leaves out the issue of people who already had boats,
> such as fishermen and traders, who could also have ridden out
> a "great flood", in fact, whose odds at riding it out would be pretty
> good without a huge population of animals aboard to feed.
>
> So, some animals are supposed to have survived on inadvertent
> yet intelligent humans who already HAD boats and ships cannot
> figure out how to use those devices ? That's, well, stoopid...
>
But, but, these were small boats and couldn't carry much food and they never
would have thought to either.
1. Fish, or
2. Say "Look guys, a big boat with lots of food, water, and women"