Origin of the species? (Let the Evo-Freak speak!)
Yuri Kuchinsky
have fun with it!
Talk sense?
Yuri.
p.s.
You should learn to spell "A-T-H-E-I-S-M".
Matthew Harding (mhar...@easynet.co.uk) wrote:
: Charles Darwin wrote 'The Origin Of The Species', but did he really
: know what he was talking about? I think not!
: I just want to know why Darwin postulated that one creature formed
: another and so forth, and HOW this actually is supposed to work!
: Think about it, life is supposed to have come from a single celled
: creature called an Amoeba to start with, which just, well sort of
: formed in the Oceans under just the right circumstances. How
: fortunate eh, we wouldn't be here today but for the Amoeba,
: *** C R A P ! ! ! ***
: What a load of Tom Dick and Harry!!!
: Furthermore, these lame-brained evo-freaks actually believe that this
: creature further developed into men and women, millions of years down
: the line!!! WHAT?!?!?!?!...............
: First, explain how and second, explain why there's no 'in between'
: creatures between apes and humans. And don't go using the ol' natural
: selection argument, natures survival of the fittest crap, because if
: that was the case, there'd be no apes left. They would have been
: wiped out with the rest of the 'inferior' efforts of nature!
: Evolution is widely accepted these days without even a thought that it
: may be wrong, by people. Well, I'm telling you now, it's crap!
: Just think about it for goodness sake! I mean, apes to humans! Come
: on... Stop pulling my leg! Talk sense!
: Matt.
: #############################################
: THE GREATEST CAUSE OF ATHIESM TODAY IS THE
: CHRISTIAN, WHO AKNOWLEDGES JESUS WITH HIS
: LIPS, THEN WALKS OUT OF THE DOOR AND DENIES
: HIM BY HIS LIFESTYLE!
: E-mail me at - mhar...@easynet.co.uk
: #############################################
--
Yuri Kuchinsky // "Where there is the Tree of Knowledge, there is
///////////////// always Paradise: so say the most ancient and
the most modern serpents." F. Nietzsche
Paul Haydock
>
> This is a good subject for talk.origins (added to follow-ups). They will
> have fun with it!
>
> Talk sense?
YURI and others,
Please Do Not blindly add newsgroups at will. The Australian newsgroup
is a local one, and crossposting has wrecked it. This is the wish of
the Australian users, and the agreed constitution of the newsgroup.
Please take aus.religion.christian off the cross-posting nightmare.
Thankyou.
Wayne E. Barlow
|> Matthew Harding (mhar...@easynet.co.uk) wrote:
|> : Charles Darwin wrote 'The Origin Of The Species', but did he really
|> : know what he was talking about? I think not!
And you would be wrong.
|>
|> : I just want to know why Darwin postulated that one creature formed
|> : another and so forth, and HOW this actually is supposed to work!
Based on observation. He was not the first proponent of evolution in
the general sense. He was just the one that was correct (with his
proposal of descent with modification). We now have an understanding
of genetics. It is mutations which drive evolution. An accumation
of changes along with reproductive isolation will lead to speciation.
|>
|> : Think about it, life is supposed to have come from a single celled
|> : creature called an Amoeba to start with, which just, well sort of
|> : formed in the Oceans under just the right circumstances.
Most likely not an amoeba. But some single celled organism.
|> How
|> : fortunate eh, we wouldn't be here today but for the Amoeba,
|>
|> : *** C R A P ! ! ! ***
|>
|> : What a load of Tom Dick and Harry!!!
Arguments from personal incredulity don't carry much weight.
|>
|> : Furthermore, these lame-brained evo-freaks actually believe that this
|> : creature further developed into men and women, millions of years down
|> : the line!!! WHAT?!?!?!?!...............
Billions (not millions).
|>
|> : First, explain how and second, explain why there's no 'in between'
|> : creatures between apes and humans.
I would if it were true. However, luckily for us "evo-freaks" that
there are museums full of intermeditates. _Australopithecus_ is most
certainly closely related to (if not *the*) intermidate between
modern great apes and humans. _Homo erectus_ is another intermediate
between modern humans and our ape ancestors. It is more modern than
_Australopithecus_. Please do not wave your hands and dismiss these
as either ape or human. *All* the evidence suggests that these are
clearly intermediates. If you take a minute and read about it you
will see that the skeletons suggest clear transitions. The pelvis,
thigh bone, and knee of _Australopithecus_ can only suggest an upright
stance.
|> And don't go using the ol' natural
|> : selection argument, natures survival of the fittest crap, because if
|> : that was the case, there'd be no apes left.
Why not? Evolution would most certainly predict that there would be
apes left to fill their niche. However, these apes have evolve
from a common ancestor. So, in actuality you are correct, common
ancestor no longer exists. It evolved into Gorillas, Homo sapiens,
Chimpanzees, and Gibbons (all of which should be classified as the
modern great apes).
|> They would have been
|> : wiped out with the rest of the 'inferior' efforts of nature!
Why?
|>
|> : Evolution is widely accepted these days without even a thought that it
|> : may be wrong, by people. Well, I'm telling you now, it's crap!
Of course not, because the evidence is so overwhelming across
a diversity of fields. It is as factual as anything is science
ever is. The fact that speciation and natural selection have
been observed; the fact of embryological legacy; the fact of
DNA relatedness, the fact of vestigial organs, and the fact of
clear transitions in the fossil recored all point to evolution.
(This doesn't even take into account the spot on predictions that
evolution has made.)
Please throw away your little creationist pamphlet and go visit
natural history museums and read books in the library. The
evidence is there. You may also want to check out
|>
|> : Just think about it for goodness sake! I mean, apes to humans! Come
|> : on... Stop pulling my leg! Talk sense!
Can you please explain why chimps and humans on differ by 1.6% of their
DNA? To claim that chimps and humans are not related *is* pure nonsense.
Regards,
Wayne.
Saulius Muliolis
>Matthew Harding (mhar...@easynet.co.uk) wrote:
>: Charles Darwin wrote 'The Origin Of The Species', but did he really
>: know what he was talking about? I think not!
>
>: another and so forth, and HOW this actually is supposed to work!
>
>: creature called an Amoeba to start with, which just, well sort of
>: fortunate eh, we wouldn't be here today but for the Amoeba,
>
>: *** C R A P ! ! ! ***
>
>: What a load of Tom Dick and Harry!!!
>
>: creature further developed into men and women, millions of years down
>: the line!!! WHAT?!?!?!?!...............
>
>: selection argument, natures survival of the fittest crap, because if
>: wiped out with the rest of the 'inferior' efforts of nature!
>
>: may be wrong, by people. Well, I'm telling you now, it's crap!
>
>: on... Stop pulling my leg! Talk sense!
>
>: #############################################
>: THE GREATEST CAUSE OF ATHIESM TODAY IS THE
>: CHRISTIAN, WHO AKNOWLEDGES JESUS WITH HIS
>: LIPS, THEN WALKS OUT OF THE DOOR AND DENIES
>: HIM BY HIS LIFESTYLE!
>
>: E-mail me at - mhar...@easynet.co.uk
>: #############################################
You should learn a thing or two about evolution before you try to
criticize it. Where did you learn about evolution anyway? Bugs Bunny
cartoons?
First of all, the first living things were not amoebas. Amoebas are
already very complex compared to what is now believed to be the earliest
self replicating systems, which were probably RNA molecules.
Second, there are "in between creatures". Here is a short, incomplete list.
It is mostly incomplete because I am typing this off the top of my head.
If I were to bother with references, I could probably list a dozen more.
Homo erectus
Homo habilis
Australopithecus aferensis
Australopithecus robustus
Homo Sapiens Neandertal
Also, apes are not "inferior" life forms by the definition used in
evolution. In fact, "inferior" is not a word that is relevent to
evolution. It is a human concept.
Try and learn a little about evolution.
I would suggest the talk.origins FAQ file.
It can be found at:
http://rumba.ics.uci.edu:8080/cgi-bin/imagemap/orimap?715,39
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- Robert A. Heinlein.
Saulius Muliolis muli...@en.com
Stephen Watson
Yuri Kuchinsky <bg...@torfree.net> wrote:
>This is a good subject for talk.origins (added to follow-ups). They will
>have fun with it!
[........]
>: Matt.
>: #############################################
>: THE GREATEST CAUSE OF ATHIESM TODAY IS THE
>: CHRISTIAN, WHO AKNOWLEDGES JESUS WITH HIS
>: LIPS, THEN WALKS OUT OF THE DOOR AND DENIES
>: HIM BY HIS LIFESTYLE!
>
>: E-mail me at - mhar...@easynet.co.uk
>: #############################################
I don't know where it would fit in the rankings, but one cause of
atheism is Scientific Creationism, which insists that a particular
narrow interpretation of the book of Genesis is the only "proper"
Christian one, and then tries to support it by telling a lot of
distortions, half-truths, and out-right lies about what science has to
say on the subject of origins and evolution. Sometimes, when
intelligent kids raised under such a regime learn some real science
and find out how badly they've been lied to by their church, they walk
out the door and never return. (Source: various personal testimonies
posted on t.o from time to time. Are some of you still out there?)
--
# Steve Watson # swa...@bnr.ca # Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Ont. Canada #
## The above is the output of a 7th-order Markovian analysis of all posts on ##
## this group for the past month. Not only is it not BNR's opinion, it's ##
## not even *my* opinion: it's really just a mish-mash of all YOUR opinions! ##
Herb Huston
In article <4ffo5f$g...@zk2nws.zko.dec.com>,
Wayne E. Barlow <w...@spiderman.unx.dec.com> wrote:
}|> Matthew Harding (mhar...@easynet.co.uk) wrote:
}|> And don't go using the ol' natural
}|> : selection argument, natures survival of the fittest crap, because if
}|> : that was the case, there'd be no apes left.
Apes have been on the decline for millions of years. If presnt trends
continue, non-human apes will be extinct in the wild by sometime next
century.
}Why not? Evolution would most certainly predict that there would be
}apes left to fill their niche. However, these apes have evolve
}from a common ancestor. So, in actuality you are correct, common
}ancestor no longer exists. It evolved into Gorillas, Homo sapiens,
}Chimpanzees, and Gibbons (all of which should be classified as the
^^^^^^^
}modern great apes).
Gibbons and siamangs are the lesser apes. (If there are great apes, then
someone has to be a lesser ape.) The great apes are orang utans (_Pongo
pygmaeus_), gorillas (_Gorilla gorilla_), chimpanzees (_Pan troglodytes_),
bonobos (_Pan paniscus_), and humans (_Homo sapiens_). (Certain subspecies
of _Gorilla gorilla_ and _Pan troglodytes_ may actually be separate
species, but this is still under investigation.)
--
-- Herb Huston
-- hus...@access.digex.net
//
In article <DMF53q.2E...@torfree.net>, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> This is a good subject for talk.origins (added to follow-ups). They will
> have fun with it!
HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWWLLLLLLLLLLLLL!
> You should learn to spell "A-T-H-E-I-S-M".
Naw, matt should learn to spell S-C-H-O-O-L.
> Matthew Harding (mhar...@easynet.co.uk) wrote:
> : Charles Darwin wrote 'The Origin Of The Species', but did he really
> : know what he was talking about? I think not!
Well, he spent a few years aboard the HMS Beagle, and made some quite
detailed info on some organisms.
How about picking out one of his organisms which he writes about,
quote it, then show where he was wrong?
> : I just want to know why Darwin postulated that one creature formed
> : another and so forth, and HOW this actually is supposed to work!
WEEELLL, I think Darwin assumed his audience new that offspring
come from their parents.
Sure you don't want to rephrase the question?
> : Think about it, life is supposed to have come from a single celled
> : creature called an Amoeba to start with, which just, well sort of
> : formed in the Oceans under just the right circumstances.
Try again. We didn't come from Amoebas. I don't think Darwin even
stated such, but go ahead and prove me wrong. Quote Darwin.
> : How
> : fortunate eh, we wouldn't be here today but for the Amoeba,
>
> : *** C R A P ! ! ! ***
I agree! Your post is C R A P ! ! !
> : What a load of Tom Dick and Harry!!!
Tom's a nice guy.
> : Furthermore, these lame-brained evo-freaks actually believe that this
> : creature further developed into men and women, millions of years down
> : the line!!! WHAT?!?!?!?!...............
Yea..WHAT!?!??!??........the hell is this thinking?!?
As for being lame-brained, it's a hoot to see someone such as yourself
talking about what you THINK current evolution is as opposed to
what current evolution is.
> : First, explain how and second, explain why there's no 'in between'
> : creatures between apes and humans.
1) We are apes.
2) For the group of intermediate tween humans and chimps, read
about australopiths.
> : And don't go using the ol' natural
> : selection argument, natures survival of the fittest crap, because if
> : that was the case, there'd be no apes left. They would have been
> : wiped out with the rest of the 'inferior' efforts of nature!
Bacteria can EAT your butt still you're here (unfortunatly).
Get real. Evolution requires no such thing.
> : Evolution is widely accepted these days without even a thought that it
> : may be wrong, by people.
Well, how about evolution being grossly misunderstood by numbnuts who
spout off nonsense without checking out what evolution is?
> : Well, I'm telling you now, it's crap!
Yes, you're understanding of evolution is crap.
> : Just think about it for goodness sake! I mean, apes to humans! Come
> : on... Stop pulling my leg! Talk sense!
You'll have to take the first step.
While you're on this rave, if you find "apes to humans" in some few million
years to be crap, you must one celled organism to complex human baby
in nine months to be utterly ludicrous..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Steve Price | "Hell, even my spell checker knows! Every time it |
|/\/\ Raven /\/\ | finds 'creationism', it recommends 'cretinism'!!" |
|ra...@kaiwan.com | -Steve Price |
Craig L. Janeway
>HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWWLLLLLLLLLLLLL!
STOP THIS THREAD FROM REACHING ALT.BIBLE.PROPHECY!
alt.bible.prophecy,alt.christnet.bible,alt.christnet.philosophy,
alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.christianity,aus.religion.christian,
uk.religion.christian,talk.origins
Craig L. Janeway
cjan...@sound.net
"In the light from darkness."
Wayne E. Barlow
In article <4fj70k$a...@access4.digex.net>, hus...@access4.digex.net (Herb Huston) writes:
|> Bogus newsgroup trimmed. Followups restricted to talk.origins.
|>
|> In article <4ffo5f$g...@zk2nws.zko.dec.com>,
|> Wayne E. Barlow <w...@spiderman.unx.dec.com> wrote:
[...]
|> }So, in actuality you are correct, common
|> }ancestor no longer exists. It evolved into Gorillas, Homo sapiens,
|> }Chimpanzees, and Gibbons (all of which should be classified as the
|> ^^^^^^^
|> }modern great apes).
|>
|> Gibbons and siamangs are the lesser apes. (If there are great apes, then
|> someone has to be a lesser ape.)
[...]
I bow my head in shame at letting such a clumsy mistake
get away.
What exactly makes orangutan a greater ape and a gibbon
a lesser ape? (i.e. what distiguishing characteristic
draws the line between Pongidae and Hylobatidae?)
Regards,
Wayne.
Jeff Doyle
(Lots of outraged interjections snipped....)
> >
> >> Matthew Harding (mhar...@easynet.co.uk) wrote:
> >> : Charles Darwin wrote 'The Origin Of The Species', but did he really
> >> : know what he was talking about? I think not!
> >> : I just want to know why Darwin postulated that one creature formed
> >> : another and so forth, and HOW this actually is supposed to work!
> >> : Think about it, life is supposed to have come from a single celled
> >> : creature called an Amoeba to start with, which just, well sort of
> >> : formed in the Oceans under just the right circumstances.
> >> : How
> >> : fortunate eh, we wouldn't be here today but for the Amoeba,
> >> : Furthermore, these lame-brained evo-freaks actually believe that this
> >> : creature further developed into men and women, millions of years down
> >> : the line!!! WHAT?!?!?!?!...............
This is just a little to boneheaded for even a Creationist to be posting. My
troll alarm seems to be buzzing....
Jeff
Carl Wilson
swa...@bnr.ca (Stephen Watson) wrote:
[snip]
>I don't know where it would fit in the rankings, but one
cause of
>atheism is Scientific Creationism, which insists that a
particular
>narrow interpretation of the book of Genesis is the only
"proper"
>Christian one, and then tries to support it by telling a lot
of
>distortions, half-truths, and out-right lies about what
science has to
>say on the subject of origins and evolution. Sometimes, when
>intelligent kids raised under such a regime learn some real
science
>and find out how badly they've been lied to by their church,
they walk
>out the door and never return.
That is more or less what happened to me years ago. We were
going over the story of Noah's Ark in Sunday School. I simply
asked the teacher how Noah fit so many animals on one small
boat. I was expecting to be told that it was a "miracle", or
that there were fewer animals in those days, etc. Instead I
was chewed out, and my mother was told to "keep an eye on me".
After that, I began to question everything I had been taught
in church. I found few answers.
artfam
<jld...@mail.swcp.com> wrote:
You may be right. Although, clearly one so dimwitted would be unable to
configure an internet connection, there are lots of cafes and such popping
up where any bone-head can sit down and type a message. Given a couple of
hours, maybe a creationist could produce the above. Then again.....ding,
ding, ding.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Every jumbled pile of person has a thinking part
that wonders what the part that isn't thinking
isn't thinking of.
They Might Be Giants
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Smith
Original post slightly reformatted for better readability.
cwi...@sirinet.net (Carl Wilson) writes:
>[snip]
Conrad Hyers, in his book _The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and
Modern Science_, John Knox Press, Atlanta, Georgia, 1984, puts it
in these words on page 26:
It may be true that scientism and evolutionism (not science and
evolution) are among the causes of atheism and materialism. It
is at least equally true that biblical literalism, from its
earlier flat-earth and geocentric forms to its recent young-earth
and flood-geology forms, is one of the major causes of atheism
and materialism. Many scientists and intellectuals have simply
taken the literalists at their word and rejected biblical
materials as being superseded or contradicted by modern science.
Without having in hand a clear and persuasive alternative, they
have concluded that it is nobler to be damned by the
literalists than to dismiss the best testimony of research and
reason. Intellectual honesty and integrity demand it.
Enough said.
Ken Smith
--
Dr Ken Smith <k...@maths.uq.oz.au> | "God, we know you are in charge, but why
Department of Mathematics, | don't you make it slightly more obvious?"
The University of Queensland, | Archbishop Desmond Tutu, 1990
St Lucia, Qld. 4072. Australia. | (address to students at at West Point)
JdS
I was troubled by the question of the Ark's capacity myself. The solution
depends on your assumptions, ultimately.
The solution I favour is that there were fewer species to herd together;
eg there was only one type of Bear, adaption had not yet created the
Kodiak, Grizzly, Polar, etc.. The potential for change had not been
exploited.
It's saddening that your sunday school teachers were not better informed;
it is a shame that many christians don't look deeper into the Scriptures
(with the help of the Holy Spirit) to try and reclaim science from the
atheistic cartel who fail to see that science is the fingerprint of God's
working in created time and space.
To fend of any Theistic evolution barbs about my position, may I state
that I am a full Bible believing Chrisitian and I belive in a LITERAL 7
day creation cycle.
If anyone wants to comment further, please mail me personally. I don't
like the fragmented nature of newsgroup discussions.
JdS
_______________________________________________________________
| ____ ___________
|| \ / j...@st-andrews.ac.uk <><
|| | \__________ till 7/6/96
____/ |____/ \ -----------
________________________/ Jonathan Stockwell,
c/o GGP, Dept. of Management,
Quis custodiet ipsos University of St Andrews,
Custodies? - Juvenal St Andrews, Fife, Scotland,
_______________________________________________________________
Stanley Friesen
Wayne E. Barlow <w...@spiderman.unx.dec.com> wrote:
>
>What exactly makes orangutan a greater ape and a gibbon
>a lesser ape? (i.e. what distiguishing characteristic
>draws the line between Pongidae and Hylobatidae?)
>
is the size. The great apes are all large animals, and the lesser
apes are all mid-sized animals. (Few anthropoids of any sort can
really be considered *small*). The smallest great apes, certain
subspecies of chimpanzee and bonobo, weigh in at about 50 kg. The
gibbons are all about half that wieght (or maybe two-thirds).
Anatomically, the gibbons are more gracile ("thinner") than great apes,
and have relatively longer arms, even when compared to an orang-utan.
Gibbons have throat sacs, in *both* sexes, used to produce their load
territorial duets. They are rapid brachiators (that is they swing about
quickly and acrobatically by their arms). [Gibbons vaguely resemble
tail-less spider monkeys - for good reason: spider monkeys are also
rapid brachiators].
The great apes are relatively robust, with somewhat shorter arms. They
lack throat sacs. Instead, in several species, the adult males may have
enlarged adipose areas on or about their head (the "forehead" of the
male gorilla and the facial extensions of the male orang-utan). Also,
in most great apes the adult males have enlarged canines (except in
bonobos and humans). Great apes are either not brachiators, or are
slow, cautious brachiators. Even female orang-utans, the most arboreal
of the living great apes, do not approach the gibbons in acrobatic ability.
In addition to the above, there are also substantial differences in the
details of the skeletons - though here also the great apes are more diverse
than the gibbons.
--
NAMES: sar...@netcom.com s...@ElSegundoCA.attgis.com
May the peace of God be with you.
Larry Brown
>
>I was troubled by the question of the Ark's capacity myself. The solution
>depends on your assumptions, ultimately.
>
>The solution I favour is that there were fewer species to herd together;
>eg there was only one type of Bear, adaption had not yet created the
>Kodiak, Grizzly, Polar, etc.. The potential for change had not been
>exploited.
>
>It's saddening that your sunday school teachers were not better informed;
>it is a shame that many christians don't look deeper into the Scriptures
>(with the help of the Holy Spirit) to try and reclaim science from the
>atheistic cartel who fail to see that science is the fingerprint of God's
>working in created time and space.
>
LB: In perspective, there's the "other" Ark of the Covenant housing the
very power of God, and being carried not on water, but Hebrew. So Noah's
ark was a little bigger, big deal:-)
>To fend of any Theistic evolution barbs about my position, may I state
>that I am a full Bible believing Chrisitian and I belive in a LITERAL 7
>day creation cycle.
LB: A daily one suits me just fine.
J G Coulthard
[snip]
>To fend of any Theistic evolution barbs about my position, may I state
>that I am a full Bible believing Chrisitian and I belive in a LITERAL 7
>day creation cycle.
Then you might like to explain precisely what was meant by a "day", before the
sun was created (on about the 4th day I think)!
John.
Ken Smith
I didn't respond to an earlier post from this person.
However in this one he believes that evolution can proceed very much
faster than anyone has ever suggested - so fast that the divergence
between man and chimpanzee would have taken place only a few centuries
ago, instead of millions of years ago.
JdS <j...@st-andrews.ac.uk> writes:
>I was troubled by the question of the Ark's capacity myself. The solution
>depends on your assumptions, ultimately.
>The solution I favour is that there were fewer species to herd together;
>eg there was only one type of Bear, adaption had not yet created the
>Kodiak, Grizzly, Polar, etc.. The potential for change had not been
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>exploited.
And, presumably, only one "type" of beetle?
And only one "type" of virus?
And only one "type" of ... ?
On newsgroup talk.origins scientists regularly ask creationists for a
working definition of "kind", which will enable us to decide whether
two organisms belong to the same "kind" or not.
Would you please provide us with a working definition of "type", which
will enable us to decide whether two organisms belong to the same
"type" or not.
There you have it!
The genetic difference between these bears is much greater than that
between man and chimpanzee.
Perhaps some biologist can put some numbers to these?
>It's saddening that your sunday school teachers were not better informed;
>it is a shame that many christians don't look deeper into the Scriptures
>(with the help of the Holy Spirit) to try and reclaim science from the
>atheistic cartel who fail to see that science is the fingerprint of God's
>working in created time and space.
It is indeed sad that Sunday School teachers *are* not better informed
about modern science.
There is nothing wrong with ignorance - you can always learn.
But don't try pushing your ignorance off onto children.
As Arthur C. Clarke wrote:
I would defend the liberty of consenting adult creationists to
practice whatever intellectual perversions they like in the
privacy of their own homes; but it is necessary to protect the
young and innocent.
_1984: Spring_, page 265
>To fend of any Theistic evolution barbs about my position, may I state
>that I am a full Bible believing Chrisitian and I belive in a LITERAL 7
>day creation cycle.
>If anyone wants to comment further, please mail me personally. I don't
>like the fragmented nature of newsgroup discussions.
Science is conducted in open forum, so that everyone can criticize any
views put forward, or suggest extensions, or provide fresh evidence
either for or against, or ...
It is *not* conducted in private email messages, however much cretinists
- oops, creationists - would like their errors to be kept quiet.
>JdS
> ________________________/ Jonathan Stockwell,
> c/o GGP, Dept. of Management,
> Quis custodiet ipsos University of St Andrews,
> Custodies? - Juvenal St Andrews, Fife, Scotland,
I'm not sure why someone in a Department of Management would claim
some expertise in any area of science.
Dwayne Shelton
> That is more or less what happened to me years ago. We were
> going over the story of Noah's Ark in Sunday School. I simply
> asked the teacher how Noah fit so many animals on one small
> boat. I was expecting to be told that it was a "miracle", or
> that there were fewer animals in those days, etc. Instead I
> was chewed out, and my mother was told to "keep an eye on me".
>
> After that, I began to question everything I had been taught
> in church. I found few answers.
It was Possible to achieve the task of all land animals on board the arc.
Taking into account that all of these specific animals were sent by
GOD himself, think about it... if you had to perform such a task, would
you not take on infants instead of mature animals? GOD, being the master
engineer, may have selected the young of each species. This would also
solve other problems such as food and water requirements among others.
It is also possible, continuing with this scenario, that if the dinosaurs
were also present at that time (and died out at a later date (yes I know
thats another debate)) they too would fit on board. I'm not saying that
this is fact, as I nor anyone else has any demonstrable proof, but if
we are to analyze the bible logically this is a possibility.
Now logic asside, If one accepts that GOD did indeed create the universe
there would be no problem accepting the fact that he could make every animal
fit into a cigar box if he so chooses. :-)
Your question was legitimate in Sunday school as any thinking person
would ask it.
It's a struggle to weigh apparent scientific fact against religios faith but
which one offers you something to look forward to when your time is up?
Dwayne Shelton
dsh...@one.net
Evan Steeg
>
>
> It's a struggle to weigh apparent scientific fact against religios faith but
> which one offers you something to look forward to when your time is up?
Ahh, my favorite false dichotomy. (It's right up there with the
trivially stupid "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic?!" false *tri*chotomy).
There are, of course, *many* intellectually-respectable and and
spiritually- satisfying positions between the two extremes of die-hard
absolutist atheism and knee-jerk absolutist Biblical-literalism.
Regards,
Evan
Evan W. Steeg
Department of Computing and Information Science
Queen's University
Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6
CANADA
Phone: (613) 545-6000 -1-5710
FAX (613) 545-6513
Email: st...@qucis.queensu.ca
ima pseudonym
>Carl Wilson wrote:
>> That is more or less what happened to me years ago. We were
>> going over the story of Noah's Ark in Sunday School. I simply
>> asked the teacher how Noah fit so many animals on one small
>> boat. I was expecting to be told that it was a "miracle", or
> It was Possible to achieve the task of all land animals on board the arc.
> Taking into account that all of these specific animals were sent by
> GOD himself, think about it... if you had to perform such a task, would
> you not take on infants instead of mature animals? GOD, being the master
> engineer, may have selected the young of each species. This would also
> solve other problems such as food and water requirements among others.
> It is also possible, continuing with this scenario, that if the dinosaurs
> were also present at that time (and died out at a later date (yes I know
> thats another debate)) they too would fit on board. I'm not saying that
> this is fact, as I nor anyone else has any demonstrable proof, but if
> we are to analyze the bible logically this is a possibility.
> Now logic asside, If one accepts that GOD did indeed create the universe
> there would be no problem accepting the fact that he could make every animal
> fit into a cigar box if he so chooses. :-)
OK. Actually, I think this is a much more legitimate approach than all
the torturing & twisting of science to come up with strained "scientific"
explanations to fit the biblical creation/flood/ark/etc. stories. If you
really believe in supernatural miracles, you ought to go with that, with none
of the wishy-washy attempts to make naturalistic sense of it.
Thus:
God created all the Flood water out of nothing, and "uncreated" it
again when the flood was over; the boat was constructed with God's magical
help & kept seaworthy by His miracles... the animals were miraculously
transported to Noah, and miraculously they didn't need any food or water or
tending on board [maybe God put them all in a magical 'suspended animation'
so they could be stacked like cordwood for the voyage...]. God miraculously
dispersed them around the world after the Flood, and miraculously most of
them didn't need to eat until after the world's ruined ecosystems had
sufficiently recovered to produce enough food, [or perhaps God miraculously
restored things to normal]... God then miraculously created new genetic
diversity in all of His species to overcome the bottleneck effect [the
cheetahs somehow got left off His "to do" list-- maybe some stenographer/angel
made a typo].
No, wait, better still-- let's let Noah's adventures in nautical animal
husbandry be seen as a purely symbolic act of devotion, and have the magical
flood waters be completely harmless [and perhaps undetectable] to all
non-human living things [and to the geology/sediments, etc.]. There! That
neatly explains the survival of all the trees, desert plants, freshwater fish,
earthworms, species of oceanic islands, etc.. Surely, God would have made it
a magical Flood of spiritual Water that was perceptable only to us sinful
human beings, and thus spared the rest of his creation any inconvenience...
[Although, if He'd felt like it, He could have wiped it all out and made a new
one in a day or six].
That should about cover it... ;-) IMNSHO, a straightforward,
miraculous "explanation" like these is much better than any attempt at a
naturalistic or "scientific" approach, which is completely hopeless at every
step --[an well-equipped and well- funded army of expert modern zookeepers,
horticulturalists and aquarists couldn't expect to keep examples of all the
world's flora & fauna alive in a zoo [floating or otherwise] the size of a
city; and all the world's ecologists, wildlife biologists, foresters,
oceanographers, etc. would probably be unable to rebuild a shattered world's
many ecosystems from scratch [though it looks like maybe they're going to
have to try it sometime soon :-( ]
Peter Rule
>Carl Wilson wrote:
>> That is more or less what happened to me years ago. We were
>> going over the story of Noah's Ark in Sunday School. I simply
>> asked the teacher how Noah fit so many animals on one small
>> boat. I was expecting to be told that it was a "miracle", or
>> that there were fewer animals in those days, etc. Instead I
>> was chewed out, and my mother was told to "keep an eye on me".
>>
>> After that, I began to question everything I had been taught
>> in church. I found few answers.
It wasn't a small boat :)
Peter Rule
Dwayne Shelton
> snip
>
> > It's a struggle to weigh apparent scientific fact against religios faith but
> > which one offers you something to look forward to when your time is up?
>
> Ahh, my favorite false dichotomy. (It's right up there with the
> trivially stupid "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic?!" false *tri*chotomy).
For some, usually all when they begin their search for truth, the
dichotomization is quite real. Only those who have drawn their
conclusions as to what they believe, may say the rest is trivial.
> There are, of course, *many* intellectually-respectable and and
> spiritually- satisfying positions between the two extremes of die-hard
> absolutist atheism and knee-jerk absolutist Biblical-literalism.
Granted, this is partially true in the human sense. The problem of course
is that in the end, will it be acceptable to GOD. If you do not belive
in GOD then the question is moot for you. If, although, you beleive in
GOD and Believe that the Bible is his word then you must discern :
1. what parts need interpretation rather than being taken literally.
2. what is the correct interpretation.
A copious quantity of *positions* may be ascertained with the application
of these two variables. Tread Cautiously with your interpretations.
Cheerfully accepting your GOD given right to beleive as you will;
Dwayne Shelton Professional User at large ;-)
Wayne E. Barlow
In article <31282D...@one.net>, Dwayne Shelton <dsh...@one.net> writes:
[...]
|>
|> It was Possible to achieve the task of all land animals on board the arc.
|> Taking into account that all of these specific animals were sent by
|> GOD himself, think about it... if you had to perform such a task, would
|> you not take on infants instead of mature animals?
I'm assuming these infants must be weened. Your aren't taking nursing
females along. Many infants are only weened when they are fairly
large. This may only be of 50% space saver.
|> GOD, being the master
|> engineer,
Hardly.
|> may have selected the young of each species. This would also
|> solve other problems such as food and water requirements among others.
Why? Young infants often require more food than adults. Additionally,
how are parasite/host situations resolved (especially in those cases
where the parasite effects the host in such a way that it will not
be able to reproduce).
|> It is also possible, continuing with this scenario, that if the dinosaurs
|> were also present at that time (and died out at a later date (yes I know
|> thats another debate)) they too would fit on board.
Do you seriously believe the nonsense you are spouting or are
you merely trolling? Most of this post sound like a troll. If so,
you got me.
|> I'm not saying that
|> this is fact, as I nor anyone else has any demonstrable proof, but if
|> we are to analyze the bible logically this is a possibility.
This is so illogical it is funny. You apparently have no idea
the multitude of animal and insect species there are.
|>
|> Now logic asside, If one accepts that GOD did indeed create the universe
|> there would be no problem accepting the fact that he could make every animal
|> fit into a cigar box if he so chooses. :-)
That's one big if now isn't it.
|>
|> Your question was legitimate in Sunday school as any thinking person
|> would ask it.
And since there is no "real" answer to the question, most Christians
accept the story of Noah as a fable.
|>
|> It's a struggle to weigh apparent scientific fact against religios faith but
|> which one offers you something to look forward to when your time is up?
I, too, offer you an everlasting life of happiness when you die if
you would only worship and honor me. Will you do it?
Regards,
Wayne.
Karl Crawford
The ark could of held 80,000 animals with an average weight of 50 lbs each
plus all their food required for 1 year.
ksc
>
> Peter Rule
ksjj
(Karl Crawford) wrote:
> The ark could of held 80,000 animals with an average weight of 50 lbs each
> plus all their food required for 1 year.
actually the ark probably had to hold only about 40 thousand animals with
an average weight of 10lbs each.
ksjj
JdS
>
> >The solution I favour is that there were fewer species to herd together;
> >eg there was only one type of Bear, adaption had not yet created the
> >Kodiak, Grizzly, Polar, etc.. The potential for change had not been
> >exploited.
>
> This is the least of the problems with the Ark. Many species don't even
> live long enough to survive the period the Ark is supposed to have been
> afloat. Where did they store enough food for the animals, and how did it
> keep? Where did the water come from? Where did it go to? ...and many other
> problems.
Before I comment on this paragraph, could you clarify the scope of the
term "species", so we are on the same wavelength?
>
> >It's saddening that your sunday school teachers were not better informed;
> >it is a shame that many christians don't look deeper into the Scriptures
> >(with the help of the Holy Spirit) to try and reclaim science from the
> >atheistic cartel who fail to see that science is the fingerprint of God's
> >working in created time and space.
>
> It's saddening that people feel they have to ignore science in order to
> maintain unnecessary religious dogma, instead of accepting religion and
> science in parallel.
Point: I, and many other Christans do not "...ignore science...". Rather,
we try and reclaim it from those Atheistic thinkers who decline to admit
that it is the "fingerprint", if you will, of God. Science has been the
domain of many Christians; Isaac Newton, and Gregor Mendel to name but
two off the cuff.
Ultimately, the main battleground is over interpretation of observed
phenomena, i.e. geological evidence pointing to a catastrphist scenario -
Flood vs Meteor, for example, and, ironically, based on your preceeding
paragraph, dogmatic pronouncements based on assertions which at are best
unproven hypotheses.
If science is ignored by Christians, can you explain the number of
Christains who have a vocation in the sciences, while not compromising
their sincerely held beliefs?
You contradict yourself in the paragraph preceeding; you claim rejection
of science (as an aside, you employ the language of a disciple, or
folower of a faith system. An argument for the assertion that secular
science is a belief system/religion?) yet chide Christians for
paralleling science and faith. Rather, Christians recognise correctly
interpreted scientific phenomena (and the other 99.9% of non contentious
issues glossed over by critics of science and Christianity) as part of
the created order; the harmony and structure which is still discernible
in the fallen world.
>
> >To fend of any Theistic evolution barbs about my position, may I state
> >that I am a full Bible believing Chrisitian and I belive in a LITERAL 7
> >day creation cycle.
>
> Why?
Why not?
JdS
_______________________________________________________________
| ____ ___________
|| \ / j...@st-andrews.ac.uk <><
|| | \__________ till 7/6/96
____/ |____/ \ -----------
________________________/ "Diplomacy is the art of saying
'nice doggie' until you find a rock"
_______________________________________________________________
JdS
> In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.960216173331.27926E-100000@psych> you write:
> >I was troubled by the question of the Ark's capacity myself. The solution
> >depends on your assumptions, ultimately.
> >
> >The solution I favour is that there were fewer species to herd together;
> >eg there was only one type of Bear, adaption had not yet created the
> >Kodiak, Grizzly, Polar, etc.. The potential for change had not been
> >exploited.
>
> In other words, you believe evolution has a much, much greater capacity for
> producing change than biologists believe.
Incorrect; The issue is diversity within species. Evolutionary biologists
espouse something more dramatic; diversity THROUGH species; i.e. the
evoloution/spontaneous generation of distinct species.
The position I hold is that (at risk of repeating my original statement)
is that In the past, the genetic resource (gene pool??) was far bigger.
This can be logically demonstrated through the conception of (e.g.) a
baby; each perent contributes half (23+23) of the genetic quotient to the
next generation. Ergo, there has been a loss of Half of the genetic data.
Consequence a reduced genetic resource.
Extrapolating this backwards, this points to a relatively vast gene pool
circa Noah's time. In the creation timetable (I don't know if you accept
this stance, but let it remain as a working hypothesis; evaluate the
position within the framework of the hypothesis) this was relatively soon
after the creation narrative in Genesis: smaller populations less
opportunity to diversify and adapt (NOT evolve - distinct concepts) ergo
fewer species.
This solves the problem raised by Cain's wife (it was probably his
sister; the incest Mosaic law had not been established; it was
established to avoid the possibility of inbred deformities); the capacity
of the Ark (fewer species - remember; there were no insects and no sea
dwelling animals), and the problem posed to the literal day creationists
over the time Adam required to name the animals.
To summarise, this position favours variation within species (surely not
a matter oc contention; if this did not exist every male would look like
Adam identically (or whatever male homo sapien archetype you hold to),
likewise for the females of our Human Race. This means that the first
generation humans would look incontravertibly human to our generation. The
evidence for evoloutionary variation does not exist it the fossil record,
thus the assertion of this position is a matter of dogma, or blind faith
if you will.
Michael L. Siemon
+In article <ksjj-20029...@abe-ppp412.fast.net>, ks...@fast.net
+(Karl Crawford) wrote:
+> The ark could of held 80,000 animals with an average weight of
+> 50 lbs each plus all their food required for 1 year.
+actually the ark probably had to hold only about 40 thousand animals with
+an average weight of 10lbs each.
Actually? **actually**???!!!! I think both comments are bizarre
(though the second could be a nice parody of the first, in which
case I retract my criticism of it :-)) Take a glance at Wilson's
_Diversity of Life_, or some of the columns of Stephen Gould in
_Natural History_ magazine, to see some sketch of the lower bounds
on the number of extant species. One would then need to work from
there, with serious actual information about size, food and feeding
habits, living-space requirements, environmental constraints, etc.,
et bloody cetera, to anything *remotely* resembling a plausible guess
for the space requirements of an Ark of the biblical (or Babylonian)
description. Does it not confuse the counting (whether in the J or P
variants :-)) if the "food" of one species is -- necessarily -- some
other species? (e.g., how many eucalpytus trees were aboard?)
Look, guys: the flood/ark myth is TOTALLY ridiculous on any kind of
serious examination. It is absurdity carried to nonsensical excess.
Anybody have _responsa_ on the status of protists? clean or unclean?
and do we take two or 7-pair or (at least for asexually reproducing
ones) just one of each of these? What about trilobites? what about
hippogriffs? What about Medusae? (Does the Ark have mirrors? :-))
--
Michael L. Siemon (m...@panix.com)
"Stand, stand at the window, as the tears scald and start;
You shall love your crooked neighbor, with your crooked heart."
-- W. H. Auden
David Allsopp
Karl Crawford <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
>In article <Dn1xM...@serval.net.wsu.edu>, pet...@wsunix.wsu.edu wrote:
>
What about a) the animals which don't live that long
b) the food going off after the first week
c) the lack of sufficient water on the planet to flood above the mountains
d) the total destruction of the ecosystem, death of most plants and trees.
David.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java
that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a
warning, it is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yuri Kuchinsky
fundamentalism, their unwillingness to use reason and common sense
prejudges more people against them than any atheist propaganda can...
Enough of "little lies for God"!
Cheers,
Yuri.
Ken Smith (k...@maths.uq.oz.au) wrote:
: Conrad Hyers, in his book _The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and
: Modern Science_, John Knox Press, Atlanta, Georgia, 1984, puts it
: in these words on page 26:
: It may be true that scientism and evolutionism (not science and
: evolution) are among the causes of atheism and materialism. It
: is at least equally true that biblical literalism, from its
: earlier flat-earth and geocentric forms to its recent young-earth
: and flood-geology forms, is one of the major causes of atheism
: and materialism. Many scientists and intellectuals have simply
: taken the literalists at their word and rejected biblical
: materials as being superseded or contradicted by modern science.
: Without having in hand a clear and persuasive alternative, they
: have concluded that it is nobler to be damned by the
: literalists than to dismiss the best testimony of research and
: reason. Intellectual honesty and integrity demand it.
--
Yuri Kuchinsky // "Where there is the Tree of Knowledge, there is
///////////////// always Paradise: so say the most ancient and
the most modern serpents." F. Nietzsche
David Allsopp
Michael L. Siemon <m...@panix.com> wrote:
>Anybody have _responsa_ on the status of protists? clean or unclean?
Noah took a clean pair of animals and put them on, but they were far too
tight; they were Noah-constrictors. *Red Letter Days*
ksjj
>
> This is so illogical it is funny. You apparently have no idea
> the multitude of animal and insect species there are.
Do you have any quesses on how many animals, birds, insects etc. would
have been on the ark?
I think when you count the animals you should only use 2 dogs(canines)
instead of 2 german shephards, 2 poodles, 2 labs etc.
ksjj
--
nobody important, and no fancy titles.
Paul J. Gans
: In article <Dn1xM...@serval.net.wsu.edu>, pet...@wsunix.wsu.edu wrote:
: > Dwayne Shelton <dsh...@one.net> wrote:
: >
: > >Carl Wilson wrote:
: > >> That is more or less what happened to me years ago. We were
: > >> going over the story of Noah's Ark in Sunday School. I simply
: > >> asked the teacher how Noah fit so many animals on one small
: > >> boat. I was expecting to be told that it was a "miracle", or
: > >> that there were fewer animals in those days, etc. Instead I
: > >> was chewed out, and my mother was told to "keep an eye on me".
: > >>
: > >> After that, I began to question everything I had been taught
: > >> in church. I found few answers.
: >
: > It wasn't a small boat :)
: The ark could of held 80,000 animals with an average weight of 50 lbs each
: plus all their food required for 1 year.
Good. What happened to all the others? You don't think that
there are only 80,000 species of animals, do you?
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Doug Weller
Ah, with 7 of each clean animal we are getting down to 10 -15000, if
there were some unclean ones as well!
--
Doug Weller
"We must know the truth, and we must love the truth we know,
and we must act according to the measure of our love." Thomas Merton
***'De Chelonian Mobile!'***
Doug Weller
j...@st-andrews.ac.uk (JdS) wrote:
[SNIP]
>
> This solves the problem raised by Cain's wife (it was probably his
> sister; the incest Mosaic law had not been established; it was
> established to avoid the possibility of inbred deformities); the capacity
> of the Ark (fewer species - remember; there were no insects and no sea
> dwelling animals), and the problem posed to the literal day creationists
> over the time Adam required to name the animals.
No insects, no sea animals? More lies in the fossil records, eh? And
of course no dinosaurs, right?
No plants or trees also? Or were they miraculously saved from the flood?
--
Doug Weller
"We must know the truth, and we must love the truth we know,
and we must act according to the measure of our love." Thomas Merton
***'De Chelonian Mobile!'***
... When I grow up I want to be a message.
Doug Weller
JdS or his software, not me!
In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.960220123253.17683A-100000@psych>,
j...@st-andrews.ac.uk (JdS) wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 1996, David Allsopp wrote:
>
>
> Before I comment on this paragraph, could you clarify the scope of the
> term "species", so we are on the same wavelength?
Nit -- why doesn't JdS do this also while he's posting?
[SBUO]
> > It's saddening that people feel they have to ignore science in order to
> > maintain unnecessary religious dogma, instead of accepting religion and
> > science in parallel.
Note carefully what David has said, and see how JdS changes it.
[SNIP]
>
> If science is ignored by Christians, can you explain the number of
> Christains who have a vocation in the sciences, while not compromising
> their sincerely held beliefs?
David hasn't said that Christians ignore science, in fact he's implied
that is it perfectly possible to accept Christianity and be a science.
But JdS makes David say something different.
>
> >
> > >To fend of any Theistic evolution barbs about my position, may I state
> > >that I am a full Bible believing Chrisitian and I belive in a LITERAL 7
> > >day creation cycle.
I'm not sure who this quote is from -- or what a 'full Bible believing
Chrisitian' is -- someone who accepts everything in the Bible
as literally true, contradictions and all?
--
Doug Weller
"We must know the truth, and we must love the truth we know,
and we must act according to the measure of our love." Thomas Merton
***'De Chelonian Mobile!'***
... All wiyht. Rho sritched mg kegtops awound?
David Allsopp
JdS <j...@st-andrews.ac.uk> wrote:
>> This is the least of the problems with the Ark. Many species don't even
>> live long enough to survive the period the Ark is supposed to have been
>> afloat. Where did they store enough food for the animals, and how did it
>> keep? Where did the water come from? Where did it go to? ...and many other
>> problems.
>
>Before I comment on this paragraph, could you clarify the scope of the
>term "species", so we are on the same wavelength?
In this context, almost any definition of species would do, but I normally
use "A population of organisms which does not naturally interbreed with
any other populations (to produce fertile offspring)"
>> It's saddening that people feel they have to ignore science in order to
>> maintain unnecessary religious dogma, instead of accepting religion and
>> science in parallel.
>
>Point: I, and many other Christans do not "...ignore science...". Rather,
>we try and reclaim it from those Atheistic thinkers who decline to admit
>that it is the "fingerprint", if you will, of God. Science has been the
>domain of many Christians; Isaac Newton, and Gregor Mendel to name but
>two off the cuff.
True, but many do in fact ignore science if they think it conflicts with
their religious beliefs, instead of attempting to harmonize the two.
>Ultimately, the main battleground is over interpretation of observed
>phenomena, i.e. geological evidence pointing to a catastrphist scenario -
>Flood vs Meteor, for example,
Sorry, I'm not sure what point you're making here.
>and, ironically, based on your preceeding
>paragraph, dogmatic pronouncements based on assertions which at are best
>unproven hypotheses.
Such as?
>If science is ignored by Christians, can you explain the number of
>Christains who have a vocation in the sciences, while not compromising
>their sincerely held beliefs?
Like myself, for instance? You put words into my mouth - I never talked
about ALL Christians ignoring science.
>You contradict yourself in the paragraph preceeding; you claim rejection
>of science (as an aside, you employ the language of a disciple, or
>folower of a faith system. An argument for the assertion that secular
>science is a belief system/religion?)
I think you read too much into my choice of words.
yet chide Christians for
>paralleling science and faith.
No I don't.
Rather, Christians recognise correctly
>interpreted scientific phenomena
That's fine when they do that. My point was that some of them do not,
and ignore any science that conflicts with their beliefs. This is obviously
true if you look at a few of the postings on the newsgroups.
>> >To fend of any Theistic evolution barbs about my position, may I state
>> >that I am a full Bible believing Chrisitian and I belive in a LITERAL 7
>> >day creation cycle.
>>
>> Why?
>
> Why not?
Because there is no evidence for it. Because it comes from an account in
the Bible, a collection of writings which is demonstrably fallible.
Because it conflicts with most observations of the universe beyond Earth,
and indeed with many observations on Earth.
David Allsopp
JdS <j...@st-andrews.ac.uk> wrote:
>The position I hold is that (at risk of repeating my original statement)
>is that In the past, the genetic resource (gene pool??) was far bigger.
>This can be logically demonstrated through the conception of (e.g.) a
>baby; each perent contributes half (23+23) of the genetic quotient to the
>next generation. Ergo, there has been a loss of Half of the genetic data.
>Consequence a reduced genetic resource.
Sorry, but this assumes only one child, and no subsequent breeding
between related organisms. Try again.
David.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The modulus of elasticity of any substance is a column of the same substance,
capable of producing a pressure on its base which is to the weight causing a
certain degree of compression as the length of the substance is to the
diminution of its length. - Thomas Young, 1807.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Byrden
>>>>>>>>>>
The position I hold is that (at risk of repeating my original statement)
is that In the past, the genetic resource (gene pool??) was far bigger.
This can be logically demonstrated through the conception of (e.g.) a
baby; each perent contributes half (23+23) of the genetic quotient to
the next generation. Ergo, there has been a loss of Half of the genetic
data. Consequence a reduced genetic resource.
>>>>>>>>>>>
You are completely ignoring the fact that most animals will have more
than one child.
David
Carl Wilson
pet...@wsunix.wsu.edu (Peter Rule) wrote:
>Dwayne Shelton <dsh...@one.net> wrote:
>
>>Carl Wilson wrote:
>>> That is more or less what happened to me years ago. We were
>>> going over the story of Noah's Ark in Sunday School. I simply
>>> asked the teacher how Noah fit so many animals on one small
>>> boat. I was expecting to be told that it was a "miracle", or
>>> that there were fewer animals in those days, etc. Instead I
>>> was chewed out, and my mother was told to "keep an eye on me".
>>>
>>> After that, I began to question everything I had been taught
>>> in church. I found few answers.
>
>It wasn't a small boat :)
>
>
Exactly how large was it?
Carl Wilson
ks...@fast.net (Karl Crawford) wrote:
>The ark could of held 80,000 animals with an average weight of 50 lbs each
>plus all their food required for 1 year.
>
>>
>> Peter Rule
And what do you base this on?
mel turner
>Wayne,
>>
>> This is so illogical it is funny. You apparently have no idea
>> the multitude of animal and insect species there are.
>Do you have any quesses on how many animals, birds, insects etc. would
>have been on the ark?
>I think when you count the animals you should only use 2 dogs(canines)
>instead of 2 german shephards, 2 poodles, 2 labs etc.
This is a good illustratory example of the problem involved, so let's review
the species of the dog family Canidae [the following is mostly based on
Grizmek's Animal Encyclopedia, & is possibly dated a little]:
First, the domestic dogs are commonly seen as just a domesticated form [only a
few thousand years old] of the wolf (_Canis lupus_); we can count them as
one species. The genus _Canis_ also includes the coyote (_C. latrans_), the
red wolf (_C. rufus_, possibly of hybrid origin), and four separate species of
jackals.
There are several other genera of canids much more distantly-related to
the above. There is the African wild dog (_Lycaon pictus_) and the Asian
Dhole or red dog (_Cuon alpinus_). There is the strange little raccoon dog
(_Nyctereutes_) of Asia. There are the true foxes (_Vulpes_; nine species
in all). Another genus of fox-like canids, _Alopex_, includes two species:
the Arctic fox and the corsac. The fennec fox (Fennecus), the two species of
gray fox (Urocyon) and the African bat-eared fox _Otocyon_ are other fox-like
types, but perhaps are not really that close to the true foxes. Then there
are the various oddball canids that are endemic to South America, including
the crab-eating fox (Cerdocyon), the other South American "foxes" and
Falklands "wolf" (_Dusicyon_; 4-6 species), the small-eared dog _Atelocynus_,
the bush dog (_Speotheos_) and the the maned "wolf" (_Chrysocyon_).
So even if we count all domestic dogs and the wolf as a single species,
there are still about 14 genera and 32 to 34 distinct species of
living canids that need to go on the boat (and the canids are only one
moderately diverse family of mammals).
BTW, there's really no good way to argue that all this canid diversity is
derived from just a few thousand years of post-flood divergence from a single
"canid kind"; that would probably be at least as silly as saying that the
gibbons, orangutans, chimps, gorillas, and humans must all be one "kind"
that only diverged after the flood... [i.e., you'd be crediting evolution
with much more power for rapid, major changes in species than any evolutionary
biologist would find reasonable].
regards, mdt
Stanley Friesen
>Evan Steeg wrote:
>
>> There are, of course, *many* intellectually-respectable and and
>> spiritually- satisfying positions between the two extremes of die-hard
>> absolutist atheism and knee-jerk absolutist Biblical-literalism.
>
> Granted, this is partially true in the human sense. The problem of course
Since one of the lessons I see in the teaching of Jesus, and in many
of the minor prophets, is that God is forgiving towards those who sincerely
seek him, I suspect he is willing to let such matters ride until he
can gently correct any errors personally.
That is, I do not see that being "correct" on such issue really matters all
that much to God, at least not in comparison to things like justice,
mercy and reverence. ["What does God require of you ... but to do justice,
love mercy and walk humbly before your God" - one of my favorite OT passages].
So, in the meantime, why not accept that these other intermediate positions
are not only perfectly repectable, but spiritually valuable.
> 1. what parts need interpretation rather than being taken literally.
All parts require interpretation.
It is functionally impossible to read *any* text without interpretation.
The more meaningful question is:
which parts require loose interpretation and which parts require
strict interpretation?
> 2. what is the correct interpretation.
How much does this really matter, except in matters directly petaining
to salvation?
--
NAMES: sar...@netcom.com s...@ElSegundoCA.attgis.com
May the peace of God be with you.
Bowen Simmons
<j...@st-andrews.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 1996, David Allsopp wrote:
>
> >
> > >To fend of any Theistic evolution barbs about my position, may I state
> > >that I am a full Bible believing Chrisitian and I belive in a LITERAL 7
> > >day creation cycle.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Why not?
>
You have envinced a positive opinion, not merely the absence of an opinion
on the subject. Generally when people do so they have positive reasons
for doing so.
Of course in this case, it is likely that both you and David are being a
little coy. I would assume that you believe it because the Bible says
"day" and you choose to believe that (1) it is accurate, and (2) it means
just that.
To move the discussion forward, two questions can be asked:
(1) Do you have any reason, outside of the Bible, to suppose that the
Biblical account of the duration and order of creation is accurate? For
example, can you show paleontological evidence demonstrating that all
species are of equal antiquity (pluse or minus a few days)?
(2) How do you account for the general weight of evidence from astronomy,
geology, and other sciences to the contrary? For example, we have
evidence from astronomy of a stellar life cycle which shows stars in all
stages of development, rather than their all being the same age. How do
you account for this?
--
Bowen Simmons
bo...@netgate.net
ksjj
Wilson) wrote:
the cubic foot size of the ark, and the room the animals and the foos
would take up. Actually the average size animal would ave been around 10
lbs and nearly half the amount of animals.
karl
ksjj
Wilson) wrote:
Read Genesis 6:15 here the bible says that the ark was 450' x 75' x 45'high.
Herb Huston
ksjj <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
}> This is so illogical it is funny. You apparently have no idea
}> the multitude of animal and insect species there are.
}
}Do you have any quesses on how many animals, birds, insects etc. would
}have been on the ark?
Are you aware that birds and insects are animals?
}I think when you count the animals you should only use 2 dogs(canines)
}instead of 2 german shephards, 2 poodles, 2 labs etc.
Thank you for confirming once again creationist nitwittery.
--
-- Herb Huston
-- hus...@access.digex.net
Larry Brown
>I don't know where it would fit in the rankings, but one cause of
>atheism is Scientific Creationism, which insists that a particular
>narrow interpretation of the book of Genesis is the only "proper"
>Christian one, and then tries to support it by telling a lot of
>distortions, half-truths, and out-right lies about what science has to
>say on the subject of origins and evolution. Sometimes, when
>intelligent kids raised under such a regime learn some real science
>and find out how badly they've been lied to by their church, they walk
>out the door and never return. (Source: various personal testimonies
>posted on t.o from time to time. Are some of you still out there?)
>
LB: And then the student of science speaks of time 'stilling' by a level
of gravitational extreme in measure, forgets all about creationism, and
presumes they've learned something by avoiding everything for...ahem...
a grade. Job? For some and for awhile. But on the other hand, it's
amazing while hardly surprising that so many never aquire jobs in their
chosen field of study.
Seriously sport, this is a newsgroup, not a college recruitment board.
Brendan O Dea
ksjj <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
>In article <4givg2$4...@panther.sirinet.net>, cwi...@sirinet.net (Carl
>Wilson) wrote:
>
>> In article <ksjj-20029...@abe-ppp412.fast.net>,
>> ks...@fast.net (Karl Crawford) wrote:
>> >The ark could of held 80,000 animals with an average weight of 50 lbs each
>> >plus all their food required for 1 year.
>> >
>> >ksc
>> >>
>> >> Peter Rule
>>
>> And what do you base this on?
>
>the cubic foot size of the ark, and the room the animals and the foos
>would take up. Actually the average size animal would ave been around 10
>lbs and nearly half the amount of animals.
Hmmmm ... interesting logistical problem, kinda reminds me of one about
angels dancing on pin-heads ...
You can't just stack animals like boxes, even assuming these spurious
80k of ~10 lb animals figures were correct for an [unspecified above]
`cubic foot size of the ark' - Imagine Noah's loading process:
``OK, OK, settle down ... now, Mr and Mrs Lion, if you wouldn't
mind just popping up onto the back of Mr Giraffe there ... that's
good, now if you can just stay there for the next twelve months
or so, I'll see if I can't squeeze the LongHorns _under_ Mr
Giraffe ... whoops better get another Giraffe, this one isn't
going to be much good for breeding ...''
And even _if_ there were room for all the food required for the voyage,
how are you going to keep it fresh? Stick it in the fridge?
Juggling figures to see `prove' the the arc was feasable is
nonsensical, you either have to admit that:
1. It was a miracle and hence needs no proof - you don't have to
understand _how_ it worked, just believe it (maybe the arc was
like the Tardis; _I_ don't know).
2. Something was lost in translation, or the story was exaggerated -
Noah built a boat of modest size and tucked away his family and
one breeding pair of each of his [farm] animals in it to ride out
the waters filled the flood basin which he lived in (his `world').
3. It is complete and utter bollocks - just a story, it never
_actually_ happend.
Regards,
--
Brendan O'Dea b...@tyndall.com.au
Compusol Pty. Limited (NSW, Australia) +61 2 809 0133
Rhiannon Macfie
: 2. Something was lost in translation, or the story was exaggerated -
: Noah built a boat of modest size and tucked away his family and
: one breeding pair of each of his [farm] animals in it to ride out
: the waters filled the flood basin which he lived in (his `world').
Bear in mind also that the Hebrew word translated `world` can equally
well be translated `land`...
Paul Roberts
>
>Noah took a clean pair of animals and put them on, but they were far too
>tight; they were Noah-constrictors. *Red Letter Days*
>
>David.
David,
I've played Noah in that sketch so many times I could probably do it
backwards!
I particularly enjoy hamming it up with the early part of the sketch:-
Noah: "Yea, Lord, I am also keen on wild flowers, but mine earnest desire
is to be an preacher of thy righteous word."
God: "Fair enough, Noah, I have seen your righteousness."
Noah: "And yet, O Lord, it troubleth me exceeding great that my preaching
of thy word doth fall on deaf ears."
God: "Let me explain."
Noah: "Speak, Lord, for thy servant is all ears!"
God: "The first problem is with your quirky use of the Authorized Version,
which is highly alienating to the modern culture."
Noah: "Fair enough, Lord, I picked it up in prayer meetings!"
Superbly put, and advice that a few here would do well to follow!
Love in Christ,
Paul Roberts.
Wayne E. Barlow
ksjj wrote:
>
> Wayne,
> >
> > This is so illogical it is funny. You apparently have no idea
> > the multitude of animal and insect species there are.
>
> Do you have any quesses on how many animals, birds, insects etc. would
> have been on the ark?
Yes. More than would fit on the ark described in the Bilble.
I am aware that there are 100s of thousand of mammal, reptile,
amphibian, and bird species. There are also *millions* of
insect species. Most of these species require separate and
unique climates and environments. They would not survive
together on the ark. Many are also the pray of the other.
You still never answered my other question: how would parasite
host relationships be resolved.
> I think when you count the animals you should only use 2 dogs(canines)
> instead of 2 german shephards, 2 poodles, 2 labs etc.
I am also aware that poodles and German shepards are of the
same species and I never assumed otherwise. However, the
number of classified separate beetle species is enormous (let
alone those that are yet unclassified). BTW, would the
now extinct giant three-toed sloth have made it on board?
Regards,
Wayne.
Wayne E. Barlow
>
> On Mon, 19 Feb 1996, David Allsopp wrote:
[...]
>
> Before I comment on this paragraph, could you clarify the scope of the
> term "species", so we are on the same wavelength?
The definition in any intro to biology textbook would do. Usually:
groups of actually or potentially interbreeding populations that
are reproductively isolated.
[...]
> >
> > It's saddening that people feel they have to ignore science in order to
> > maintain unnecessary religious dogma, instead of accepting religion and
> > science in parallel.
>
[...]
> If science is ignored by Christians, can you explain the number of
> Christains who have a vocation in the sciences, while not compromising
> their sincerely held beliefs?
He never claimed that all Christians ignore science. Just a very
vocal fundamentalist bunch that believe in a literal reading of
the Bible.
[...]
> > >To fend of any Theistic evolution barbs about my position, may I state
> > >that I am a full Bible believing Chrisitian and I belive in a LITERAL 7
> > >day creation cycle.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Why not?
Because it has been falsified over 120 years ago by Christian
geologists of the time.
Regards,
Wayne.
Michael J Davis
>> Exactly how large was it?
>
>Read Genesis 6:15 here the bible says that the ark was 450' x 75' x 45'high.
The bit it doesn't say,
'God told Noah to build a large boat, and to make tanks that would hold
water. He was to stack them side by side and on top of each other. Then
he was to get pairs of fish and put them in each tank....
'" I get it", says Noah, "You want me to build a multi-storey carp ark!"
:-)
I believe the Bible is God's Word, but I really cannot see Noah doing
more than rescuing all the domesticated animals. And sure, it says the
whole world was flooded - but it was *all Noah's world*, surely?
^^^^^
The lesson to me (apart from Noah being a type of Christ, a message
about Baptism, etc.) is that listening to God, obedience to Him, in all
things, permits the faithful to cooperate with His work in the world.
Blessings,
Mike
--
Michael J Davis Watchman Consulting Associates Ltd
++44 1706 44308 3 Spring Bank Lane, Rochdale, Lancs OL11 5SE, UK
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| For this is what the Lord has said to me, |
| "Go and post a Watchman and let him report what he sees." Isa 21:6 |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
//
In article <ksjj-21029...@abe-ppp312.fast.net>, ksjj wrote:
> Wayne,
> >
> > This is so illogical it is funny. You apparently have no idea
> > the multitude of animal and insect species there are.
>
> Do you have any quesses on how many animals, birds, insects etc. would
> have been on the ark?
> instead of 2 german shephards, 2 poodles, 2 labs etc.
He WAS reffering to just two of the same species.
There ARE mutitudes of species.
BTW, if you think just 2 dogs brought about all the varieties of dogs
in just a few thousand years, you're not a creationist as much as
a HYPERevolutionist.
After all, evolution can take place without speciation.
Steve "Chris" Price
Assistant Professor of Computational Aesthetics
Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 520,000,000 BC."
Herb Huston
In article <312DE7...@unx.dec.com>,
Wayne E. Barlow <w...@unx.dec.com> wrote:
}ksjj wrote:
}> Do you have any quesses on how many animals, birds, insects etc. would
}> have been on the ark?
}
}Yes. More than would fit on the ark described in the Bilble.
The number of extant and known animal species is about 1,032,000.
}I am aware that there are 100s of thousand of mammal, reptile,
}amphibian, and bird species.
Let's not exaggerate. The number of extant and known chordate (that's
"our" phylum and includes mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and
others) species is about 42,300. Mammals account for about 10% of all
chordates and a mere 0.4% of all animals.
} There are also *millions* of
}insect species.
Probably true, but not that many are known to science yet.
}> I think when you count the animals you should only use 2 dogs(canines)
}> instead of 2 german shephards, 2 poodles, 2 labs etc.
}
}I am also aware that poodles and German shepards are of the
}same species and I never assumed otherwise. However, the
}number of classified separate beetle species is enormous (let
}alone those that are yet unclassified).
Indeed, the mighty coleopterans number about 290,000 species of the
1,032,000 known to science. They, the hymenopterans (ants, bees, and
wasps), and the lepidopterans (butterflies and moths) account for about
half of all known and extant animal species.
(All these numbers are from the pie chart on pag 136 of Edward O. Wilson's
_The Diversity of Life_.)
} BTW, would the
}now extinct giant three-toed sloth have made it on board?
Probably not, so I guess that's why it's extinct.
ksjj
> In article <ksjj-21029...@abe-ppp312.fast.net>,
> ksjj <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
> }> This is so illogical it is funny. You apparently have no idea
> }> the multitude of animal and insect species there are.
> }
> }Do you have any quesses on how many animals, birds, insects etc. would
> }have been on the ark?
>
> Are you aware that birds and insects are animals?
>
> }I think when you count the animals you should only use 2 dogs(canines)
> }instead of 2 german shephards, 2 poodles, 2 labs etc.
>
> Thank you for confirming once again creationist nitwittery.
>
thank you for showing me the ignorance of evolutionist
ksjj
b...@tyndall2.tyndall.com.au (Brendan O Dea) wrote:
> In article <ksjj-22029...@abe-ppp316.fast.net>,
> 2. Something was lost in translation, or the story was exaggerated -
> Noah built a boat of modest size and tucked away his family and
> one breeding pair of each of his [farm] animals in it to ride out
> the waters filled the flood basin which he lived in (his `world').
>
> 3. It is complete and utter bollocks - just a story, it never
> _actually_ happend.
>
how about 4. It actually happened and math shows it could hold all
the . animals.
ksjj
ksjj
> >
> > Do you have any quesses on how many animals, birds, insects etc. would
> > have been on the ark?
>
> insect species. Most of these species require separate and
> unique climates and environments. They would not survive
> together on the ark. Many are also the pray of the other.
100s of thousands?? bit high Wayne
>
> You still never answered my other question: how would parasite
> host relationships be resolved.
whats the problem here?
>
> > I think when you count the animals you should only use 2 dogs(canines)
> > instead of 2 german shephards, 2 poodles, 2 labs etc.
>
> I am also aware that poodles and German shepards are of the
> same species and I never assumed otherwise. However, the
> number of classified separate beetle species is enormous (let
> alone those that are yet unclassified). BTW, would the
> now extinct giant three-toed sloth have made it on board?
>
bob puharic
>Carl Wilson wrote:
>> That is more or less what happened to me years ago. We were
>> going over the story of Noah's Ark in Sunday School. I simply
>> asked the teacher how Noah fit so many animals on one small
>> boat. I was expecting to be told that it was a "miracle", or
>> that there were fewer animals in those days, etc. Instead I
>> was chewed out, and my mother was told to "keep an eye on me".
>>
>> After that, I began to question everything I had been taught
>> in church. I found few answers.
> It was Possible to achieve the task of all land animals on board the arc.
> Taking into account that all of these specific animals were sent by
> GOD himself, think about it... if you had to perform such a task, would
> you not take on infants instead of mature animals? GOD, being the master
> engineer, may have selected the young of each species. This would also
> solve other problems such as food and water requirements among others.
> It is also possible, continuing with this scenario, that if the dinosaurs
> were also present at that time (and died out at a later date (yes I know
> thats another debate)) they too would fit on board. I'm not saying that
> this is fact, as I nor anyone else has any demonstrable proof, but if
> we are to analyze the bible logically this is a possibility.
> Now logic asside, If one accepts that GOD did indeed create the universe
> there would be no problem accepting the fact that he could make every animal
> fit into a cigar box if he so chooses. :-)
> Your question was legitimate in Sunday school as any thinking person
> would ask it.
> It's a struggle to weigh apparent scientific fact against religios faith but
> which one offers you something to look forward to when your time is up?
> Dwayne Shelton
> dsh...@one.net
What a crock
Kubla Khan
How about 5. Most people who have actually studied this story
know that it was copied from the Epic of Gilgamesh (a much older
book than the bible). The Epic of Gilgamesh originated in a
geological area subject to occasional extreme flooding.
Incidentally, the Hebrews are descendants of the same people
that wrote the Epic of Gilgamesh. Coincidence? I think not.
:::tAchyOn:::
Kubla Khan
>
> In article <ksjj-21029...@abe-ppp312.fast.net>,
> ksjj <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
> }> This is so illogical it is funny. You apparently have no idea
> }> the multitude of animal and insect species there are.
> }
> }have been on the ark?
>
>
> }instead of 2 german shephards, 2 poodles, 2 labs etc.
>
>
Actually, Noah only stored the basic frozen embryos and
genetically engineered anything he couldn't carry from his
existing DNA samples. And they were small enough he even had
room to fit them all on the ark! This explains everything...
(My version of the bible says this really happened!)
:::tAchyOn:::
Larry Brown
>To move the discussion forward, two questions can be asked:
>
>(1) Do you have any reason, outside of the Bible, to suppose that the
>Biblical account of the duration and order of creation is accurate? For
>example, can you show paleontological evidence demonstrating that all
>species are of equal antiquity (pluse or minus a few days)?
>
>(2) How do you account for the general weight of evidence from astronomy,
>geology, and other sciences to the contrary? For example, we have
>evidence from astronomy of a stellar life cycle which shows stars in all
>stages of development, rather than their all being the same age. How do
>you account for this?
>
The study of science of geology, physics, and astronomy suggests that
matter is neither created or destroyed, but simply changes form. And
as an example of this, there are the stars which DO NOT all follow
the same cycle which is dependent on the total of their acquired "mass".
Ultimately, all is of the same age, or as Carl Sagan likes to put it...
"We are all made of 'star stuff'".
Herb Huston
ksjj <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
}In article <4gjc8k$4...@access1.digex.net>, hus...@access.digex.net wrote:
}> In article <ksjj-21029...@abe-ppp312.fast.net>,
}> ksjj <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
}> }> This is so illogical it is funny. You apparently have no idea
}> }> the multitude of animal and insect species there are.
}> }
}> }Do you have any quesses on how many animals, birds, insects etc. would
}> }have been on the ark?
}>
}> Are you aware that birds and insects are animals?
}>
}> }I think when you count the animals you should only use 2 dogs(canines)
}> }instead of 2 german shephards, 2 poodles, 2 labs etc.
}>
}> Thank you for confirming once again creationist nitwittery.
}>
When did you become an evolutionist?
Andrew Spring
(ksjj) wrote:
>how about 4. It actually happened and math shows it could hold all
>the . animals.
Do you mind actually reproducing the math here, so the rest of us can
verify your work?
--
Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes
and weighs 30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum
tubes and weigh only 1/2 tons. -- Popular Mechanics, March 1949
<http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/htbin/pks-extract-key.pl?op=get&search=
0x78068A41>
Bowen Simmons
<10010...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> >>> Before I comment on this paragraph, could you clarify the scope of
> >>> the term "species", so we are on the same wavelength?
>
> >The definition in any intro to biology textbook would do. Usually:
> >groups of actually or potentially interbreeding populations that
> >are reproductively isolated.
>
>
> The term 'species" is actually invalid. It refers to something that
> does not exist. No matter how people have tried to define what a
> 'species' is, their definitions have always been violated by some example
> in nature.
>
>
The difficulty in defining what is and is not a species is one of the main
reasons why evolutionary theory was accepted. If species were created
separately, why can we not see clear divisions in nature between them?
Blurry boundaries, on the other hand, are what one would expect of
creatures that are related in varying degrees of closeness.
The speciation FAQ at:
<http://rumba.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/faq-speciation.html>
discusses the various difficulties defining what is meant by the term "species."
--
Bowen Simmons
bo...@netgate.net
David Byrden
>>> Before I comment on this paragraph, could you clarify the scope of
>>> the term "species", so we are on the same wavelength?
>The definition in any intro to biology textbook would do. Usually:
>groups of actually or potentially interbreeding populations that
>are reproductively isolated.
The term 'species" is actually invalid. It refers to something that
does not exist. No matter how people have tried to define what a
'species' is, their definitions have always been violated by some example
in nature.
David
David Magee
>(2) How do you account for the general weight of evidence from astronomy,
>geology, and other sciences to the contrary? For example, we have
>evidence from astronomy of a stellar life cycle which shows stars in all
>stages of development, rather than their all being the same age. How do
>you account for this?
Many ideas we tend to treat as facts are really only theories:
"Cosmology is unique in science in that it is a very large
intellectual edifice based on very facts."
--- Astronomer Halton Arp in "The Extragalactic Universe: An
Alternative View", Nature ,1990
Laurence Gene Battin
The term "green grass" is actually invalid. It refers to a something that
does not exist. No matter how people have tried to define what "green grass"
is, their definitions have always been violated by some example in nature.
Wow. I'm impressed.
Not.
--
Gene
bat...@iucf.indiana.edu Live- Keep all precepts.
lba...@indiana.edu Learn- Practise all good Dharma.
http://www.iucf.indiana.edu/~battin/ Love- Save the many beings.
ksjj
Andrew...@ping.be (Andrew Spring) wrote:
The question is, could the ark have held 2 of all of the animals plus
their food for an appr. 1 year time span? Many say NO, itšs impossible,
but the math says YES.
Follow along,
The size of the ark was 450šx75šx45š. That is assuming a cubit to be 18˛.
Some say the cubit was 20˛ long or longer. For the sake of the argument I
used 18˛ just to be on the conservative side.
This gave a total of 1,518,750 cubic feet for noah to keep the animals and
store the food.
Now if Noah used 1/2 of the arks available space to store the food and
account for space taken up by the flooring and isle ways etc, he would
have been left 759,375 cubic feet of room for the animals to live in.
From what I read the average size animal weighs about 10 lbs, which is
just about the size of a normal healthy house cat. An animal that size
could live comfortably in an 8 cubic foot cage, 2šx2šx2š. For our
calculations wešll use a slightly larger cage and make it 10 cubic feet.
With 759,375 cubic feet of available space Noah could have fit 75,937
cages in the half of the ark designated for the animals.
Itšs understood that an elephant or a rhino would require much more than a
10 cubic foot cage, but we must also keep in mind that a mouse, sparrow or
a newt would require much less than a 10 cubic foot cage.
This winter we kept 2 chickens in a space of about 7 cubic feet. A
typical rabbit hutch is about 10-12 cubic feet and can easily house 2
rabbits that weigh more than 10 lbs each. I brought these examples up to
show that 10 cubic feet is a number on the conservative side and smaller
cages could have been used by Noah.
If I were Noah, I would have brought onboard baby animals. Instead of a
full grown bear, I would have brought on board 2 bear cubs. Instead of a
large elephant, I would have brought onboard a smaller baby elephant. I
would have also brought on board chicks puppies and kittens. Or perhaps
instead of the chicks, alligators and turtles I would have brought
onboard eggs and then hatched them. Its obvious that the smaller animals
would eat much less food than an adult. As the animals grow over the
period onboard the ark during the flood., they would have consumed the
food stored in the 759,375 cubic feet side making more room for there
enlarging bodies.
I hear varying reports on how many species of animals were around at the
time of Noah. Some low and some extremely high. I believe it would be
rather difficult to really know for sure. One book Išve read says that
today there are 20,000 different kinds of animals, not counting the onešs
that live in the sea while another source estimates 17,600 different
species would have been brought into the ark. Using the 20,000 number
with 2 animals each, makes 40,000 animals. Seeing how it is impossible to
know how many clean animals Noahs brough on board by the sevens, Išll say
half of the 40,000 animals or 20,000 were clean for a grand total of
60,000 animals on the ark. From my calculations I already showed that
75,937 could fit quite comfortably. This would leave room for an extra
15,937 animals. Or 159,370 cubic feet left over for animals I might not
have counted.
Itšs quite obvious that the ark was possible and that the biblical story
of Noah true and accurate.
karl ks...@fast.net
David Byrden
>> does not exist. No matter how people have tried to define what a
>> 'species' is, their definitions have always been violated by some >> example in nature.
>> The term "green grass" is actually invalid. It refers to a something
>> that does not exist. No matter how people have tried to define what
>> "green grass" is, their definitions have always been violated by some
>> example in nature.
>> Wow. I'm impressed. Not.
You should be. You see, nothing DEPENDS on the existence of green
grass. If grass turns yellow, or cannot be distinguished from weeds,
there is no wider implication.
Species are hypothethical sets of animals which can interbreed within
themselves but not with other species. Creationists assert that species
have always been distinct, and that a failure to interbreed today implies
a failure throughout history. They claim that a divine being created all
species distinct, and that they have remained so.
The impossibliity of writing a universal definition of the term
"species", and the fact that you can find groups of animals with
arbitrarily small differences between them, support the assertion that
distinct groups may have a common origin and diverge over time.
David
Mark Isaak
>On Mon, 19 Feb 1996, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> In other words, you believe evolution has a much, much greater capacity for
>> producing change than biologists believe.
>
>Incorrect; The issue is diversity within species. Evolutionary biologists
>espouse something more dramatic; diversity THROUGH species; i.e. the
>evoloution/spontaneous generation of distinct species.
Correction: Creationists espouse spontaneous generation. Evolutionary
biologists espouse evolution, and it's nothing dramatic once you understand
it.
>The position I hold is that (at risk of repeating my original statement)
>is that In the past, the genetic resource (gene pool??) was far bigger.
>This can be logically demonstrated through the conception of (e.g.) a
>baby; each perent contributes half (23+23) of the genetic quotient to the
>next generation. Ergo, there has been a loss of Half of the genetic data.
>Consequence a reduced genetic resource.
You are assuming that each pair produces only one offspring. If that were
true, you would have bigger trouble than loss of genetic data.
>Extrapolating this backwards, this points to a relatively vast gene pool
>circa Noah's time. In the creation timetable (I don't know if you accept
>this stance, but let it remain as a working hypothesis; evaluate the
>position within the framework of the hypothesis) this was relatively soon
>after the creation narrative in Genesis: smaller populations less
>opportunity to diversify and adapt (NOT evolve - distinct concepts) ergo
>fewer species.
Smaller populations tend to have smaller genetic diversity, since they lose
genes more often through genetic drift.
>This solves the problem raised by Cain's wife (it was probably his
>sister; the incest Mosaic law had not been established; it was
>established to avoid the possibility of inbred deformities); the capacity
>of the Ark (fewer species - remember; there were no insects and no sea
>dwelling animals), and the problem posed to the literal day creationists
>over the time Adam required to name the animals.
Then where did the insects and sea animals come from? I get the impression
that you are claiming that all insects, spiders, lizards, and other land
animals had all their genes blended together in one species. Is this what
you claim?
>The evidence for evoloutionary variation does not exist it the fossil
>record,
What do you mean? I have seen evolutionary variation in the fossil record
(well, photographs of it, anyway).
--
Mark Isaak "It is impossible for anyone to learn that
is...@aurora.com which he thinks he already knows." - Plutarch
David Byrden
>>. It is complete and utter bollocks - just a story, it never
>> _actually_ happend.
Don't be so harsh, Brendan. Even as a ocnfirmed agnostic, I'm sure that
there was a massive flood, at least in the Middle East, at some time in
prehistory.
However, I don't think it would have covered the tops of the local
mountains.
David
Greg 'Bonz' Newman
>Follow along,
>The size of the ark was 450ıx75ıx45ı. That is assuming a cubit to be 18².
>Some say the cubit was 20² long or longer. For the sake of the argument I
>used 18² just to be on the conservative side.
>This gave a total of 1,518,750 cubic feet for noah to keep the animals and
>store the food.
Well, after you deduct a whole lot of cubic for floors, supports,
cages, and that sort of thing. Measure the cubic of your house from
the outside measurements, then measure how much space you REALLY have.
And you house isn't braced to take the kind of beating a heavily
loaded ark would have to take.
>Now if Noah used 1/2 of the arks available space to store the food and
>account for space taken up by the flooring and isle ways etc, he would
>have been left 759,375 cubic feet of room for the animals to live in.
Would that have been enough space? You need a couple of live
eucalyptus trees to feed the koalas with, for instance. Where did THEY
go? Koalas won't eat anything but FRESH eucalyptus leaves. There are
many, MANY critters with specific dietary needs.
>From what I read the average size animal weighs about 10 lbs, which is
>just about the size of a normal healthy house cat. An animal that size
>could live comfortably in an 8 cubic foot cage, 2ıx2ıx2ı. For our
>calculations weıll use a slightly larger cage and make it 10 cubic feet.
>With 759,375 cubic feet of available space Noah could have fit 75,937
>cages in the half of the ark designated for the animals.
Well, if you make the total weight of EVERYTHING.. animals, food, the
ark itself, the floors and containers.. weigh LESS than the water such
a vessel would displace. It's not a submarine, you know.
>Itıs understood that an elephant or a rhino would require much more than a
>10 cubic foot cage, but we must also keep in mind that a mouse, sparrow or
>a newt would require much less than a 10 cubic foot cage.
>This winter we kept 2 chickens in a space of about 7 cubic feet. A
>typical rabbit hutch is about 10-12 cubic feet and can easily house 2
>rabbits that weigh more than 10 lbs each. I brought these examples up to
>show that 10 cubic feet is a number on the conservative side and smaller
>cages could have been used by Noah.
No, you didn't. You had to have a walkway to get to the cage and a
way to feed and water them. Your rabbits had to be close to a window,
or in a room large enough to let the air circulate. Try it. Get a
large barn, and pack it closely, floor to ceiling, with rabbit cages.
How do you get feed to the ones in teh center of the pile? Ii won't
matter, because they'll die of heat stress and lack of oxygen.
>If I were Noah, I would have brought onboard baby animals. Instead of a
>full grown bear, I would have brought on board 2 bear cubs. Instead of a
>large elephant, I would have brought onboard a smaller baby elephant. I
>would have also brought on board chicks puppies and kittens. Or perhaps
>instead of the chicks, alligators and turtles I would have brought
>onboard eggs and then hatched them. Its obvious that the smaller animals
>would eat much less food than an adult.
Iit is? Pound for pound, most young consume a LOT more than adults
do. Try keeping 100 pounds of babies alive on what one, 100 pound
adult eats.
> As the animals grow over the
>period onboard the ark during the flood., they would have consumed the
>food stored in the 759,375 cubic feet side making more room for there
>enlarging bodies.
How so? You can pack grain tightly, floor to ceiling. Try getting
giraffes and turtles and lions and tigers to pack that way. Animals
don't come in neat rectangles.
>I hear varying reports on how many species of animals were around at the
>time of Noah. Some low and some extremely high. I believe it would be
>rather difficult to really know for sure. One book Iıve read says that
>today there are 20,000 different kinds of animals, not counting the oneıs
>that live in the sea while another source estimates 17,600 different
>species would have been brought into the ark. Using the 20,000 number
>with 2 animals each, makes 40,000 animals.
Nonsense. There are something like 250,000 species of beetles alone;
8000 species of Aves. Where did you get your 17,600 figure?
> Seeing how it is impossible to
>know how many clean animals Noahs brough on board by the sevens, Iıll say
>half of the 40,000 animals or 20,000 were clean for a grand total of
>60,000 animals on the ark. From my calculations I already showed that
>75,937 could fit quite comfortably. This would leave room for an extra
>15,937 animals. Or 159,370 cubic feet left over for animals I might not
>have counted.
>Itıs quite obvious that the ark was possible and that the biblical story
>of Noah true and accurate.
OK, how much does all of this weigh, over all? The more it weighs, the
more internal bracing you have to have to keep it from breaking up at
every wave. This is supposed to be a VIOLENT Flood.
How did you arrive at your 10 pound' average'? Is that a mean? Or a
median or a mode? You can't just add a duck, a pigeon, a termite, an
ant, and an elephant and divide by the 'average'.
How do you circulate air inside this place? That's a LOT of critters
breathing.
How do you get rid of excess heat? Those rhinos and elephants put out
a LOT of heat.
You didn't allow for walkways and passages... how did anyone clean
up the TREMENDOUS amount of dung and urine? How did they get the feed
from the storerooms TO the animals?
In short, you CAN'T be serious.
--
>> Greg 'Bonz' Newman
Would you care for a drink?
I think not, answered Descarte -- and vanished.
Alexander Price
> "We are all made of 'star stuff'".
>
Don't delude yourself. All is not of the same age. If you think that this unsubstantiated big
bang theory suggests a beginning of space and its contents you are surely delusional. Perhaps it
may explain part of our solar system or perhaps our galaxy but definately not space and time
itself.
I personally think the big bang theory is a load of crock, but you are entitled to your opinion,
until you decide to contradict facts. Space and time had NO beginning and will have no end. What
you see in space was ALWAYS there, it merely changed forms.
If you disagree, I feel sorry for you, but I would still like to hear your opinions. :)
If you agree, I'm glad, and would still like to hear your opinions on such matters.
Later.
Alex.
David Iain Greig
: I hear varying reports on how many species of animals were around at the
: time of Noah. Some low and some extremely high. I believe it would be
: today there are 20,000 different kinds of animals, not counting the one零
: that live in the sea while another source estimates 17,600 different
: species would have been brought into the ark. Using the 20,000 number
: know how many clean animals Noahs brough on board by the sevens, I雍l say
: half of the 40,000 animals or 20,000 were clean for a grand total of
: 60,000 animals on the ark. From my calculations I already showed that
: 75,937 could fit quite comfortably. This would leave room for an extra
: 15,937 animals. Or 159,370 cubic feet left over for animals I might not
: have counted.
Sadly, I haven't got a reference in front of me[*], but you're out by a
couple of orders of magnitude on the number of extant species. Plus what
do the carnivores eat? Ooops, better add some more gazelle and rodents
to that total. Oh, I forgot, your taking babies; okay, how much milk do
we need here?
And who gets to clean out the cages of all those animals? Gonna be a
pretty busy time there...
Why not just admit "God did it" and that you have no evidence. It's
all taken from Babylonian flood stories anyhow.
: It零 quite obvious that the ark was possible and that the biblical story
: of Noah true and accurate.
Nice troll, but lame.
[* I'm sure Mayr has made an estimation of extant species numbers...]
--D.
--D.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Iain (Chris) Greig gr...@ediacara.org
Vice-Dean, University Computing Services http://www.ediacara.org/~greig
Prof. of Biochemistry and Philosophy
University of Ediacara "Arbor plena alouattarum"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David McIntire
Greg 'Bonz' Newman <gne...@iglou.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Feb 1996 20:39:49 -0400, ks...@fast.net (ksjj) wrote:
[most of good response deleted]
>
>>It¹s quite obvious that the ark was possible and that the biblical story
>>of Noah true and accurate.
>
>OK, how much does all of this weigh, over all? The more it weighs, the
>more internal bracing you have to have to keep it from breaking up at
>every wave. This is supposed to be a VIOLENT Flood.
By my calculations it rained worldwide about 700 ft a day or 30
ft an hour for 40 days. Considering a few inches and hour is
quite a storm can you imagine 30ft of rain an hour? No boat
is going to withstand such a pounding much less the forces
created by such a deluge.
Using 17 and one-half inches for a cubit, Noah's ark would have
been about 450 feet long, 75ft wide and 45ft high. Carry all
the plants and animals plus feed in such a space? That is a
ridiculous notion. And remember Noah would have to carry live
animals to feed other animals unless God gave Noah some deep freezes.
> In short, you CAN'T be serious.
That is the problem. Such posters are. It is kinda scary.
dmci...@cais.com
_______________
_-_ (___ ________/ "That's the problem with believing
____.---'___`---._ / /____ in a supernatural being. Trying
\__________________ _]_O_] to determine what he wants."
`--_--' ___\ \________ --Troi. Stardate 43
(_______________\
Sceptics society: Then wouldn't we be better to throw out all this
religious mumbo jumbo and move on to something else?
Richard Dawkins: Well, yes, but that's obvious.
David Byrden
>> I personally think the big bang theory is a load of crock, but you
>> are entitled to your opinion, until you decide to contradict facts.
It's nice to hear what you personally think. Unfortunately, the
Universe is not obliged to take any notice of your personal thoughts.
(unless you are God?)
>> Space and time had NO beginning and will have no end. What
>> you see in space was ALWAYS there, it merely changed forms.
Do you have your own cosmological model, which incorporates relativity
and quantum theory at least as well as the current working models? Or do
you simply make these sweeping statements whenever you get a beer in you?
Or maybe you ARE God?
David
Ken Smith
Dwayne Shelton <dsh...@one.net> writes:
>Carl Wilson wrote:
>> That is more or less what happened to me years ago. We were
>> going over the story of Noah's Ark in Sunday School. I simply
>> asked the teacher how Noah fit so many animals on one small
>> boat. I was expecting to be told that it was a "miracle", or
>> that there were fewer animals in those days, etc. Instead I
>> was chewed out, and my mother was told to "keep an eye on me".
>>
>> After that, I began to question everything I had been taught
>> in church. I found few answers.
> It was Possible to achieve the task of all land animals on board the arc.
And then the salt water fish were killed when rain diluted the sea,
and the fresh water fish died when, during the storm, sea water
flowed into their habitat, and all the birds died because there was
nowhere for them to rest for 40 days and they became so tired flying
that they fell into the sea and drowned, and ...
Perhaps you need to give a bit more thought to any claim that the
flood is explicable in scientific terms.
[deletions]
> Now logic asside, If one accepts that GOD did indeed create the universe
> there would be no problem accepting the fact that he could make every animal
> fit into a cigar box if he so chooses. :-)
Well, yes. But it would be a pretty big cigar box, wouldn't it?
I suppose that since God is so big he would smoke enormous cigars - I
haven't been able to find anything in the Bible which says that
smoking should be banned.
> Your question was legitimate in Sunday school as any thinking person
> would ask it.
And your attempt at an answer is as unsatisfactory as that from any
other creationist.
> It's a struggle to weigh apparent scientific fact against religios faith but
> which one offers you something to look forward to when your time is up?
> Dwayne Shelton
> dsh...@one.net
Ken Smith
--
Dr Ken Smith <k...@maths.uq.oz.au> | "God, we know you are in charge, but why
Department of Mathematics, | don't you make it slightly more obvious?"
The University of Queensland, | Archbishop Desmond Tutu, 1990
St Lucia, Qld. 4072. Australia. | (address to students at at West Point)
J G Coulthard
>If I were Noah, I would have brought onboard baby animals.
Interesting. How long were these animals supposed to be on board the ark?
John.
Lloyd R. Parker
: > Ultimately, all is of the same age, or as Carl Sagan likes to put it...
: > "We are all made of 'star stuff'".
: >
: Don't delude yourself. All is not of the same age. If you think that this unsubstantiated big
: bang theory suggests a beginning of space and its contents you are surely delusional. Perhaps it
: may explain part of our solar system or perhaps our galaxy but definately not space and time
: itself.
Do you have some facts that contradict it? If so, put up or shut up.
: I personally think the big bang theory is a load of crock,
Non sequitir. In science, your opinion of a theory doesn't matter if you
don't have data to back it up. Again, I challenge you -- put up or shut up.
: but you are entitled to your opinion,
: until you decide to contradict facts. Space and time had NO beginning and will have no end. What
: you see in space was ALWAYS there, it merely changed forms.
And your evidence for this is?
JdS
> You have envinced a positive opinion, not merely the absence of an opinion
> on the subject. Generally when people do so they have positive reasons
> for doing so.
>
> Of course in this case, it is likely that both you and David are being a
> little coy. I would assume that you believe it because the Bible says
> "day" and you choose to believe that (1) it is accurate, and (2) it means
> just that.
I believe in a literal day because of the juxtposition of the word day
("yom") and a number, which I understand from scholars indicates a
literal context.
> To move the discussion forward, two questions can be asked:
> (1) Do you have any reason, outside of the Bible, to suppose that the
> Biblical account of the duration and order of creation is accurate? For
> example, can you show paleontological evidence demonstrating that all
> species are of equal antiquity (pluse or minus a few days)?
This answer is intrinsically unanswerable because it would require the
location of a strata in which all species died at the same time to be
similarly embedded. Reversing the question, is there conclusive evidence
whitch supports emergence?
> (2) How do you account for the general weight of evidence from astronomy,
> geology, and other sciences to the contrary? For example, we have
> evidence from astronomy of a stellar life cycle which shows stars in all
> stages of development, rather than their all being the same age. How do
> you account for this?
>
The bible doesn't assert a static creation, certainly not the
uniformitarian position held by evolutionists. A dynamic creation is
not disputed, and does not contradict a Creation model. Usually the battle
ground between creationist and scientist dwells on interpretation of evidence,
not the evidence per se.
_______________________________________________________________
| ____ ___________
|| \ / j...@st-andrews.ac.uk <><
|| | \__________ till 7/6/96
____/ |____/ \ -----------
________________________/ "Diplomacy is the art of saying
'nice doggie' until you find a rock"
_______________________________________________________________
JdS
>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> The position I hold is that (at risk of repeating my original statement)
> is that In the past, the genetic resource (gene pool??) was far bigger.
> This can be logically demonstrated through the conception of (e.g.) a
> baby; each perent contributes half (23+23) of the genetic quotient to
> the next generation. Ergo, there has been a loss of Half of the genetic
> data. Consequence a reduced genetic resource.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
>
>
>
> You are completely ignoring the fact that most animals will have more
> than one child.
>
This still does not guarantee a 100% transmission of all genetic data.
What about individuals who donot have children? Their geneline is lost,
result a diminution of the genetic resource.
JdS
JdS
About 140m long, by 23m wide by 13.5m high. Apparently the size of many
passenger ferries.
David McIntire
JdS <j...@st-andrews.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> You have envinced a positive opinion, not merely the absence of an opinion
>> on the subject. Generally when people do so they have positive reasons
>> for doing so.
>>
>> Of course in this case, it is likely that both you and David are being a
>> little coy. I would assume that you believe it because the Bible says
>> "day" and you choose to believe that (1) it is accurate, and (2) it means
>> just that.
>
>I believe in a literal day because of the juxtposition of the word day
>("yom") and a number, which I understand from scholars indicates a
>literal context.
>
>> (2) How do you account for the general weight of evidence from astronomy,
>> geology, and other sciences to the contrary?
>>
>The bible doesn't assert a static creation, certainly not the
>uniformitarian position held by evolutionists. A dynamic creation is
>not disputed, and does not contradict a Creation model. Usually the battle
>ground between creationist and scientist dwells on interpretation of evidence,
>not the evidence per se.
Just what is the Creation model other than "God did it"? And what is
the evidence for the Creation model?
Cary Renquist
: In article <4fj70k$a...@access4.digex.net>, hus...@access4.digex.net (Herb Huston) writes:
: |> Bogus newsgroup trimmed. Followups restricted to talk.origins.
: |>
: |> In article <4ffo5f$g...@zk2nws.zko.dec.com>,
: |> Wayne E. Barlow <w...@spiderman.unx.dec.com> wrote:
: [...]
: |> }So, in actuality you are correct, common
: |> }ancestor no longer exists. It evolved into Gorillas, Homo sapiens,
: |> }Chimpanzees, and Gibbons (all of which should be classified as the
: |> ^^^^^^^
: |> }modern great apes).
: |>
: |> Gibbons and siamangs are the lesser apes. (If there are great apes, then
: |> someone has to be a lesser ape.)
: [...]
: I bow my head in shame at letting such a clumsy mistake
: get away.
: What exactly makes orangutan a greater ape and a gibbon
: a lesser ape? (i.e. what distiguishing characteristic
: draws the line between Pongidae and Hylobatidae?)
Sorry to interupt your discussion--Where does the Grape Ape fit in?
Cary
Greg 'Bonz' Newman
(Cary Renquist) wrote:
>: |> Gibbons and siamangs are the lesser apes. (If there are great apes, then
>: |> someone has to be a lesser ape.)
<snip>
>Sorry to interupt your discussion--Where does the Grape Ape fit in?
Obviously, Ewell Gibbons became a Grape Ape after eating too many
pine nuts and grape leaves. Thus, his descendants are the Grape
Gibbons.
Wayne E. Barlow
In article <ksjj-23029...@abe-ppp316.fast.net>, ks...@fast.net (ksjj) writes:
|>
|> > >
|> > > Do you have any quesses on how many animals, birds, insects etc. would
|> > > have been on the ark?
|> >
|> > I am aware that there are 100s of thousand of mammal, reptile,
|> > amphibian, and bird species. There are also *millions* of
|> > insect species. Most of these species require separate and
|> > unique climates and environments. They would not survive
|> > together on the ark. Many are also the pray of the other.
|>
|> 100s of thousands?? bit high Wayne
Yes. That should be 10s of thousands.
|> >
|> > You still never answered my other question: how would parasite
|> > host relationships be resolved.
|>
|> whats the problem here?
Many parasites manipulate the host in such a way as to not allow
it to reproduce. If only two of the host animals are brought on
board and one is host to a parasite, the host animal will become
extinct (however, since they are alive today, hmm).
[...]
Regards,
Wayne.
ksjj
As I was saying, there was plenty of room. You had mentioned that I
should łdeduct a whole lot of cubic for floors, supports, cages, and
that sort of thing.˛ I did, 1/2 the space, 1,518,750 cubic feet of ark.
This should have been more than enough.
Later in your letter you talked about the koalas ł Would that have been
enough space? You need a couple of live eucalyptus trees to feed the
koalas with, for instance. Where did THEY go? Koalas won't eat anything
but FRESH eucalyptus leaves. There are many, MANY critters with specific
The question I have, and I donąt know the answer as of yet, is, did the
koala have to have been on the ark? The koala is a marsupial so the
questions is did Noah only have 2 marsupials on the ark and after they got
off did they breed into the koala? Perhaps Noah had a few types of
marsupials and one of those types bred into the koala . Take the dog for
example, from 2 canine, we now have many breeds of dogs. Some of the dogs
have very special diets also.
In your response you stated you had a problem with weight.
˛Well, if you make the total weight of EVERYTHING.. animals, food, the
ark itself, the floors and containers.. weigh LESS than the water such
I worked the following figures out using a high number of 80,000 animals.
Now if the average weight of each animal was 10 lbs their total weight
would be 80,000
x 10
--------
800,000 lbs of animal
note: seeing how the average size of animals is about the size of a rodent
I choose 10 lbs as a likely weight. The 80,000 animals would account for
all types, mammals, birds etc. I realize that elephants way much more
than 10 lbs while a chipmunk weighs far less.
A 10 lb animal can survive on 3 oz of food a day. These figures were taken
from a Ken-L Ration feeding instruction.
The flood lasted for 371 days...so,
371 days
x 3 oz
-------
1113 oz of food needed per animal for duration of flood.
or divided by 16 to convert to lbs = 69.56 lbs per year .
this means that all 80,000 animals needed
69.56 lbs
--------
5,565,000 lbs of food on ark
now, 5,565,000 lbs of food
+ 800,000 lbs of animal
----------
6,365,000 total pounds of food and animals on ark.
the ark was capable of holding 40,000,000 pounds of weight. This leaves
the ark with 33,635,000 lbs to spare.
NOW JUST FOR FUN, lets assume 80,000 animals at 50 lbs each which is very
much more than the average weight of a rodent.
80,000
x50
------
4,000,000 lbs of animal
eating at a rate of 16.5 oz a day for 371 days is 383 lbs of food per
animal for the duration of the flood.
so then 80,000 animals would then need 30,640,000 lbs of food .
now 30,640,000 lbs
= 4,000,000 lbs of animals
---------------
34,640,000 pounds total leaving 5,360,000 lbs to spare.
As you see, it was possible for the ark to hold all the weight of the
animals and food . Keep in mind that some of the animals would have
hibernated for part of the trip.
Sorry, but I forgot to add in Seths wife who weighed 102 lbs.<g>
You also seem to have a problem with space,air and heat;
łNo, you didn't. You had to have a walkway to get to the cage and a
way to feed and water them. Your rabbits had to be close to a window,
or in a room large enough to let the air circulate. Try it. Get a
large barn, and pack it closely, floor to ceiling, with rabbit cages.
How do you get feed to the ones in teh center of the pile? Ii won't
matter, because they'll die of heat stress and lack of oxygen.˛
Any cages that Noah had would have been stacked so you could have reached
the middle, probably much like a supermarket with skinny isles. I can hear
the loud speaker now, NOAH FEED THE MONKEYS IN ISLE 23. anyway, besides
cages I think noah had pens for certain animals.
The ark was constructed with windows placed 1 cubit from the top. See
Genesis 7:16. The window probably ran around the top edge of the ark and
allowed the air to circulate and remove any excess heat. There is also a
possibility that it was cold outside and the animal heat kept the ark
comfortable.
Your following statement does not make sense to me;
łIit is? Pound for pound, most young consume a LOT more than adults
do. Try keeping 100 pounds of babies alive on what one, 100 pound
adult eats.˛
would you rather feed 100 pounds of babies which in our example would be
10 animals @ 10 LBS each or 10 full grown animals @ 100 LBS each? True
pound for pound they may consume a lot more, but when you weigh it, itąs a
lot less.
Another question you had was;
łNonsense. There are something like 250,000 species of beetles alone;
8000 species of Aves. Where did you get your 17,600 figure?˛
I didnąt count the beetles, like breeding dogs starting with 2 canine, how
many beetles do you think Noah would have needed to bring onboard?
250,000 beetles would not take up that much space either. Perhaps they
were łdung˛ beetles and helped Noah with the manure.<g>
There are plenty of issues concerning the ark, some are easy to answer
while some require a lot of thought and research. One issue Iąm trying to
explain is...If the creationist say that oil was a by-product of the
flood, then where did Noah get the pitch that was used to cover the ark?
I hope I answered your questions, there were a lot of them in your Email
and Iąm sure I missed a few.
BTW. In short, I am very serious.
see ya,
Karl Crawford
Alan Barclay
JdS <j...@st-andrews.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Exactly how large was it?
>
>About 140m long, by 23m wide by 13.5m high. Apparently the size of many
>passenger ferries.
Except passenger ferries are made from steel, while the Ark was
supposedly made from wood, and wooden vessels just aren't
structually stable at that size.
Lucid346
great pyramid
which is such. The length in cubits translated to pyamid inches is 6000
inches
which may have a symbolic meaning of 6000 years. The width translated is
1000 inches, which may equate to 1000 years equaling one day.
300 cubits x 20inches per cubit = 6000 - length
50 cubits x 20inches per cubit= 1000 - width
Wayne E. Barlow
In article <4gljal$o...@access1.digex.net>, hus...@access1.digex.net (Herb Huston) writes:
|> Newsgroups trimmed. Followups restricted to talk.origins.
|>
|> In article <312DE7...@unx.dec.com>,
|> Wayne E. Barlow <w...@unx.dec.com> wrote:
[...]
|> }I am aware that there are , reptile,
|> }amphibian, and bird species.
|>
|> Let's not exaggerate. [...]
Would you believe me if I told you one of the 0s were a typo? ;-)
(After reading this I also realize that the "exaggeration" may
be two fold. My intent was that the total number of chordate
species is in the "100s [10s] of thousand[s]"; not that there
are "100s [10s] of thousand[s]" mammals and "100s [10s] of thousand[s]"
reptiles, etc. Although, I can see how it can be read that way
also.)
|> } There are also *millions* of
|> }insect species.
|>
|> Probably true, but not that many are known to science yet.
I heard an approximation of 4 million (from the PBS Nature special
on insects just the other day).
[...]
Regards,
Wayne.
rsundar
I don't want to take too much time to address this topic because, well it is pointless.
There are an estimated 30 million species of life on earth. Humans have discovered only 1
million (the other 29 million are estimates based on what we know of tropical forests).
Naturally, even if Noah's ark had been figurative language for an island or even a small
continent, it virtually impossible to contain that breadth of species in even the confined area
of a continent. But wait! If the ark was to have been at the creation of the universe, what
about dinosaurs or early amphibians? Oh, sorry, the Bible doesn't recognize the existence of
those species.
Sorry Creationists, Science may contradict the Bible, but the bible contradicts natural fact.
Arvind S.
Mark Isaak
>how about 4. It actually happened and math shows it could hold all
I agree that the ark could have held all the animals. However, it would
have made the Black Hole of Calcutta seem like a haven. Most of the animals
aboard the ark would have been dead from heat and overcrowding within a
month.
Mark Isaak
>The number of extant and known animal species is about 1,032,000.
"Described" would be a better word to use than "known." I have heard an
estimate that there are about another million species that are known about
but haven't yet been described. Even for the described ones, for 99.9% of
them we know nothing more about them other than what they look like and
where a few were found.
Mark Isaak
>The ark could of held 80,000 animals with an average weight of 50 lbs each
>plus all their food required for 1 year.
The ark described in Gen. 6 had about 100,000 square feet of deck space. As
a conservative estimate, let's say 20% of this was used for corrodors,
bulkheads, and such. That leaves an average of one square foot per fifty
pound animal and all its food.
Could you live for a year confined into 3 square feet with all the food you
get for the year?
Stephen Watson
JdS <j...@st-andrews.ac.uk> wrote:
[.......]
>The position I hold is that (at risk of repeating my original statement)
>is that In the past, the genetic resource (gene pool??) was far bigger.
>This can be logically demonstrated through the conception of (e.g.) a
>baby; each perent contributes half (23+23) of the genetic quotient to the
>next generation. Ergo, there has been a loss of Half of the genetic data.
>Consequence a reduced genetic resource.
The t.o Berserker Geneticists will be along shortly to disembowel you
for a howler like that. While you await your doom, consider the
following statement (I invite corrections from the aforementioned BGs.
Be nice, I'm only a EE ;-):
"Genetic diversity of a population may be (roughly) defined as
the number of different alleles in existence for a given locus.
A population of consisting of a single pair can carry a maximum
of four alleles at each locus"
If you do not understand the above statement, and why it makes
chop-suey of your assertion above, then you are incompetent to discuss
the subject.
--
# Steve Watson # swa...@bnr.ca # Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Ont. Canada #
## The above is the output of a 7th-order Markovian analysis of all posts on ##
## this group for the past month. Not only is it not BNR's opinion, it's ##
## not even *my* opinion: it's really just a mish-mash of all YOUR opinions! ##
David Byrden
>> The question I have, and I donšt know the answer as of yet, is, did
>> the questions is did Noah only have 2 marsupials on the ark and after
>> they got off did they breed into the koala? Perhaps Noah had a few
>> types of marsupials and one of those types bred into the koala
This is fascinating. Your Biblical fundamentalism has turned you into
an evolutionist.
David
Fraser Wilson
Dwayne Shelton <dsh...@one.net> writes:
> It's a struggle to weigh apparent scientific fact against religios faith but
> which one offers you something to look forward to when your time is up?
Say, thanks for that --- you've just convinced me to convert to
Mithraism. Cheers!
Fraser ("here comes the sun ... doo doo doo doo")
--
____ Fraser Wilson | email: fra...@cs.mu.oz.au __o
\ / Melbourne University | voice: +61 3 9287 9193 _-\<,_
\/ Parkville, Vic | fax: +61 3 9348 1184 (_)/ (_)
Ada is Good for You | www: http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fraser/