John Woodmorappe and Jan Peczkis (RFF)
Harlequin
creationist that uses pen name "John Woodmorappe"
is in reality a high school teacher by the name
Jan Peczkis.
While I have seen many make this identity as a
matter of fact, I have never actually seen any
documentation of the claim. What is the evidence
that this claim is true? Besides various people
over the last decade saying so.
Now if a creationists (or anyone else for that
matter) wants to use a _nom_de_plume_, I have no
objections provided it is not used in an unethical
manner and provided that person not claim any
credentials or "evidence" that cannot be verified due
to the withholding of the writer's true identity.
However if the Woodmorappe=Peczkis identity is true,
Peczkis has not acted in an ethical manner. He
writing as Woodmorappe cites an article signed by
Peczkis as if Peczkis was not himself.
See: http://www.rae.org/nihilism.html
Furthermore this is not a case of a person changing
there mind since the young-earth creationism by Woodmorappe
have been written before and after the pro-evolution via
natural selection article by Peczkis. If these two are
indeed the same person, then "Woodmorappe" is guilty of
gross dishonesty that is just plain undeniable.
The use of a pseudonym is not acceptable if it is used to
argue for one thing under one name and the exact opposite
in thing with another name! Such dishonesty by such
an important young-earther should be documented.
Of course dishonesty from anyone associated with
Answers in Genesis or the Institute for Creation
Research is never very surprising. That "Woodmorappe"
has not been very honest has been shown in many place,
for example:
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/hiding_the_numbers_woody_henke.htm
His claims even if he was honest are often breathtakingly
incompetent like his confusion of median and mean
(see: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-273.htm ).
The documentation of Peczkis being Woodmorappe would
make a very useful FAQ for The Talk.Origins Archive.
So consider this a request for FAQ.
I should mention that via a searchs of this
newsgroup that I have seen claims that Peczkis threatened
lawsuits via email against those claiming he is Woodmorappe.
However this evidence is hearsay for all but those who
directly involved unless it can be documented in some manner.
This obviously not attack on those who have mentioned that
Peczkis threatened them but rather recognition that someone
claiming online that someone wrote them is not in and of itself
grounds for making a fairly nasty charge against Jan
Peczkis. And saying he is Woodmorappe would be a fairly
nasty charge.
To email replace "usenet" with "harlequin"
Michael Painter
"Harlequin" <use...@mmcable.com> wrote in message
news:e39a1026.01112...@posting.google.com...
> I have a number of times seen the claim that the
> creationist that uses pen name "John Woodmorappe"
> is in reality a high school teacher by the name
> Jan Peczkis.
>
> While I have seen many make this identity as a
> matter of fact, I have never actually seen any
> documentation of the claim. What is the evidence
> that this claim is true? Besides various people
> over the last decade saying so.
>
Why would a funny mental woman hide behind a man's name.
What? OH FUNDAMENTALIST!
Never mind.
Jesse976
I have a number of times seen the claim that the creationist that uses pen name
Usenet>>
ROFL. It is a sure index to the
robust nature of Woodmorappe's
analyses of Evolutionism that
"crypto-posters" such as this
cooked up "Usenet" have to try
and attack Woodm with such
kooky back-door ad hominem.
Bravo and kudos to YOU, John
Woodmorappe, whoever ye may
be. I am awestruck with the clarity
and rigorous science you wield
in examining Evolutionism.
Michael Painter
Woodbrain's science is about as rigorous as Star trek and a lot less
amusing.
"Jesse976" <jess...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011126211646...@mb-ms.aol.com...
Harlequin
> I have a number of times seen the claim that the creationist that uses pen name
> "John Woodmorappe" is in reality...
> Usenet>>
>
> ROFL. It is a sure index to the
> robust nature of Woodmorappe's
> analyses of Evolutionism that
> "crypto-posters" such as this
> cooked up "Usenet" have to try
> and attack Woodm with such
> kooky back-door ad hominem.
Jesse976 you might consider rereading my post and then
retracting your reply. If you don't I will consider
you a hypocrite who has committed an _ad_hominen_ attack
on me while falsely accusing me of committing an
_ad_hominen_.
If you make use of a search engine and search either the
world wide web or usenet archives, you will find many
places that state, in a matter fact fashion that
Woodmorappe is Peczkis. It was mentioned in a book published
over a decade ago as well. I did not make any of this
up. And given that the creationists have failed to
dispute this claim (or at least to my knowledge)
though it is acknowledged that "Woodmorappe" is a
pen name, I strongly suspect that it is true. But I don't
think I should use the claim unless it can be conclusively
documented and thus my post asking if there was any
verifiable evidence to back up.
I might also note that you deleted my linking to
a site documenting the use of out-of-context
quotations by this man. Was that an _ad_hominen_
attack on Woodmorappe? I also mentioned his
confussion of median and mean. Is that an
_ad_hominen_ attack on Woodmorappe? I might add
that that confussion totally discredits a key
point of flood arguements.
> Bravo and kudos to YOU, John
> Woodmorappe, whoever ye may
> be. I am awestruck with the clarity
> and rigorous science you wield
> in examining Evolutionism.
The only clarity he has is is continuous use of
misquotations. Irregardless of his identity,
it is indisputable that he has been either dishonest
or incredibly incompetent (or both) in his works.
This is something you cannot dispute.
Or maybe you are not bright enough to figure out that
of the median-sized animal of the 16,000 animals
he claimed were in the ark was rat-sized, that
Noah was not taking care of the equivalent of
16,000 rat-sized animals. That is what Woody
is claiming and yet this mathematical bait-and-switch
has absolutely no validity whatsoever. Go back
and check the article by Woodmorappe that I cited and
veryify that inane error was indeed made.
But lets get back to the main issue.
Is Woody Peczkis?
If he is and this can be documented, then the evidence is clear
that "Woodmorappe" is charlatan who is knowingly publishing
falsehoods. I would think that even a creationist would
want documented if they cared one wit about intellectual
honesty or what evidence really says.
If he is not, then that should be documented as well since
it harms the reputations of both Peczkis and Woodmorappe since
this claim clearly implies that they are major liars. It also
harms Peczkis by associating him with the writings of someone
who argues so incompetently and uses misquotations.
If I had to put money on the line, I would say that it is true,
but I have not seen any conclusive demonstration. Hense my
post.
Frank J
I get it now. JW, or whoever he/she is, analyzes evolutionism, not
evolution.
Adam Marczyk
name
> "John Woodmorappe" is in reality...
> Usenet>>
>
> ROFL. It is a sure index to the
> robust nature of Woodmorappe's
> analyses of Evolutionism that
> "crypto-posters" such as this
> cooked up "Usenet" have to try
> and attack Woodm with such
> kooky back-door ad hominem.
Uh, Usenet is a network, not an individual. And it's not an ad hominem to
point out that, if Woodmorappe and Peczkis are the same person, then this
person is using an alternate identity to endorse an article written by
himself without informing the readers that he's praising his own work.
That's just plain dishonest.
> Bravo and kudos to YOU, John
> Woodmorappe, whoever ye may
> be. I am awestruck with the clarity
> and rigorous science you wield
> in examining Evolutionism.
Why do I get the feeling this guy's never read a single one of Woodmorappe's
books or articles?
--
And I want to conquer the world,
give all the idiots a brand new religion,
put an end to poverty, uncleanliness and toil,
promote equality in all of my decisions...
--Bad Religion, "I Want to Conquer the World"
mvp54609
> "John Woodmorappe" is in reality...
> Usenet>>
>
> ROFL. It is a sure index to the
> robust nature of Woodmorappe's
> analyses of Evolutionism that
> "crypto-posters" such as this
> cooked up "Usenet" have to try
> and attack Woodm with such
> kooky back-door ad hominem.
>
Who is using ad hominems. Surely not the original poster. Woody as an
example of 'robust science' is a contradiction in nature btw. Care to
discuss this?
Jesse976
> robust nature of Woodmorappe's
> analyses of Evolutionism that
> "crypto-posters" such as this
> cooked up "Usenet" have to try
> and attack Woodm with such
> kooky back-door ad hominem.
> Bravo and kudos to YOU, John
> Woodmorappe, whoever ye may
> be. I am awestruck with the clarity
> and rigorous science you wield
> in examining Evolutionism.
Uh, Usenet is a network, not an individual. And it's not an ad hominem to
point out that, if Woodmorappe and ___
are the same person, then this
person is using an alternate identity to endorse an article written by
himself without informing the readers that he's praising his own work.
That's just plain dishonest.>>
Heh, heh. Hewing to the "logic" of
our true believers in evolutionism,
then Mark Twain was "just plain
dishonest" in that pen name. But
notice how stridently they seek to
use external artifice to attack anyone
who would interrogate evolutionism.
Will we next be told that Woodm's
analyses of evolutionism fail because
he has 7 overdue parking tickets?
Louann Miller
>Uh, Usenet is a network, not an individual. And it's not an ad hominem to
>point out that, if Woodmorappe and ___
>are the same person, then this
>person is using an alternate identity to endorse an article written by
>himself without informing the readers that he's praising his own work.
>That's just plain dishonest.>>
>
>Heh, heh. Hewing to the "logic" of
>our true believers in evolutionism,
>then Mark Twain was "just plain
>dishonest" in that pen name.
If Samuel Clemens was publishing novels, and Mark Twain was writing
glowing reviews of those novels proclaiming Mr. Clemens to be the
genius of the age, that _would_ be dishonest. This is the sort of
behavior for which Woodmorappe is being censured.
Louann
Mitchell Coffey
Maybe you can defend Woodmorappe's famous use of median instead
mean?
Mitchell Coffey
Michael Painter
"Mitchell Coffey" <MitC...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a766a589.01112...@posting.google.com...
> jess...@aol.com (Jesse976) wrote in message
news:<20011126211646...@mb-ms.aol.com>...
> > I have a number of times seen the claim that the creationist that uses
pen name
> > "John Woodmorappe" is in reality...
> > Usenet>>
> >
> >
> > Bravo and kudos to YOU, John
> > Woodmorappe, whoever ye may
> > be. I am awestruck with the clarity
> > and rigorous science you wield
> > in examining Evolutionism.
>
> Maybe you can defend Woodmorappe's famous use of median instead
> mean?
>
> Mitchell Coffey
I can help. As most of you know I'm head coach and chairman of the
department of karlmath at U. of E.
There is no question that the mean equals the median. It's just the problem
of getting the post office and UPS to accept it. We could save money and
they could save space.
Adam Marczyk
> >. It is a sure index to the
> > robust nature of Woodmorappe's
> > analyses of Evolutionism that
> > "crypto-posters" such as this
> > cooked up "Usenet" have to try
> > and attack Woodm with such
> > kooky back-door ad hominem.
>
> > Bravo and kudos to YOU, John
> > Woodmorappe, whoever ye may
> > be. I am awestruck with the clarity
> > and rigorous science you wield
> > in examining Evolutionism.
>
> Uh, Usenet is a network, not an individual. And it's not an ad hominem to
> point out that, if Woodmorappe and ___
> are the same person, then this
> person is using an alternate identity to endorse an article written by
> himself without informing the readers that he's praising his own work.
> That's just plain dishonest.>>
>
> Heh, heh. Hewing to the "logic" of
> our true believers in evolutionism,
> then Mark Twain was "just plain
> dishonest" in that pen name.
If Mark Twain's books had on the back a blurb: "Fantastic! I couldn't put it
down! This book is a can't-miss read!", written by Samuel Clemens, then the
situations would be equivalent. Are you perhaps beginning to comprehend the
problem here?
> But
> notice how stridently they seek to
> use external artifice to attack anyone
> who would interrogate evolutionism.
> Will we next be told that Woodm's
> analyses of evolutionism fail because
> he has 7 overdue parking tickets?
I'm sorry, I must have missed it - please point out the section of my post
in which I said that Woodmorappe's conclusions on evolution are rendered
irrelevant by this academic dishonesty.
Michael Painter
>
> Heh, heh. Hewing to the "logic" of
> our true believers in evolutionism,
> then Mark Twain was "just plain
> dishonest" in that pen name. But
> notice how stridently they seek to
> use external artifice to attack anyone
> who would interrogate evolutionism.
> Will we next be told that Woodm's
> analyses of evolutionism fail because
> he has 7 overdue parking tickets?
>
If you wish to discuss the stupidity of his claims here's a start.
(I'm plagerizing somebody's excellent work below and would give credit if I
could remember who I tok them from. Both were web posts, not from text
books, etc.)
Yes, easily. Woodmorappe tallied up 8,000 genera (including now extinct
animals) that would have needed to be on the ark. Of the 600 or so dinosaur
genera, only 100 weighed more than 10 tons when fully grown but I expect
Noah probably took young adults, at their reproductive prime. When he
averaged out the 8000 sizes, the median size turned out to be the size of a
small rat, and the average size that of a sheep. He calculated these 16000
animals would fit in 1,200 cubic metres of space. The dimensions given in
the Bible of the ark are 300x50x30 cubits. A cubit is about 45 centimetres.
So in metres the size of the ark is 137x23x14, giving it a capacity of
43,200 cubic metres. Plenty of room there for those 16000 animals and all
their food, plus exercise space."
Obviously he hasn't a clue how much it takes to feed herbivores.
An elephant alone eats 300 pounds of hay a day. A horse eats about 30
pounds, a cow about 20-25, a bison about the same, a giraffe perhaps 100, a
rhinocerous about 175-200.
These are good estimated weights of the amount of food needed.
Two elephants 600 pounds per day for a year equals about 220,000 pounds of
hay.
Two rhino 146,000 pounds
Two horses 22,000 pounds
Two donkeys 22,000
Two waterbuffalo 20,000
Two zebra 22,000
Six cows 54,750
Two giraffe 73,000
Two bison 22,000
Six goats 9125
Six Sheep 9125
I'm not even going to try to figure out how much hay would be needed for
the rest of the deer, gnus, gaurs, springbok, sable antelope, but I'll add
another 200,000 pounds as a very low estimate.
So, a very rough and probably extremely low estimate is at least 900,000
pounds.
A bale of hay weighs about 50 pounds. Dimensions are 2 x 2 x 4 for total of
16 cu feet. Approximately 18,000 bales of hay.
Doing some calcs, gives us 288,000 cubic feet of hay. That's 32,000 cubic
yards of hay. I'm a bit hazy on football field dimensions but I think it's
50 yards wide, by 100 yards long (sorry, folks, sports aren't my strong
point). Anyway, that's 5,000 square yards of space. The amount of hay
would be stacked 6.4 layers high, a yard to a layer. For a total of
approximately 20 feet high covering a football field.
Not to mention the sheer volume excreted. Herbivores' digestive systems
aren't particularly efficient; most of what goes in comes out again.
Wonder how many shovels they had on the Ark? And how many hours per day
Noah, et. al. spent shoveling?
****************************************************************************
****
O-kay... my problem with _anyone_ who takes creationism seriously is that it
simply doesn't add up. Let's take my fav example, Ye Arke.
So, depending on what you use for a cubit, Ye Arke is about 450 feet long,75
wide, and 45 tall, right? I work best in metres, so lets do a bit of
conversion: that's 137.16 by 22.86 by 13.716 metres, right? For ease of
calculation, let's call it 140 x 23 x 14. This give you 45.080e+3 cubic
meters. One cubic meter of pure water is one metric tonne. Salt water is a
bit more dense. Be nice, add another thousand tonnes or so... Ye Arke
displaces 46,000 tonnes. Maybe 46,400 at max. And I'm being generous. (The
reader who knows something about ship-building will also spot a certain
minor problem with the above figures. No creationist has ever seen it... in
part 'cause if it's corrected, things get worse for Ye Arke.)
Problem 1: The sheer size. HMS _Victory_, still preserved at Portsmouth,
was 186 feet long on the gundeck. HMS _Victoria_, the last full-rigged
1strate ship of the line to serve as flag of the Channel Fleet, built in
1859, was 250 feet long on the gundeck. And she had a steel frame because
the RN had found that building wooden ships much bigger than 225 feet long
was not a good idea because they tended to straddle or to hog on being
launched; that is, they tended to bend, their bows and sterns to stick up
out of the water at an angle, (that's straddling) or to bend the other way,
the bows and sterns supported by waves but the midships sections out of the
water (or at least not as well supported) (that's hogging) and either way
their keels tended to crack under the strain. Even with steel frames, wooden
ships bigger than 250 feet long tended to hog or straddle. Don't take my
word for it, look it up for yourself. One possible source: _The Wooden
Fighting Ship In the Royal Navy, 897-1860_, EHH Archibald, Blandford Press,
London. Sorry, my copy was published back before ISBNs. Edward Archibald was
at the time of writing the curator of the National Maritime Museum,
Portsmouth, England. Or build a wooden boat 250 feet long and see what
happens. Ye Arke was the size of_two_ 1st rate line of battleships, laid
end-to-end. Noah was a shepherd. He knew better than the shipwrights at
Chatham who built the ships with which the RN dominated the world for 150
years? If I'm wrong, and it is possible to build a 450 foot wooden vessel,
by all means demonstrate it. I'll even put up some of the money... so long
as I get to record the launch of said vessel. And so long as those who say
that such a craft would be safe are willing to stay on it while it's being
launched. Me, I figure that I'd get some _great_ pix.
Problem 2: Even though it's too big to work, Ye Arke is _too small_ to do
its job. Noah was at sea for a year. The Bible explicitly states that he
carried food for himself, his family, and the animals... where did he put
it? John Woodmorappe (who is, BTW, a creationist) in his book _Noah's Ark: A
Feasibility Study_, published by the Institute for Creation Research, El
Cajon, California, (the ICR is not merely creationist; it _requires_ that
all who work there take an oath that they feel that the Bible is inerrant,
as demonstrated on their web site) calculates that Noah's ark carried 5.5
million kilos by weight of animals. (I disagree with this figure, as it's
much too low, but for purposes of argument I'll use it.) He also estimates
that each animal, on average, ate one thirtieth of its body weight per day.
Let's see... 5.5 million kilos is 5,500 tonnes. Divide by 30, multiply by
365... 66.917e+3. (Ye Arke was at sea for over a year, according to Gen 7and
8. I'll just use one year to keep things simple and to give Woody as much
slack as possible. Wouldn't want anyone to say that I was railroading him.)
Hmm. 67 thousand tonnes of food, by Woody's own figures. But... if you
remember, we calculated that Ye Arke could displace a max of 46,000tonnes,
or 46,400 if we were being generous. And that included the mass of the boat
itself, and the animals. (Archimedes' Principle, you know) Looks like y'all
need at least two Arkes just to carry the food. So where's the mention of
the Great Barge Fleet in the Bible? I once tried to work out just how big an
Arke would have had to have been to carry the assorted animals and their
food and have space for proper cages and exercise areas so that the animals'
muscles don't atrophy... after I got to 900,000 tonnes displacement and
still hadn't accounted for all the good stuff, I stopped. That's _three
times the size of a supertanker_. Or _nine times the size of a nuke aircraft
carrier_. There's simply no way that a wooden vessel could ever be that big.
No way at all.
Problem 3: In order to get the mass of the animals down, Woody pared things
down. He tried to define 'kind' so as to have, say, one pair of cat-like
what evers, and have all present day cats, from house cats to lions,
descendants of that pair. Nice... except that doing it that way _requires_
evolution on a scale so massive and rapid that _no_ evolutionary biologist
would dare suggest it. And Woody does that with _all_ animals... It's the
only way he could get 'em to fit.
Problem 4: Even after he pares down the list (he posits 15,754 'kinds') he
has a problem. In order for there to be physically enough space inside Ye
Arke, Woody uses the _median_ to work out the size of cages. He says that if
you have hippos, elephants, rats, and dogs, you can use the _median_ size
animal and build cages for 'em, and they'll all fit. The median size,
according to Woody, that of a sheep. Using that, he can shoehorn enough
cages into Ye Arke to hold his 15,754 kinds... but only just. And the cages
would be sized so that an animal in it would be able to stand up, but not
move about... which means it gets no exercise, and its muscles will atrophy.
And it won't live to see the end of the voyage. Unfortunately, Woody can't
think of any other way to fit 'em all in.
Problem 5: Remember that 67,000 tonnes of food? What goes in must come
out... Noah and his crew (all eight of 'em) are gonna be kinda busy moving
that 67,000 tonnes in one end, and removing the whatever amount of tonnes of
waste products out the other. _Each_ member of the crew would have about
2,000 'kinds' of animals to feed every day... and remember, some of those,
the clean ones, would be in sevens, and the others in pairs. Let's see.
15,754 divided by eight is a tad over 1,969. Number of seconds/day is
86,400.Noah & Co. had 43.875 _seconds_ per 'kind' per day if they worked
continously24/7 for the year they were at sea to feed and clean 'em. Must've
been trailing bloody Cherenkov radiation as they ran about the boat, or at
least sonic booms. And, of course, if there were more 'kinds' than Woody's
15,754,Noah & Co. would have had less time per 'kind', while if there were
less 'kinds', the hyperevolution problem would be worse.
Problem 6: Ye Floode itself. It covered the 'high hills and mountains'.
Hmm... Some creationists say that there was massive amounts of mountain
building post-Floode, which is why Everest, for example, is as tall as it
is. For the purposes of argument, I'll take 'em at their word. How tall
_were_ the 'high hills and mountains', though? 100 feet? 1000 feet? 2000
feet? Well, they'd better have been less than 250 feet, 'cause if you put
that much water above coral reefs, the reefs die. (You can check it for
yourself.) Every coral reef in the world should be dead... unless Noah
carried a few corals with him on Ye Arke, which gives him some extra
problems. And which is not supported by the Bible, anyway. It's easy to work
out how much water would be required for a Floode that size. Now, divide by
24 by 40, and you see how much fell per hour in the 40 days and 40 nights...
and that's one hell of a lot of water, even if you restrict it to 250 feet
extra. I've been in hurricanes. They didn't dump anywhere _near_ that kind
of water. Not even within three orders of magnitude. No way a wooden boat's
gonna survive that. None. I won't bother go into varves, sandstones, and
salt domes...
Problem 7: Plants. Not only would Noah have had to carry food for all the
animals (and, if predators such as tigers were then carnivores, this would
include extra animals to furnish food for said predators, while if they were
vegetarians, this would require extra fodder and an explanation as to when
and why they changed...) but he's gonna have to carry all the various plants
as well. All of them. Land plants don't care for major floods, and would all
die. Fresh-water plants don't like too much salt, and would all die. Marine
plants don't like too little salt and would all die. Estuary plants, who
don't care about the salt content, do care about water pressure... and would
all die long before the corals (see above) would. After Ye Floode would come
Ye Dust Storm, as the wind dries up the mud and blows away the topsoil
because there's no ground cover left to preserve it, it's all dead in Ye
Floode.
Problem 8: Aquatic life. Gen 7-8 simply does not mention aquatic life,
animals or plant. Perhaps fish don't have "the breath of life", as they
don't breath air, but whales and seals and such do. Did Noah carry whales
andseals on Ye Arke, too, and if so were they clean or unclean? (Whales
aredescended from hooved, cud-chewing animals, and even still have
multiple-chambered stomachs, and so should be Oclean'; that's seven of
Oem... Seals are, I think, descended from weasels, so they might be
Ounclean'.) The vast majority of marine animals don't like it if there's too
little salt, or too much water pressure, or both; a Floode that could reach
above Everest would kill them all. (Some marine life _loves_ pressure, and
die if there's too little, which creates a different problem, see below) The
vast majority of fresh-water animals don't like it if there's too much salt,
and are far less pressure-resistant than marine life (how deep can you go in
a lake, anyway?) (except for Lake Baikal, that is...) so Ye Floode would
kill them, too. Worse, the Bible expressly states that all creatures not on
board Ye Arke died in Ye Floode. Noah now has to have large aquaria on his
wooden barge... I'm kinda curious as to how Noah kept the pressure on the
tanks containing the deep-ocean life, so that they wouldn't die from
decompression. And how he kept the seven whales happy. Let's see... a tank
big enough to hold seven whales, so that they could swim around and use
their baleen plates to sift out the plankton. And another tank to grow more
plankton for Oem, as seven whales are gonna eat a lot of plankton. Unless,
of course, the whales can be convinced to eat hay... I can see it now. No
teeth, but eating hay. And, of course, the toothed whales (sperm whales and
the various dolphins) would have to be kept away from the fish tanks, and if
the dolphins include a killer whale or two, away from the other whales and
the seals... And there had better not be any leopard seals in the seals, for
similar reasons. How big is this barge again?
Problem 9: Disease/parasites. Tapeworm, AIDs, leprosy, etc, they're all
living creatures too. If they were not on Ye Arke, they died. Some of them
_require_ a _living_ host. Which one or ones of Noah's crew carried herpes,
which hookworm, which Ebola? How about ticks, fleas, lice?
Problem #10: Latent heat of vaporisation. Do you know how much heat water
releases when it turns from vapour to liquid? Ever have a steam burn? 1gof
steam condenses to 1g of liquid water plus 2261 joules! A cubic meter of
water is a million grams and the surface of the Earth is 5.09 x 10^8 km2or
5.09 x1014 m2. Thus, if we drop a measely meter of water a day for 40days,
the amount of energy released is 2261 joules/g * 1,000,000 g/m3 *5.09*10^14
m3 per day or 1.15 * 10^24 joules a day or 249,300,000 megatonnes/day! The
pentagon would envy such an arsenal. Put another way, for every m of water
level increase, we have to release 2.261 billion joules/m2. At a rate of 1
m/day, this comes to 2.261 billion joules/day/m2 or a radiance of 26
kilowatts/m2, roughly 20 times the brightness of the sun! Result: The
atmosphere rapidly turns into incandescent plasma incinerating Noah and Ye
Arke. Nothing survives, the oceans boil and the land is baked into pottery.
There's more, but this has gotten too long already. If you _really_ want to
see why I use that sig, check out the t.o FAQs and run the calcs for
yourself. It's not difficult to do. It's simple. Anyone who takes Ye Arke
seriously either hasn't done the math or can't add.
Alan Barclay
Michael Painter <m.pa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>genera, only 100 weighed more than 10 tons when fully grown but I expect
>Noah probably took young adults, at their reproductive prime. When he
>averaged out the 8000 sizes, the median size turned out to be the size of a
>small rat, and the average size that of a sheep. He calculated these 16000
'average' is a meaningless term. People use it for any of the mean, the mode
or the median.
I belive that he incorrectly used the median. The correct one to use
would be the mean.
Eric Gill
Jesse976 wrote:
>
> I have a number of times seen the claim that the creationist that uses pen name
> "John Woodmorappe" is in reality...
> Usenet>>
>
> ROFL. It is a sure index to the
> robust nature of Woodmorappe's
> analyses of Evolutionism that
> "crypto-posters" such as this
> cooked up "Usenet" have to try
> and attack Woodm with such
> kooky back-door ad hominem.
Uh- you obviously haven't seen a Woodmarappe post if you are harping
about ad hominem attacks *against* him.
Not that his profanity is any better than his science...
<snip>
Jesse976
> our true believers in evolutionism,
> then Mark Twain was "just plain
> dishonest" in that pen name.
If you wish to discuss the stupidity of his claims here's a start.
(I'm plagerizing somebody's excellent work below and would give credit if I
could remember who I tok them from.
mpainter>>
With such "geometric logic" as our
evolutionist friends evince, above,
what need I say more, here? Yes,
yes, mpainter, let me glibly imbibe
your pleadings of Woodm's
perfidious nature --as your "plagerized"
narrative must lead me to conclude.
Jesse976
Let's compare:
Darwin told us that swim bladders transmuted into lungs. Huxley was so badly
mauled in debate with Bishop Wilferforce that his "X Club" spent decades trying
to revise and damage control history --asserting that Huxley had carried the
day.
RAFisher was a frontman for big tobacco.
And...you tell me that you dispute Woodm's
useage of Median? Quelle idee! ━)
Jon Fleming
>Maybe you can defend Woodmorappe's famous use of median instead
>mean? mitcoffey>>
>
>Let's compare:
>
>Darwin told us that swim bladders transmuted into lungs. Huxley was so badly
>mauled in debate with Bishop Wilferforce that his "X Club" spent decades trying
>to revise and damage control history --asserting that Huxley had carried the
>day.
>RAFisher was a frontman for big tobacco.
Citations?
>
>And...you tell me that you dispute Woodm's
>useage of Median? Quelle idee! ━)
Your examples are supposed to justify Woodmorappe's error?
Jon Fleming
>>. It is a sure index to the
>> robust nature of Woodmorappe's
>> analyses of Evolutionism that
>> "crypto-posters" such as this
>> cooked up "Usenet" have to try
>> and attack Woodm with such
>> kooky back-door ad hominem.
>
>> Bravo and kudos to YOU, John
>> Woodmorappe, whoever ye may
>> be. I am awestruck with the clarity
>> and rigorous science you wield
>> in examining Evolutionism.
>
>Uh, Usenet is a network, not an individual. And it's not an ad hominem to
>point out that, if Woodmorappe and ___
>are the same person, then this
>person is using an alternate identity to endorse an article written by
>himself without informing the readers that he's praising his own work.
>That's just plain dishonest.>>
>
>Heh, heh. Hewing to the "logic" of
>our true believers in evolutionism,
>then Mark Twain was "just plain
>dishonest" in that pen name.
Indeed. For that to logically follow, you should provide an example
in which Samuel Clemens (using that name) reviewed one of Mark
Twains's works. I believe no such example exists.
Jon Fleming
>> Heh, heh. Hewing to the "logic" of
>> our true believers in evolutionism,
>> then Mark Twain was "just plain
>> dishonest" in that pen name.
>
>If you wish to discuss the stupidity of his claims here's a start.
>(I'm plagerizing somebody's excellent work below and would give credit if I
>could remember who I tok them from.
>mpainter>>
>
>With such "geometric logic" as our
>evolutionist friends evince, above,
>what need I say more, here?
Yes, you should, troll
Adam Marczyk
Gee, wasn't someone complaining about those nasty evolutionists diverting
attention from the facts with ad hominem attacks earlier?
mel turner
[Jesse976] wrote...
>
>Maybe you can defend Woodmorappe's famous use of median instead
>mean? mitcoffey>>
>
>Let's compare:
>
>Darwin told us that swim bladders transmuted into lungs.
Nice comparison. Darwin wins.
Not wrong, but perhaps incomplete. Tetrapod lungs and teleost swim
bladders are indeed homologous, much as Darwin envisaged. The "swim
bladders" he referred to were really the primitive types of "lungs"
seen in fish like lungfish and Polypterus. "Swim bladders" much like
those [functioning both as lungs and bouyancy devices] did indeed
give rise to more specialized lungs of modern tetrapods and also to
the specialized types of swim bladders of advanced teleosts.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=638964%242s0%241%40news.duke.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=638voq%24df0%241%40news.duke.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=79jpdc%244d7%241%40news.duke.edu
"Graham, J. 1997. Air-breathing fishes. Evolution, diversity and
adaptation. Academic Press, San Diego, etc. It has sections on
transitions to lungs and respiratory gas bladders, p. 68-69 on the
origin and phylogeny of the vertebrate lung, pp. 256-263 on fish air
breathing and the evolution of tetrapods."
Huxley was so badly
>mauled in debate with Bishop Wilferforce that his "X Club" spent decades trying
>to revise and damage control history --asserting that Huxley had carried the
>day.
Yeah, right. What color is the sky on your planet?
[i.e., "Citations"?]
>RAFisher was a frontman for big tobacco.
>
>And...you tell me that you dispute Woodm's
>useage of Median? Quelle idee! ━)
His usage was probably a very silly mistake, although some
t.o. creationist's stubborn defense of it was much sillier...
cheers
Adam Marczyk
news:9u49sf$5k2$2...@news.duke.edu...
[snip]
> Huxley was so badly
> >mauled in debate with Bishop Wilferforce that his "X Club" spent decades
trying
> >to revise and damage control history --asserting that Huxley had carried
the
> >day.
>
> Yeah, right. What color is the sky on your planet?
> [i.e., "Citations"?]
There aren't any, of course. The X Club successfully revised history, you
see.
[snip]
John Wilkins
In fact, it was probably Hooker who carried the day, but Huxley's letter
to Darwin has survived. Most agree that Wilberforce came off as a
pompous ass (not arse, both were English, not American, and I mean ass
here). Soapy Sam had been primed by Owen, and Huxley did destroy Owen's
"hippocampus minor" argument, in print if not at the Oxford debate.
>
> >RAFisher was a frontman for big tobacco.
This is actually true. Fisher did spend a lot of time in the 1950s
working for tobacco companies using rather strained statistical
arguments that smoking not only actually *prevents* cancer, but that
those who have a predisposition to cancer take up smoking more than
those who do not. Fisher was himself a smoker.
Fisher was also a eugenicist, patronising to his wife and family, and
died alone and in poverty. He was, in short, a Very Nasty Guy.
But his theoretical arguments in _The Genetical Theory of Selection_
have not been demolished yet. If you (Jesse) think they can be, do have
a crack at it. For all that Fisher was a PitA, he was still a brilliant
PitA, and his personality in no way undercuts his arguments; only good
science and logic can do that, and nobody has been able to undercut him
so far. His statistical methods are still used, too.
This said, Fisher's math works only because he made some assumptions
that make them work. We have since (in fact, not long after the 1930
edition) seen what happens if other assumptions are made (eg, Sewall
Wright's work, and more recently the ALife crowd). But little of the
theoretical work in GToS needs revision, so far as I know.
> >
> >And...you tell me that you dispute Woodm's
> >useage of Median? Quelle idee! ━)
>
> His usage was probably a very silly mistake, although some
> t.o. creationist's stubborn defense of it was much sillier...
>
> cheers
I think it was indicative of Woody's lack of comprehension of the things
he was purporting to discuss. So does blind faith blind.
--
John Wilkins
Occasionally having fun for over 46 years...
Harlequin
> Jesse976 <jess...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20011126211646...@mb-ms.aol.com...
> >
> > I have a number of times seen the claim that the creationist that uses pen
> name
> > "John Woodmorappe" is in reality...
> > Usenet>>
> >
> > ROFL. It is a sure index to the
> > robust nature of Woodmorappe's
> > analyses of Evolutionism that
> > "crypto-posters" such as this
> > cooked up "Usenet" have to try
> > and attack Woodm with such
> > kooky back-door ad hominem.
>
> Uh, Usenet is a network, not an individual.
Actually he was refering to the fake email address that I
offer to the spammers use...@mmcable.com :-)
>And it's not an ad hominem to
> point out that, if Woodmorappe and Peczkis are the same person, then this
> person is using an alternate identity to endorse an article written by
> himself without informing the readers that he's praising his own work.
> That's just plain dishonest.
I would not exactly say that "Woodmorappe" praised
"Illinois high school science teacher Jan Peczkis" but
rather quite the opposite. He attacked him for trying to
get students to take an "atheistic leap."
http://www.rae.org/nihilism.html
Of course it is still dishonest.
If Peczkis=Woodmorappe is true it goes something like this:
Write article on evolution whose stated goal is
to help students understand evolution and to help
convince them that evolution by natural selection
works. Cite that article using an assumed name and
say it shows that evolution is atheistic.
If a Democrat wrote an aricle as a "Republican" and then
cited that article in an article in support of the Democrats
it would be a major scandal. But I wonder if Jesse976
will ever understand this or even concede that this
is the moral equivalent to what Woodmorappe/Peczkis
are doing if they really are the same person.
>
> > Bravo and kudos to YOU, John
> > Woodmorappe, whoever ye may
> > be. I am awestruck with the clarity
> > and rigorous science you wield
> > in examining Evolutionism.
>
> Why do I get the feeling this guy's never read a single one of Woodmorappe's
> books or articles?
I would not rule it out. But then again it just might be lack
of either the ability to think logically or worse ethically.
Adam Marczyk
I don't think he did. Look at the title of the article: "New Educational
Activities for Home Schooling Science: A Hands-on Science Activity that
Demonstrates the Atheism and Nihilism of Evolution"
> http://www.rae.org/nihilism.html
>
> Of course it is still dishonest.
[snip]
Mitchell Coffey
Apple v. oranges. Darwin did the best he could with the information
available at the time. The difference between mean and median is
known by any scientifically literate person. I ask you again: you
claim Woodmorappe's is a good scientist; defend his use of median
instead of mean.
Mitchell Coffey
Ron Okimoto
Woodmorappe is pretty neutral about Peczkis' teaching method and
doesn't seem to express what the point of Peczkis' exercise really is.
Conclusions would be different if Peczkis made the same objections to
the exercise as Woodmorappe, but it is not stated that Peczkis did.
Woodmorappe also refers to Jan Peczkis as a male. I'd thought that
Jan was supposedly a female. Could be a slip up with Woodmorappe's
supposed male identity. This sort of reminds me of ReMine talking
about himself as if he were someone else.
Ron Okimoto
Bobby D. Bryant
Coffey" <MitC...@aol.com> wrote:
> Apple v. oranges. Darwin did the best he could with the information
> available at the time. The difference between mean and median is
> known by any scientifically literate person. I ask you again: you
> claim Woodmorappe's is a good scientist; defend his use of median
> instead of mean.
It gave the answer he wanted, and he didn't think most of his intended
audience would catch the slight?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Derek Stevenson
news:63afe69c.01112...@posting.google.com...
[snip]
> Woodmorappe also refers to Jan Peczkis as a male. I'd thought that
> Jan was supposedly a female. Could be a slip up with Woodmorappe's
> supposed male identity. This sort of reminds me of ReMine talking
> about himself as if he were someone else.
Makes one wonder about this "Jesse" character...
Robt Gotschall
jess...@aol.com says...
> Heh, heh. Hewing to the "logic" of
> our true believers in evolutionism,
> then Mark Twain was "just plain
> dishonest" in that pen name. But
> notice how stridently they seek to
> use external artifice to attack anyone
> who would interrogate evolutionism.
> Will we next be told that Woodm's
> analyses of evolutionism fail because
> he has 7 overdue parking tickets?
Man, you're even beginning to sound like Jabriol. Could it be?
Naw. No way. . . .
rg
John McCoy
It would be nice if you could come up with ESTIMATES based on
hibernation.
>
> I'm not even going to try to figure out how much hay would be needed for
> Not to mention the sheer volume excreted. Herbivores' digestive systems
> aren't particularly efficient; most of what goes in comes out again.
> Wonder how many shovels they had on the Ark? And how many hours per day
> Noah, et. al. spent shoveling?
It'd be nice if you calculated shoveling based on ready made conduits
in which case no shoveling was necessary.
> ****************************************************************************
> ****
>
> O-kay... my problem with _anyone_ who takes creationism seriously
It'd be nice if I could take you seriously.
is that it
> simply doesn't add up.
It'd be nice if you had made those calculations but you had not.
Let's take my fav example, Ye Arke.
It'd be nice if you did not use the term "Ye Arke" to prejudice people
not to accept the Ark reality.
> So, depending on what you use for a cubit, Ye Arke is about 450 feet long,75
> wide, and 45 tall, right?
Wrong. Moses was educated in Egypt, and used the Egyptian cubit. The
Ark was 515 ft long. It would have been nice if you had known that.
I work best in metres, so lets do a bit of
> conversion: that's 137.16 by 22.86 by 13.716 metres, right?
It would be nice if you used ft.
For ease of
> calculation, let's call it 140 x 23 x 14. This give you 45.080e+3 cubic
> meters. One cubic meter of pure water is one metric tonne. Salt water is a
> bit more dense. Be nice, add another thousand tonnes or so... Ye Arke
> displaces 46,000 tonnes. Maybe 46,400 at max. And I'm being generous. (The
> reader who knows something about ship-building will also spot a certain
> minor problem with the above figures. No creationist has ever seen it... in
> part 'cause if it's corrected, things get worse for Ye Arke.)
It'd be nice if you had the plans of the Ark so that you could make
this assessment. Kind of arguing against a theoritical, wouldn't you
say? And that's not nice.
> Problem 1: The sheer size. HMS _Victory_, still preserved at Portsmouth,
> was 186 feet long on the gundeck. HMS _Victoria_, the last full-rigged
> 1strate ship of the line to serve as flag of the Channel Fleet, built in
> 1859, was 250 feet long on the gundeck. And she had a steel frame because
> the RN had found that building wooden ships much bigger than 225 feet long
> was not a good idea because they tended to straddle or to hog on being
> launched; that is, they tended to bend, their bows and sterns to stick up
> out of the water at an angle, (that's straddling) or to bend the other way,
> the bows and sterns supported by waves but the midships sections out of the
> water (or at least not as well supported) (that's hogging) and either way
> their keels tended to crack under the strain. Even with steel frames, wooden
> ships bigger than 250 feet long tended to hog or straddle.
Did these ships use laminated wood? It would be nice if you could
tell me.
Don't take my
> word for it, look it up for yourself. One possible source: _The Wooden
> Fighting Ship In the Royal Navy, 897-1860_, EHH Archibald, Blandford Press,
> London. Sorry, my copy was published back before ISBNs. Edward Archibald was
> at the time of writing the curator of the National Maritime Museum,
> Portsmouth, England. Or build a wooden boat 250 feet long and see what
> happens. Ye Arke was the size of_two_ 1st rate line of battleships, laid
> end-to-end. Noah was a shepherd. He knew better than the shipwrights at
> Chatham who built the ships with which the RN dominated the world for 150
> years? If I'm wrong,
It is possible that you are wrong. Since you've said a lot about these
ships, which were designed to travel to places, contrary to the Ark,
which was just meant to survive the flood, things be ye different,
wouldn't ye say?
and it is possible to build a 450 foot wooden vessel,
> by all means demonstrate it. I'll even put up some of the money... so long
> as I get to record the launch of said vessel. And so long as those who say
> that such a craft would be safe are willing to stay on it while it's being
> launched. Me, I figure that I'd get some _great_ pix.
A bit of ye assumptions, based on theoriticals, wouldn't ye say?
> Problem 2: Even though it's too big to work, Ye Arke is _too small_ to do
> its job. Noah was at sea for a year. The Bible explicitly states that he
> carried food for himself, his family, and the animals... where did he put
> it? John Woodmorappe (who is, BTW, a creationist) in his book _Noah's Ark: A
> Feasibility Study_, published by the Institute for Creation Research, El
> Cajon, California, (the ICR is not merely creationist; it _requires_ that
> all who work there take an oath that they feel that the Bible is inerrant,
> as demonstrated on their web site) calculates that Noah's ark carried 5.5
> million kilos by weight of animals. (I disagree with this figure, as it's
> much too low, but for purposes of argument I'll use it.) He also estimates
> that each animal, on average, ate one thirtieth of its body weight per day.
> Let's see... 5.5 million kilos is 5,500 tonnes. Divide by 30, multiply by
> 365... 66.917e+3. (Ye Arke was at sea for over a year, according to Gen 7and
> 8. I'll just use one year to keep things simple and to give Woody as much
> slack as possible. Wouldn't want anyone to say that I was railroading him.)
> Hmm. 67 thousand tonnes of food, by Woody's own figures. But... if you
> remember, we calculated that Ye Arke could displace a max of 46,000tonnes,
> or 46,400 if we were being generous. And that included the mass of the boat
> itself, and the animals. (Archimedes' Principle, you know) Looks like y'all
> need at least two Arkes just to carry the food.
Wouldn't y'all prejudicing by using emotionalism y'all stop? Also,
y'all forgot that the Ark was almost totally enclosed with small
window on top. Y'all forgot that this is a survival ship, not a
travellin' ship. Why y'all stupid or somethin'.
So where's the mention of
> the Great Barge Fleet in the Bible? I once tried to work out just how big an
> Arke would have had to have been to carry the assorted animals and their
> food and have space for proper cages and exercise areas so that the animals'
> muscles don't atrophy... after I got to 900,000 tonnes displacement and
> still hadn't accounted for all the good stuff, I stopped. That's _three
> times the size of a supertanker_. Or _nine times the size of a nuke aircraft
> carrier_. There's simply no way that a wooden vessel could ever be that big.
> No way at all.
Y'all hadn't proved it.
>
> Problem 3: In order to get the mass of the animals down, Woody pared things
> down. He tried to define 'kind' so as to have, say, one pair of cat-like
> what evers, and have all present day cats, from house cats to lions,
> descendants of that pair. Nice... except that doing it that way _requires_
> evolution on a scale so massive and rapid that _no_ evolutionary biologist
> would dare suggest it. And Woody does that with _all_ animals... It's the
> only way he could get 'em to fit.
Y'all forgets that calculations already fit the animals on the Ark.
Now, as to how the animals get there, it says the Lord brought them
there. Y'all ignorant.
>
> Problem 4: Even after he pares down the list (he posits 15,754 'kinds') he
> has a problem. In order for there to be physically enough space inside Ye
> Arke, Woody uses the _median_ to work out the size of cages. He says that if
> you have hippos, elephants, rats, and dogs, you can use the _median_ size
> animal and build cages for 'em, and they'll all fit. The median size,
> according to Woody, that of a sheep. Using that, he can shoehorn enough
> cages into Ye Arke to hold his 15,754 kinds... but only just. And the cages
> would be sized so that an animal in it would be able to stand up, but not
> move about... which means it gets no exercise, and its muscles will atrophy.
> And it won't live to see the end of the voyage. Unfortunately, Woody can't
> think of any other way to fit 'em all in.
Y'all forget that most large animals are few in number, and small ones
o'plenty, never minding that these animals were young. Plenty o'room.
You haven't proved size limitations. You're bluffing out of
speculatation.
>
> Problem 5: Remember that 67,000 tonnes of food? What goes in must come
> out... Noah and his crew (all eight of 'em) are gonna be kinda busy moving
> that 67,000 tonnes in one end, and removing the whatever amount of tonnes of
> waste products out the other.
Y'all ignorant. If you've built an Ark how would y'all build it? With
toilets. Y'all ignoramuses or somethin'?
_Each_ member of the crew would have about
> 2,000 'kinds' of animals to feed every day... and remember,
And many of the cages had self feeders that interlinked? Y'all
ignorant. Throwin' up strawmen and blowin' em down.
some of those,
> the clean ones, would be in sevens, and the others in pairs. Let's see.
> 15,754 divided by eight is a tad over 1,969. Number of seconds/day is
> 86,400.Noah & Co. had 43.875 _seconds_ per 'kind' per day if they worked
> continously24/7 for the year they were at sea to feed and clean 'em.
See previous comment.
Must've
> been trailing bloody Cherenkov radiation as they ran about the boat, or at
> least sonic booms. And, of course, if there were more 'kinds' than Woody's
> 15,754,Noah & Co. would have had less time per 'kind', while if there were
> less 'kinds', the hyperevolution problem would be worse.
>
> Problem 6: Ye Floode itself. It covered the 'high hills and mountains'.
> Hmm... Some creationists say that there was massive amounts of mountain
> building post-Floode, which is why Everest, for example, is as tall as it
> is.
Y'all know what the Bible says? That the mountains rose and the
valleys sunk. Y'all know you find sea shells on top o' mountains?
Where y'all come from? Ignoromuslan?
For the purposes of argument, I'll take 'em at their word. How tall
> _were_ the 'high hills and mountains', though? 100 feet? 1000 feet? 2000
> feet? Well, they'd better have been less than 250 feet, 'cause if you put
> that much water above coral reefs, the reefs die.
Y'all correct, but mountain building did occur. Mountains high now.
(You can check it for
> yourself.) Every coral reef in the world should be dead... unless Noah
> carried a few corals with him on Ye Arke, which gives him some extra
> problems. And which is not supported by the Bible, anyway. It's easy to work
> out how much water would be required for a Floode that size. Now, divide by
> 24 by 40, and you see how much fell per hour in the 40 days and 40 nights...
> and that's one hell of a lot of water, even if you restrict it to 250 feet
> extra. I've been in hurricanes. They didn't dump anywhere _near_ that kind
> of water. Not even within three orders of magnitude. No way a wooden boat's
> gonna survive that. None. I won't bother go into varves, sandstones, and
> salt domes...
>
> Problem 7: Plants. Not only would Noah have had to carry food for all the
> animals (and, if predators such as tigers were then carnivores, this would
> include extra animals to furnish food for said predators, while if they were
> vegetarians, this would require extra fodder and an explanation as to when
> and why they changed...) but he's gonna have to carry all the various plants
> as well. All of them. Land plants don't care for major floods, and would all
> die. Fresh-water plants don't like too much salt, and would all die.
Would seeds die too?
Marine
> plants don't like too little salt and would all die. Estuary plants, who
> don't care about the salt content, do care about water pressure... and would
> all die long before the corals (see above) would. After Ye Floode would come
> Ye Dust Storm, as the wind dries up the mud and blows away the topsoil
> because there's no ground cover left to preserve it, it's all dead in Ye
> Floode.
Under ye' all assumptions.
It's hard to imagine that a sizable flood could destroy all of the
billions of creatures that you've y'all said would happen, specially
since it just take just y'all two of a pair to survive.
>
> Problem 9: Disease/parasites. Tapeworm, AIDs, leprosy, etc, they're all
> living creatures too. If they were not on Ye Arke, they died. Some of them
> _require_ a _living_ host. Which one or ones of Noah's crew carried herpes,
> which hookworm, which Ebola? How about ticks, fleas, lice?
Under y'all assumptions. No evolutionists really tell us where AIDS,
leprosy and so fourth come from.
>
> Problem #10: Latent heat of vaporisation. Do you know how much heat water
> releases when it turns from vapour to liquid? Ever have a steam burn? 1gof
> steam condenses to 1g of liquid water plus 2261 joules! A cubic meter of
> water is a million grams and the surface of the Earth is 5.09 x 10^8 km2or
> 5.09 x1014 m2. Thus, if we drop a measely meter of water a day for 40days,
> the amount of energy released is 2261 joules/g * 1,000,000 g/m3 *5.09*10^14
> m3 per day or 1.15 * 10^24 joules a day or 249,300,000 megatonnes/day! The
> pentagon would envy such an arsenal. Put another way, for every m of water
> level increase, we have to release 2.261 billion joules/m2. At a rate of 1
> m/day, this comes to 2.261 billion joules/day/m2 or a radiance of 26
> kilowatts/m2, roughly 20 times the brightness of the sun! Result: The
> atmosphere rapidly turns into incandescent plasma incinerating Noah and Ye
> Arke. Nothing survives, the oceans boil and the land is baked into pottery.
> There's more, but this has gotten too long already. If you _really_ want to
> see why I use that sig, check out the t.o FAQs and run the calcs for
> yourself. It's not difficult to do. It's simple. Anyone who takes Ye Arke
> seriously either hasn't done the math or can't add.
If you all believe that all the water came from rain, y'all be wrong.
Some of the water came out of the earth. Additionally, the mountains
were not as tall, so again, ye assumptions be wrong.
Ye all come back here again and see all the mischief debunked, ya
hear?
John McCoy
Robin Levett
news:5f498a0a.0112...@posting.google.com...
Why? I don't see anywhere in Genesis any mention of non-hibernatory animals
hibernating.
>
> >
> > I'm not even going to try to figure out how much hay would be needed
for
> > Not to mention the sheer volume excreted. Herbivores' digestive systems
> > aren't particularly efficient; most of what goes in comes out again.
> > Wonder how many shovels they had on the Ark? And how many hours per day
> > Noah, et. al. spent shoveling?
>
> It'd be nice if you calculated shoveling based on ready made conduits
> in which case no shoveling was necessary.
To where? How are you going to hold the animals over the nice ready-made
conduits, anyway. Hopw much of the limited space within the Arke would be
taken up by these 16,000 "ready-made conduits"
>
> >
****************************************************************************
> > ****
> >
> > O-kay... my problem with _anyone_ who takes creationism seriously
>
> It'd be nice if I could take you seriously.
>
>
> is that it
> > simply doesn't add up.
>
> It'd be nice if you had made those calculations but you had not.
>
> Let's take my fav example, Ye Arke.
>
> It'd be nice if you did not use the term "Ye Arke" to prejudice people
> not to accept the Ark reality.
>
> > So, depending on what you use for a cubit, Ye Arke is about 450 feet
long,75
> > wide, and 45 tall, right?
>
> Wrong. Moses was educated in Egypt, and used the Egyptian cubit. The
> Ark was 515 ft long. It would have been nice if you had known that.
Tell Answers in Genesis that; they use what they call the "common cubit".
It would be nice of these creationists could get their story straight.
>
> I work best in metres, so lets do a bit of
> > conversion: that's 137.16 by 22.86 by 13.716 metres, right?
>
> It would be nice if you used ft.
>
> For ease of
> > calculation, let's call it 140 x 23 x 14. This give you 45.080e+3 cubic
> > meters. One cubic meter of pure water is one metric tonne. Salt water is
a
> > bit more dense. Be nice, add another thousand tonnes or so... Ye Arke
> > displaces 46,000 tonnes. Maybe 46,400 at max. And I'm being generous.
(The
> > reader who knows something about ship-building will also spot a certain
> > minor problem with the above figures. No creationist has ever seen it...
in
> > part 'cause if it's corrected, things get worse for Ye Arke.)
>
> It'd be nice if you had the plans of the Ark so that you could make
> this assessment. Kind of arguing against a theoritical, wouldn't you
> say? And that's not nice.
Give us plans that would work then; perhaps those produced and published on
the AiG website?
>
>
> > Problem 1: The sheer size. HMS _Victory_, still preserved at
Portsmouth,
> > was 186 feet long on the gundeck. HMS _Victoria_, the last full-rigged
> > 1strate ship of the line to serve as flag of the Channel Fleet, built in
> > 1859, was 250 feet long on the gundeck. And she had a steel frame
because
> > the RN had found that building wooden ships much bigger than 225 feet
long
> > was not a good idea because they tended to straddle or to hog on being
> > launched; that is, they tended to bend, their bows and sterns to stick
up
> > out of the water at an angle, (that's straddling) or to bend the other
way,
> > the bows and sterns supported by waves but the midships sections out of
the
> > water (or at least not as well supported) (that's hogging) and either
way
> > their keels tended to crack under the strain. Even with steel frames,
wooden
> > ships bigger than 250 feet long tended to hog or straddle.
>
> Did these ships use laminated wood? It would be nice if you could
> tell me.
No, they didn't. Tell me, how strong is laminated wood? Where did Noah get
it? What did he use for glue? How was it produced? Why does Genesis not
mention laminated wood? Why didn't Noah's ancestors or descendants use the
technology?
No, its an invitation to provide the proof of concept. You know,
experiments - science?
What is the relevance of this? The displacement that Pat is working with
assumes that the Arke displaces its entire volume.
> Y'all forgot that this is a survival ship, not a
> travellin' ship. Why y'all stupid or somethin'.
>
> So where's the mention of
> > the Great Barge Fleet in the Bible? I once tried to work out just how
big an
> > Arke would have had to have been to carry the assorted animals and their
> > food and have space for proper cages and exercise areas so that the
animals'
> > muscles don't atrophy... after I got to 900,000 tonnes displacement and
> > still hadn't accounted for all the good stuff, I stopped. That's _three
> > times the size of a supertanker_. Or _nine times the size of a nuke
aircraft
> > carrier_. There's simply no way that a wooden vessel could ever be that
big.
> > No way at all.
>
> Y'all hadn't proved it.
So you prove it; let's see the plans so we can consider them. That's a
900,000 tonne ship Pat's talking about - not the paltry 46,400 tonnes of the
Arke as described in the bible.
>
> >
> > Problem 3: In order to get the mass of the animals down, Woody pared
things
> > down. He tried to define 'kind' so as to have, say, one pair of cat-like
> > what evers, and have all present day cats, from house cats to lions,
> > descendants of that pair. Nice... except that doing it that way
_requires_
> > evolution on a scale so massive and rapid that _no_ evolutionary
biologist
> > would dare suggest it. And Woody does that with _all_ animals... It's
the
> > only way he could get 'em to fit.
>
> Y'all forgets that calculations already fit the animals on the Ark.
> Now, as to how the animals get there, it says the Lord brought them
> there. Y'all ignorant.
You're obviously reading comprehension deficient. The point here is that
having got the number of kinds down to 16,000, Woody has to posit evolution
sufficient to produce 30 million species today, from 16,000, within the few
thousand years since the Flood.
>
> >
> > Problem 4: Even after he pares down the list (he posits 15,754 'kinds')
he
> > has a problem. In order for there to be physically enough space inside
Ye
> > Arke, Woody uses the _median_ to work out the size of cages. He says
that if
> > you have hippos, elephants, rats, and dogs, you can use the _median_
size
> > animal and build cages for 'em, and they'll all fit. The median size,
> > according to Woody, that of a sheep. Using that, he can shoehorn enough
> > cages into Ye Arke to hold his 15,754 kinds... but only just. And the
cages
> > would be sized so that an animal in it would be able to stand up, but
not
> > move about... which means it gets no exercise, and its muscles will
atrophy.
> > And it won't live to see the end of the voyage. Unfortunately, Woody
can't
> > think of any other way to fit 'em all in.
>
> Y'all forget that most large animals are few in number, and small ones
> o'plenty, never minding that these animals were young. Plenty o'room.
> You haven't proved size limitations. You're bluffing out of
> speculatation.
No; do you know what "median" means?
>
> >
> > Problem 5: Remember that 67,000 tonnes of food? What goes in must come
> > out... Noah and his crew (all eight of 'em) are gonna be kinda busy
moving
> > that 67,000 tonnes in one end, and removing the whatever amount of
tonnes of
> > waste products out the other.
>
> Y'all ignorant. If you've built an Ark how would y'all build it? With
> toilets. Y'all ignoramuses or somethin'?
>
> _Each_ member of the crew would have about
> > 2,000 'kinds' of animals to feed every day... and remember,
>
> And many of the cages had self feeders that interlinked? Y'all
> ignorant. Throwin' up strawmen and blowin' em down.
And the extra volume and weight taken up by the self-feeders?
>
> some of those,
> > the clean ones, would be in sevens, and the others in pairs. Let's see.
> > 15,754 divided by eight is a tad over 1,969. Number of seconds/day is
> > 86,400.Noah & Co. had 43.875 _seconds_ per 'kind' per day if they worked
> > continously24/7 for the year they were at sea to feed and clean 'em.
>
> See previous comment.
>
> Must've
> > been trailing bloody Cherenkov radiation as they ran about the boat, or
at
> > least sonic booms. And, of course, if there were more 'kinds' than
Woody's
> > 15,754,Noah & Co. would have had less time per 'kind', while if there
were
> > less 'kinds', the hyperevolution problem would be worse.
> >
> > Problem 6: Ye Floode itself. It covered the 'high hills and mountains'.
> > Hmm... Some creationists say that there was massive amounts of mountain
> > building post-Floode, which is why Everest, for example, is as tall as
it
> > is.
>
> Y'all know what the Bible says? That the mountains rose and the
> valleys sunk. Y'all know you find sea shells on top o' mountains?
Mountain-building.
> Where y'all come from? Ignoromuslan?
>
> For the purposes of argument, I'll take 'em at their word. How tall
> > _were_ the 'high hills and mountains', though? 100 feet? 1000 feet? 2000
> > feet? Well, they'd better have been less than 250 feet, 'cause if you
put
> > that much water above coral reefs, the reefs die.
>
> Y'all correct, but mountain building did occur. Mountains high now.
Yes. Difference in time scale. You say in a few thousand years, short
enough to reduce the sedimentary rocks involved to a pile of sand,
scientists say millions of years.
Yuppers.
>
> Marine
> > plants don't like too little salt and would all die. Estuary plants, who
> > don't care about the salt content, do care about water pressure... and
would
> > all die long before the corals (see above) would. After Ye Floode would
come
> > Ye Dust Storm, as the wind dries up the mud and blows away the topsoil
> > because there's no ground cover left to preserve it, it's all dead in Ye
> > Floode.
>
> Under ye' all assumptions.
No, conclusions. Explain how it wouldn't happen that way?
Wrong, but it's your scenario; how did they get past the Flood?
Not in my bible.
> Additionally, the mountains
> were not as tall, so again, ye assumptions be wrong.
He's given you mountains less than 40metres above sea level - what do you
want, blood?
>
> Ye all come back here again and see all the mischief debunked, ya
> hear?
>
Pat's done quite a good job of that, thank you very much.
--
________________________________________________________________
Robin Levett
rle...@ibmrlevett.uklinux.net
(address munged by addition of Big Blue)
Atheist = knows of and uses Occam's Razor
Agnostic = knows of but isn't sure whether to use Occam's Razor
Fundy = what's Ockam's erasure?
___________________________________________________
Jon Fleming
Only if you come up with a method for inducing the above-mentioned
animals to hibernate.
>
>>
>> I'm not even going to try to figure out how much hay would be needed for
>> Not to mention the sheer volume excreted. Herbivores' digestive systems
>> aren't particularly efficient; most of what goes in comes out again.
>> Wonder how many shovels they had on the Ark? And how many hours per day
>> Noah, et. al. spent shoveling?
>
>It'd be nice if you calculated shoveling based on ready made conduits
>in which case no shoveling was necessary.
And how much volume would such conduits take up?
<snip>
>Y'all forgets that calculations already fit the animals on the Ark.
>Now, as to how the animals get there, it says the Lord brought them
>there. Y'all ignorant.
Ah at last we have an explicit acknowledgement that a miracle is
required.
>
>>
>> Problem 4: Even after he pares down the list (he posits 15,754 'kinds') he
>> has a problem. In order for there to be physically enough space inside Ye
>> Arke, Woody uses the _median_ to work out the size of cages. He says that if
>> you have hippos, elephants, rats, and dogs, you can use the _median_ size
>> animal and build cages for 'em, and they'll all fit. The median size,
>> according to Woody, that of a sheep. Using that, he can shoehorn enough
>> cages into Ye Arke to hold his 15,754 kinds... but only just. And the cages
>> would be sized so that an animal in it would be able to stand up, but not
>> move about... which means it gets no exercise, and its muscles will atrophy.
>> And it won't live to see the end of the voyage. Unfortunately, Woody can't
>> think of any other way to fit 'em all in.
>
>Y'all forget that most large animals are few in number, and small ones
>o'plenty, never minding that these animals were young.
Where in the Bible does it say they were young?
>Plenty o'room.
>You haven't proved size limitations. You're bluffing out of
>speculatation.
>
>>
>> Problem 5: Remember that 67,000 tonnes of food? What goes in must come
>> out... Noah and his crew (all eight of 'em) are gonna be kinda busy moving
>> that 67,000 tonnes in one end, and removing the whatever amount of tonnes of
>> waste products out the other.
>
>Y'all ignorant. If you've built an Ark how would y'all build it? With
>toilets. Y'all ignoramuses or somethin'?
>
> _Each_ member of the crew would have about
>> 2,000 'kinds' of animals to feed every day... and remember,
>
>And many of the cages had self feeders that interlinked? Y'all
>ignorant. Throwin' up strawmen and blowin' em down.
All right! Noah's one hell of an engineer!
No comment on corals and varves and salt domes?
>>
>> Problem 7: Plants. Not only would Noah have had to carry food for all the
>> animals (and, if predators such as tigers were then carnivores, this would
>> include extra animals to furnish food for said predators, while if they were
>> vegetarians, this would require extra fodder and an explanation as to when
>> and why they changed...) but he's gonna have to carry all the various plants
>> as well. All of them. Land plants don't care for major floods, and would all
>> die. Fresh-water plants don't like too much salt, and would all die.
>
>Would seeds die too?
Yep.
>
> Marine
>> plants don't like too little salt and would all die. Estuary plants, who
>> don't care about the salt content, do care about water pressure... and would
>> all die long before the corals (see above) would. After Ye Floode would come
>> Ye Dust Storm, as the wind dries up the mud and blows away the topsoil
>> because there's no ground cover left to preserve it, it's all dead in Ye
>> Floode.
>
>Under ye' all assumptions.
Care to demonstrate how marine organisms and freshwater organisms
could have lived?
Pat James
(in message <5f498a0a.0112...@posting.google.com>):
the vast majority of animals don't hibernate. Some which spend time in
northern climes move south when the snow starts. Some which spend time in
northern climes die off but leave eggs and whatnot around for next year. Most
don't live that for north.
>
>>
>> I'm not even going to try to figure out how much hay would be needed for
>> Not to mention the sheer volume excreted. Herbivores' digestive systems
>> aren't particularly efficient; most of what goes in comes out again.
>> Wonder how many shovels they had on the Ark? And how many hours per day
>> Noah, et. al. spent shoveling?
>
> It'd be nice if you calculated shoveling based on ready made conduits
> in which case no shoveling was necessary.
>
>> ***************************************************************************
>> *
>> ****
>>
>> O-kay... my problem with _anyone_ who takes creationism seriously
>
> It'd be nice if I could take you seriously.
Address me, nameless. This is _my_ stuff.
>
>
> is that it
>> simply doesn't add up.
>
> It'd be nice if you had made those calculations but you had not.
but I did, nameless.
>
> Let's take my fav example, Ye Arke.
>
> It'd be nice if you did not use the term "Ye Arke" to prejudice people
> not to accept the Ark reality.
there is no Arke, nameless.
>
>> So, depending on what you use for a cubit, Ye Arke is about 450 feet
>> long,75
>> wide, and 45 tall, right?
>
> Wrong. Moses was educated in Egypt, and used the Egyptian cubit. The
> Ark was 515 ft long. It would have been nice if you had known that.
1 you _do_ realise that this makes it _worse_, don't you?
2 why is it that most creationists agree with me on this, rather than you?
AIG and the ICR agree with me, just to mention two.
>
> I work best in metres, so lets do a bit of
>> conversion: that's 137.16 by 22.86 by 13.716 metres, right?
>
> It would be nice if you used ft.
why? SI units scale nicely. It's not _my_ fault that Merkins are too ignorant
to use 'em.
>
> For ease of
>> calculation, let's call it 140 x 23 x 14. This give you 45.080e+3 cubic
>> meters. One cubic meter of pure water is one metric tonne. Salt water is a
>> bit more dense. Be nice, add another thousand tonnes or so... Ye Arke
>> displaces 46,000 tonnes. Maybe 46,400 at max. And I'm being generous. (The
>> reader who knows something about ship-building will also spot a certain
>> minor problem with the above figures. No creationist has ever seen it... in
>> part 'cause if it's corrected, things get worse for Ye Arke.)
>
> It'd be nice if you had the plans of the Ark so that you could make
> this assessment. Kind of arguing against a theoritical, wouldn't you
> say? And that's not nice.
I gave it the max it could possibly have, according to the Bible. That's
nice. And if you don't like my numbers, feel free to plug in your own.
>
>
>> Problem 1: The sheer size. HMS _Victory_, still preserved at Portsmouth,
>> was 186 feet long on the gundeck. HMS _Victoria_, the last full-rigged
>> 1strate ship of the line to serve as flag of the Channel Fleet, built in
>> 1859, was 250 feet long on the gundeck. And she had a steel frame because
>> the RN had found that building wooden ships much bigger than 225 feet long
>> was not a good idea because they tended to straddle or to hog on being
>> launched; that is, they tended to bend, their bows and sterns to stick up
>> out of the water at an angle, (that's straddling) or to bend the other way,
>> the bows and sterns supported by waves but the midships sections out of the
>> water (or at least not as well supported) (that's hogging) and either way
>> their keels tended to crack under the strain. Even with steel frames,
>> wooden
>> ships bigger than 250 feet long tended to hog or straddle.
>
> Did these ships use laminated wood? It would be nice if you could
> tell me.
nope. They didn't have glues that would do the job.
However, given that Grand Admiral Noah didn't have laminates either, this
makes no difference whatsoever.
>
> Don't take my
>> word for it, look it up for yourself. One possible source: _The Wooden
>> Fighting Ship In the Royal Navy, 897-1860_, EHH Archibald, Blandford Press,
>> London. Sorry, my copy was published back before ISBNs. Edward Archibald
>> was
>> at the time of writing the curator of the National Maritime Museum,
>> Portsmouth, England. Or build a wooden boat 250 feet long and see what
>> happens. Ye Arke was the size of_two_ 1st rate line of battleships, laid
>> end-to-end. Noah was a shepherd. He knew better than the shipwrights at
>> Chatham who built the ships with which the RN dominated the world for 150
>> years? If I'm wrong,
>
> It is possible that you are wrong. Since you've said a lot about these
> ships, which were designed to travel to places, contrary to the Ark,
> which was just meant to survive the flood, things be ye different,
> wouldn't ye say?
nope. Ships gotta float. That remains constant. Ye Arke could not float.
>
>
> and it is possible to build a 450 foot wooden vessel,
>> by all means demonstrate it. I'll even put up some of the money... so long
>> as I get to record the launch of said vessel. And so long as those who say
>> that such a craft would be safe are willing to stay on it while it's being
>> launched. Me, I figure that I'd get some _great_ pix.
>
> A bit of ye assumptions, based on theoriticals, wouldn't ye say?
I said quite clearly that if anyone thinks that they can build an Arke, that
they should go for it, and that I would even put up some of the money to
build it. All I ask is that I have the exclusive video rights and that those
who say that Ye Arke would be safe would go to sea on it. This way I get to
make some money _and_ to raise the average intelligence of the human race at
the same time.
>
>
>> Problem 2: Even though it's too big to work, Ye Arke is _too small_ to do
>> its job. Noah was at sea for a year. The Bible explicitly states that he
>> carried food for himself, his family, and the animals... where did he put
>> it? John Woodmorappe (who is, BTW, a creationist) in his book _Noah's Ark:
>> A
>> Feasibility Study_, published by the Institute for Creation Research, El
>> Cajon, California, (the ICR is not merely creationist; it _requires_ that
>> all who work there take an oath that they feel that the Bible is inerrant,
>> as demonstrated on their web site) calculates that Noah's ark carried 5.5
>> million kilos by weight of animals. (I disagree with this figure, as it's
>> much too low, but for purposes of argument I'll use it.) He also estimates
>> that each animal, on average, ate one thirtieth of its body weight per day.
>> Let's see... 5.5 million kilos is 5,500 tonnes. Divide by 30, multiply by
>> 365... 66.917e+3. (Ye Arke was at sea for over a year, according to Gen
>> 7and
>> 8. I'll just use one year to keep things simple and to give Woody as much
>> slack as possible. Wouldn't want anyone to say that I was railroading him.)
>> Hmm. 67 thousand tonnes of food, by Woody's own figures. But... if you
>> remember, we calculated that Ye Arke could displace a max of 46,000tonnes,
>> or 46,400 if we were being generous. And that included the mass of the boat
>> itself, and the animals. (Archimedes' Principle, you know) Looks like y'all
>> need at least two Arkes just to carry the food.
>
> Wouldn't y'all prejudicing by using emotionalism y'all stop?
Which 'emotionalism' did I use?
> Also,
> y'all forgot that the Ark was almost totally enclosed with small
> window on top. Y'all forgot that this is a survival ship, not a
> travellin' ship. Why y'all stupid or somethin'.
Anything that floats is affected by Archimedes' Principle. it doesn't matter
whether it was enclosed or not.
>
> So where's the mention of
>> the Great Barge Fleet in the Bible? I once tried to work out just how big
>> an
>> Arke would have had to have been to carry the assorted animals and their
>> food and have space for proper cages and exercise areas so that the
>> animals'
>> muscles don't atrophy... after I got to 900,000 tonnes displacement and
>> still hadn't accounted for all the good stuff, I stopped. That's _three
>> times the size of a supertanker_. Or _nine times the size of a nuke
>> aircraft
>> carrier_. There's simply no way that a wooden vessel could ever be that
>> big.
>> No way at all.
>
> Y'all hadn't proved it.
Do you have any idea of just how _big_ 900,000 tonnes is? Hey, man, you say
it's possible... build one.
>
>>
>> Problem 3: In order to get the mass of the animals down, Woody pared things
>> down. He tried to define 'kind' so as to have, say, one pair of cat-like
>> what evers, and have all present day cats, from house cats to lions,
>> descendants of that pair. Nice... except that doing it that way _requires_
>> evolution on a scale so massive and rapid that _no_ evolutionary biologist
>> would dare suggest it. And Woody does that with _all_ animals... It's the
>> only way he could get 'em to fit.
>
> Y'all forgets that calculations already fit the animals on the Ark.
> Now, as to how the animals get there, it says the Lord brought them
> there. Y'all ignorant.
nameless...
Woody says that there were 15,754 'kinds' on Ye Arke. There are _millions_ of
species alive today. How did things go from 15,754 to millions without
_extremely rapid_ evolution, given the 4,000 years or so between Ye Alleged
Arke and today?
>
>>
>> Problem 4: Even after he pares down the list (he posits 15,754 'kinds') he
>> has a problem. In order for there to be physically enough space inside Ye
>> Arke, Woody uses the _median_ to work out the size of cages. He says that
>> if
>> you have hippos, elephants, rats, and dogs, you can use the _median_ size
>> animal and build cages for 'em, and they'll all fit. The median size,
>> according to Woody, that of a sheep. Using that, he can shoehorn enough
>> cages into Ye Arke to hold his 15,754 kinds... but only just. And the cages
>> would be sized so that an animal in it would be able to stand up, but not
>> move about... which means it gets no exercise, and its muscles will
>> atrophy.
>> And it won't live to see the end of the voyage. Unfortunately, Woody can't
>> think of any other way to fit 'em all in.
>
> Y'all forget that most large animals are few in number, and small ones
> o'plenty, never minding that these animals were young. Plenty o'room.
> You haven't proved size limitations. You're bluffing out of
> speculatation.
Sigh. Yet Another YEC Who Can't Tell The Difference Between 'Mean' and
'Median'.
>
>>
>> Problem 5: Remember that 67,000 tonnes of food? What goes in must come
>> out... Noah and his crew (all eight of 'em) are gonna be kinda busy moving
>> that 67,000 tonnes in one end, and removing the whatever amount of tonnes
>> of
>> waste products out the other.
>
> Y'all ignorant. If you've built an Ark how would y'all build it? With
> toilets. Y'all ignoramuses or somethin'?
the animals were _toilet-trained_? Ooh, boy. That's a keeper. So, exactly how
strong _is_ a toilet sized for elephant, anyway?
>
> _Each_ member of the crew would have about
>> 2,000 'kinds' of animals to feed every day... and remember,
>
> And many of the cages had self feeders that interlinked? Y'all
> ignorant. Throwin' up strawmen and blowin' em down.
self-feeders ain't small; any space they used would not be available for use
in carrying animals. And they have to be loaded in the first place. And
cleaned. Someone had to do all that.
>
> some of those,
>> the clean ones, would be in sevens, and the others in pairs. Let's see.
>> 15,754 divided by eight is a tad over 1,969. Number of seconds/day is
>> 86,400.Noah & Co. had 43.875 _seconds_ per 'kind' per day if they worked
>> continously24/7 for the year they were at sea to feed and clean 'em.
>
> See previous comment.
see previous reply.
>
> Must've
>> been trailing bloody Cherenkov radiation as they ran about the boat, or at
>> least sonic booms. And, of course, if there were more 'kinds' than Woody's
>> 15,754,Noah & Co. would have had less time per 'kind', while if there were
>> less 'kinds', the hyperevolution problem would be worse.
>>
>> Problem 6: Ye Floode itself. It covered the 'high hills and mountains'.
>> Hmm... Some creationists say that there was massive amounts of mountain
>> building post-Floode, which is why Everest, for example, is as tall as it
>> is.
>
> Y'all know what the Bible says? That the mountains rose and the
> valleys sunk. Y'all know you find sea shells on top o' mountains?
> Where y'all come from? Ignoromuslan?
Simple. Some mountains were once at the bottom of oceans. Leonard da Vinci
noticed, way back in the 16th century, that the above mentioned sea shells
showed all the signs of living and dying in place. Bore-marks left by marine
worms, for instance. He concluded from his investigations that the shells he
saw had once been at the bottom of the ocean... and had spent _years_ there,
'cause that's the length of time required to show what he saw.
>
> For the purposes of argument, I'll take 'em at their word. How tall
>> _were_ the 'high hills and mountains', though? 100 feet? 1000 feet? 2000
>> feet? Well, they'd better have been less than 250 feet, 'cause if you put
>> that much water above coral reefs, the reefs die.
>
> Y'all correct, but mountain building did occur. Mountains high now.
so the mountains grew from 250 feet or less to up to 30,000 feet, and did it
in 4,000 years or less. Interesting.
>
> (You can check it for
>> yourself.) Every coral reef in the world should be dead... unless Noah
>> carried a few corals with him on Ye Arke, which gives him some extra
>> problems. And which is not supported by the Bible, anyway. It's easy to
>> work
>> out how much water would be required for a Floode that size. Now, divide by
>> 24 by 40, and you see how much fell per hour in the 40 days and 40
>> nights...
>> and that's one hell of a lot of water, even if you restrict it to 250 feet
>> extra. I've been in hurricanes. They didn't dump anywhere _near_ that kind
>> of water. Not even within three orders of magnitude. No way a wooden boat's
>> gonna survive that. None. I won't bother go into varves, sandstones, and
>> salt domes...
>>
>> Problem 7: Plants. Not only would Noah have had to carry food for all the
>> animals (and, if predators such as tigers were then carnivores, this would
>> include extra animals to furnish food for said predators, while if they
>> were
>> vegetarians, this would require extra fodder and an explanation as to when
>> and why they changed...) but he's gonna have to carry all the various
>> plants
>> as well. All of them. Land plants don't care for major floods, and would
>> all
>> die. Fresh-water plants don't like too much salt, and would all die.
>
> Would seeds die too?
Most of them. Try it for yourself.
>
> Marine
>> plants don't like too little salt and would all die. Estuary plants, who
>> don't care about the salt content, do care about water pressure... and
>> would
>> all die long before the corals (see above) would. After Ye Floode would
>> come
>> Ye Dust Storm, as the wind dries up the mud and blows away the topsoil
>> because there's no ground cover left to preserve it, it's all dead in Ye
>> Floode.
>
> Under ye' all assumptions.
Nope. If there are no plants, and there won't be 'cause they're all dead, the
topsoil would blow away as soon as it dries out. It's observed now. It's
called 'deforestation'. See further Saharha Desert.
Actually, _the Bible says that 'all not on the ark with Noah' died_. All of
them. It says so _repeatedly_.
In addition, many animals require a minimum breeding population to survive;
passenger pigeons, no longer with us, were the classic example.
Genetics says that some animals had a population shock in their past, where
the breeding population was reduced to very low levels. Cheetahs, for
instance are an example. _All_ cheetahs are _very_ closely related. Humans
are another, though no-where near as bad off as cheetahs. Meanwhile, our
cousins the chimps are _not_ an example. There's more genetic variation in
the average band of chimps than there is in humanity as a whole.
>
>
>>
>> Problem 9: Disease/parasites. Tapeworm, AIDs, leprosy, etc, they're all
>> living creatures too. If they were not on Ye Arke, they died. Some of them
>> _require_ a _living_ host. Which one or ones of Noah's crew carried herpes,
>> which hookworm, which Ebola? How about ticks, fleas, lice?
>
> Under y'all assumptions. No evolutionists really tell us where AIDS,
> leprosy and so fourth come from.
they're diseases of various types. AIDS is a virus. Leprosy is (I think) a
bacterium.
Now, please tell who in Noah's crew carried them, as they require human
hosts.
>
>
>>
>> Problem #10: Latent heat of vaporisation. Do you know how much heat water
>> releases when it turns from vapour to liquid? Ever have a steam burn? 1gof
>> steam condenses to 1g of liquid water plus 2261 joules! A cubic meter of
>> water is a million grams and the surface of the Earth is 5.09 x 10^8 km2or
>> 5.09 x1014 m2. Thus, if we drop a measely meter of water a day for 40days,
>> the amount of energy released is 2261 joules/g * 1,000,000 g/m3 *5.09*10^14
>> m3 per day or 1.15 * 10^24 joules a day or 249,300,000 megatonnes/day! The
>> pentagon would envy such an arsenal. Put another way, for every m of water
>> level increase, we have to release 2.261 billion joules/m2. At a rate of 1
>> m/day, this comes to 2.261 billion joules/day/m2 or a radiance of 26
>> kilowatts/m2, roughly 20 times the brightness of the sun! Result: The
>> atmosphere rapidly turns into incandescent plasma incinerating Noah and Ye
>> Arke. Nothing survives, the oceans boil and the land is baked into pottery.
>> There's more, but this has gotten too long already. If you _really_ want to
>> see why I use that sig, check out the t.o FAQs and run the calcs for
>> yourself. It's not difficult to do. It's simple. Anyone who takes Ye Arke
>> seriously either hasn't done the math or can't add.
>
>
> If you all believe that all the water came from rain, y'all be wrong.
> Some of the water came out of the earth.
Makes no diff. the latent heat problem would put paid to Ye Floode even if
99.999% of the water came from the 'fountains of the deep'. Look at those
numbers... 249,300,000 megatonnes/day for 40 days.
> Additionally, the mountains
> were not as tall, so again, ye assumptions be wrong.
You _did_ see that the figures above are for _one_ metre of rain a day for 40
days_ or _40 metres of rain, total_, didn't you? You _do_ realise that 40
metres ain't even 150 feet, don't you? That's not even the 250 feet I used
earlier in the coral reef example!
>
> Ye all come back here again and see all the mischief debunked, ya
> hear?
nameless, you haven't debunked anything. You have, in fact, streghtened my
contention that creationists are liars, morons, and innumerate.
--
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive ignorance with
incredible arrogance.
Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A person
incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible true believer.
Robt Gotschall
jm...@hotmail.com says...
> "Michael Painter" <m.pa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<omcN7.133893$WW.84...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> > An elephant alone eats 300 pounds of hay a day. A horse eats about 30
> > pounds, a cow about 20-25, a bison about the same, a giraffe perhaps 100, a
> > rhinocerous about 175-200.
> > These are good estimated weights of the amount of food needed.
>
> It would be nice if you could come up with ESTIMATES based on
> hibernation.
Elephants, horses, cows. bisons, giraffes and rhinos, do not hibernate.
I used to be a zoo keeper, trust me
> > I'm not even going to try to figure out how much hay would be needed for
> > Not to mention the sheer volume excreted. Herbivores' digestive systems
> > aren't particularly efficient; most of what goes in comes out again.
> > Wonder how many shovels they had on the Ark? And how many hours per day
> > Noah, et. al. spent shoveling?
>
> It'd be nice if you calculated shoveling based on ready made conduits
> in which case no shoveling was necessary.
Healthy elephant manure comes out with the consistancy of wet hay, at
least a 100 pounds of it per animal per day. Then you use high preassure
water hoses and brooms. Feeding, watering and cleaning two elephants
takes one person a minimum of three hours of work per day. Doing all
this aboard ship at sea with only manual labor . . . It'd be nice if you
had a clue.
> It's hard to imagine that a sizable flood could destroy all of the
> billions of creatures that you've y'all said would happen, specially
> since it just take just y'all two of a pair to survive.
No one is arguing against a "sizable flood". It's Noah's flood, covering
the entire Earth that we're talking about. Remember?
rg
Adam Marczyk
news:<omcN7.133893$WW.84...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
[snip]
Okay. Since elephants, horses, cows, bison, giraffes and rhinoceroses don't
hiberate, I choose the above numbers for my estimations. How's that?
> > I'm not even going to try to figure out how much hay would be needed
for
> > Not to mention the sheer volume excreted. Herbivores' digestive systems
> > aren't particularly efficient; most of what goes in comes out again.
> > Wonder how many shovels they had on the Ark? And how many hours per day
> > Noah, et. al. spent shoveling?
>
> It'd be nice if you calculated shoveling based on ready made conduits
> in which case no shoveling was necessary.
"Ready-made conduits"? Just when, exactly, did Noah find the time to
toilet-train all these thousands and thousands of animals? Can you even
toilet-train an elephant? I rather doubt it.
[snip]
> > So, depending on what you use for a cubit, Ye Arke is about 450 feet
long,75
> > wide, and 45 tall, right?
>
> Wrong. Moses was educated in Egypt, and used the Egyptian cubit. The
> Ark was 515 ft long. It would have been nice if you had known that.
As other people pointed out, several prominent creationist organizations use
Pat James' numbers, not yours.
> I work best in metres, so lets do a bit of
> > conversion: that's 137.16 by 22.86 by 13.716 metres, right?
>
> It would be nice if you used ft.
>
> For ease of
> > calculation, let's call it 140 x 23 x 14. This give you 45.080e+3 cubic
> > meters. One cubic meter of pure water is one metric tonne. Salt water is
a
> > bit more dense. Be nice, add another thousand tonnes or so... Ye Arke
> > displaces 46,000 tonnes. Maybe 46,400 at max. And I'm being generous.
(The
> > reader who knows something about ship-building will also spot a certain
> > minor problem with the above figures. No creationist has ever seen it...
in
> > part 'cause if it's corrected, things get worse for Ye Arke.)
>
> It'd be nice if you had the plans of the Ark so that you could make
> this assessment. Kind of arguing against a theoritical, wouldn't you
> say? And that's not nice.
This may come as a shock to you, but if you know what the ark's dimensions
were, you don't need to know its internal layout to calculate its volume
(and thus its displacement).
> > Problem 1: The sheer size. HMS _Victory_, still preserved at
Portsmouth,
> > was 186 feet long on the gundeck. HMS _Victoria_, the last full-rigged
> > 1strate ship of the line to serve as flag of the Channel Fleet, built in
> > 1859, was 250 feet long on the gundeck. And she had a steel frame
because
> > the RN had found that building wooden ships much bigger than 225 feet
long
> > was not a good idea because they tended to straddle or to hog on being
> > launched; that is, they tended to bend, their bows and sterns to stick
up
> > out of the water at an angle, (that's straddling) or to bend the other
way,
> > the bows and sterns supported by waves but the midships sections out of
the
> > water (or at least not as well supported) (that's hogging) and either
way
> > their keels tended to crack under the strain. Even with steel frames,
wooden
> > ships bigger than 250 feet long tended to hog or straddle.
>
> Did these ships use laminated wood? It would be nice if you could
> tell me.
Whatever laminate you think Noah used must have had some unbelievable
properties if a thin coat of it could hold a wooden ship 500 feet long in
one piece.
[snip]
I'm obviously missing something here; either that or you think an enclosed
space has greater volume than a non-enclosed space of the same dimensions.
> > Problem 3: In order to get the mass of the animals down, Woody pared
things
> > down. He tried to define 'kind' so as to have, say, one pair of cat-like
> > what evers, and have all present day cats, from house cats to lions,
> > descendants of that pair. Nice... except that doing it that way
_requires_
> > evolution on a scale so massive and rapid that _no_ evolutionary
biologist
> > would dare suggest it. And Woody does that with _all_ animals... It's
the
> > only way he could get 'em to fit.
>
> Y'all forgets that calculations already fit the animals on the Ark.
This has no bearing on the point he raised.
> Now, as to how the animals get there, it says the Lord brought them
> there. Y'all ignorant.
You're resorting to miracles to save your silly myths from falsification
already? He's only on problem #3. If God could bring the animals to the ark
magically, why didn't he just lift them up into heaven temporarily and thus
avoid the need to build the ridiculous thing entirely?
> > Problem 4: Even after he pares down the list (he posits 15,754 'kinds')
he
> > has a problem. In order for there to be physically enough space inside
Ye
> > Arke, Woody uses the _median_ to work out the size of cages. He says
that if
> > you have hippos, elephants, rats, and dogs, you can use the _median_
size
> > animal and build cages for 'em, and they'll all fit. The median size,
> > according to Woody, that of a sheep. Using that, he can shoehorn enough
> > cages into Ye Arke to hold his 15,754 kinds... but only just. And the
cages
> > would be sized so that an animal in it would be able to stand up, but
not
> > move about... which means it gets no exercise, and its muscles will
atrophy.
> > And it won't live to see the end of the voyage. Unfortunately, Woody
can't
> > think of any other way to fit 'em all in.
>
> Y'all forget that most large animals are few in number, and small ones
> o'plenty, never minding that these animals were young. Plenty o'room.
Just to soothe my skepticism, please explain to us the difference between
mean and median to show that you understand it yourself. (Hint: Median is
not affected much by outliers, which makes it worthless as a volume
calculation. The median size of an elephant and two ants is the size of the
ant. That doesn't mean you can fit an elephant and two ants into a volume
designed to hold three ants.)
> You haven't proved size limitations. You're bluffing out of
> speculatation.
"Speculatation"? George, don't you have better things to do than waste your
time debating here?
> > Problem 5: Remember that 67,000 tonnes of food? What goes in must come
> > out... Noah and his crew (all eight of 'em) are gonna be kinda busy
moving
> > that 67,000 tonnes in one end, and removing the whatever amount of
tonnes of
> > waste products out the other.
>
> Y'all ignorant. If you've built an Ark how would y'all build it? With
> toilets. Y'all ignoramuses or somethin'?
Wow. Noah had flush toilets, automatic feeders, and some kind of
unbelievable laminate with approximately the tensile strength of neutronium,
way better than any modern composite. And yet he still had to build the ark
out of wood. And you're still overlooking the problem of who's going to
toilet-train approximately 30,000 animals. I'm betting a few of the first
ones would die of old age before you could get to the other end of the line.
> _Each_ member of the crew would have about
> > 2,000 'kinds' of animals to feed every day... and remember,
>
> And many of the cages had self feeders that interlinked? Y'all
> ignorant. Throwin' up strawmen and blowin' em down.
Someone still has to fill the feeders. No help for you there.
[snip]
> > Problem 6: Ye Floode itself. It covered the 'high hills and mountains'.
> > Hmm... Some creationists say that there was massive amounts of mountain
> > building post-Floode, which is why Everest, for example, is as tall as
it
> > is.
>
> Y'all know what the Bible says? That the mountains rose and the
> valleys sunk. Y'all know you find sea shells on top o' mountains?
> Where y'all come from? Ignoromuslan?
I won't waste my time refuting your ridiculous idiocies. I will point out
that the kind of tectonic activity you describe (i.e., mountain ranges and
ocean basins worldwide rising and sinking in a matter of months) would
produce earthquakes on a planetary scale and tsunamis miles high. The ark
would have been torn apart like kindling.
If they're immersed for months and then buried under several hundred feet of
rock and sedimentary deposits, I would imagine so, yes.
> Marine
> > plants don't like too little salt and would all die. Estuary plants, who
> > don't care about the salt content, do care about water pressure... and
would
> > all die long before the corals (see above) would. After Ye Floode would
come
> > Ye Dust Storm, as the wind dries up the mud and blows away the topsoil
> > because there's no ground cover left to preserve it, it's all dead in Ye
> > Floode.
>
> Under ye' all assumptions.
These aren't assumptions, they're called facts. Do try to learn the
difference.
No, it doesn't; it takes a lot more than two. Do the words "founder effect"
mean anything to you? (Of course they don't, your knowledge of genetics is
as dismal as everything else. That was a rhetorical question.)
> > Problem 9: Disease/parasites. Tapeworm, AIDs, leprosy, etc, they're all
> > living creatures too. If they were not on Ye Arke, they died. Some of
them
> > _require_ a _living_ host. Which one or ones of Noah's crew carried
herpes,
> > which hookworm, which Ebola? How about ticks, fleas, lice?
>
> Under y'all assumptions. No evolutionists really tell us where AIDS,
> leprosy and so fourth come from.
So these things evolved from entirely different organisms, then?
Okay, let's say 1% of the flood waters came from rain and rerun the
calculations above. The radiance of 26 kilowatts/m2 drops by two orders of
magnitude and becomes .26 kilowatts/m2. Now the planet is only 0.2 times the
brightness of the sun. Um, these aren't rigorous numbers, but I don't think
your model is doing much better here.
> Additionally, the mountains
> were not as tall, so again, ye assumptions be wrong.
>
> Ye all come back here again and see all the mischief debunked, ya
> hear?
--
Pat James
(in message <u0ivitl...@corp.supernews.com>):
it's worse than that. The figures are for _one metre a day_. That's _40
metres_, total. Now, if the 'high hills and mountains' were, say, a mere 1000
metres tall, you'd need 12.5 metres of water per day... hmm. The planet is
back to being 2.5 times brighter than the sun if a mere 1% of Ye Floode was
because of rain...
mvp54609
> mean? mitcoffey>>
>
> Let's compare:
>
> Darwin told us that swim bladders transmuted into lungs.
Is that as basic an error as Woodmorappe's confusion of mean and
median? Btw what's wrong with Darwin's idea?
> Huxley was so badly mauled in debate with Bishop Wilferforce that his "X
> Club" spent decades trying to revise and damage control history --asserting
? that Huxley had carried the day.
Noelie S. Alito
news:MPG.1672abc8b...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
<snip>
> > It's hard to imagine that a sizable flood could destroy all of the
> > billions of creatures that you've y'all said would happen, specially
> > since it just take just y'all two of a pair to survive.
>
> No one is arguing against a "sizable flood". It's Noah's flood, covering
> the entire Earth that we're talking about. Remember?
By my calculations (Earth's radius=6400km, Scablands covering
~240km X ~200km), the biggest known flood incident on Earth
were the Scablands floods, which represents about 0.04% of the
land surface of Earth, generously speaking. [All are encouraged
to sanity-check my math.] The local flood-related landforms
there are huge, unlike standard stream-cut features like the Grand
Canyon.
Noelie
--
Beware those whose only motivation to live a sociable and
honest life is the fear of Hell.
Andrew Glasgow
mvp5...@qwest.net (mvp54609) wrote:
> jess...@aol.com (Jesse976) wrote in message
> news:<20011128204431...@mb-cp.aol.com>...
> > Maybe you can defend Woodmorappe's famous use of median instead
> > mean? mitcoffey>>
> >
> > Let's compare:
> >
> > Darwin told us that swim bladders transmuted into lungs.
>
> Is that as basic an error as Woodmorappe's confusion of mean and
> median? Btw what's wrong with Darwin's idea?
Well, the evidence indicates that it was actually the other way
around...
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> Note: address in header munged. |
| "SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical reasons* why it |
| is necessary to sacrifice a young goat to your SCSI chain now and then." |
| -- John Woods |
Nullifidian
-snipping everything else because its already received exhaustive
replies-
>Wrong. Moses was educated in Egypt, and used the Egyptian cubit. The
>Ark was 515 ft long. It would have been nice if you had known that.
Why should Pat James have known that? Noah antedates Moses, and
there's absolutely no reason to assume that Moses drew up the specs
for the boat or had anything to do with it whatsoever. Frankly, it
sounds like you're doing some creative Bible interpretation.
--
Nullifidian, a.a. 1774 (remove NO SPAM to e-mail me)
Bobby D. Bryant
McCoy" <jm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Michael Painter" <m.pa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:<omcN7.133893$WW.84...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
>> Not to mention the sheer volume excreted. Herbivores' digestive
>> systems aren't particularly efficient; most of what goes in comes out
>> again.
>> Wonder how many shovels they had on the Ark? And how many hours per
>> day
>> Noah, et. al. spent shoveling?
>
> It'd be nice if you calculated shoveling based on ready made conduits
> in which case no shoveling was necessary.
Poop doesn't flow uphill, even in bible stories. You still have to lift
it up above the water line and heave it over the side.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
TomS
nullifidi...@godisdead.com stated..."
I caught a glimpse of a program on TV the other day, enough
to see the claim that the side of The Pyramid was exactly
365.2422 Hebrew cubits long. (365.2422 being the length of the
year in days, more precise than the 365 1/4 of the Julian
calendar.) Other than the amazing fact that we know, today,
to such precision (somewhere around 1 part per million) what
the Hebrew cubit was and what the dimensions of the pyramid was
... isn't it interesting that the Egyptians used the Hebrew
cubit ... and, now, I find out, that Moses used the Egyptian
cubit.
Tom S.
gen2rev
> "Michael Painter" <m.pa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<omcN7.133893$WW.84...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
[snip]
> > Problem 5: Remember that 67,000 tonnes of food? What goes in must come
> > out... Noah and his crew (all eight of 'em) are gonna be kinda busy moving
> > that 67,000 tonnes in one end, and removing the whatever amount of tonnes of
> > waste products out the other.
>
> Y'all ignorant. If you've built an Ark how would y'all build it? With
> toilets. Y'all ignoramuses or somethin'?
Do you have any idea how a toilet works? If you did, I doubt you'd
propose this solution. But let me explain...
Basicly, water flows from a place upstream from the 'waste' (be it a
tank or cistern) to a place downstream where we've decided that the
'waste' would be better off. There are two problems with your senario.
the first is the source of the upstream water. Now during the forty
days and forty nights of rain, it's not a problem if you have
collectors and such on top of the ark to channel the water into a
cistern on the upper levels for use later. But during the following
year, while the waters subside, where's this water going to come from?
It would have to be pumped from the earth-covering ocean outside.
The second, and larger, problem is the final destination of the waste.
If it's going to go overboard of it's own accord, the openings have to
be above the waterline, and since these openings have to be downstream
from the toilets, they have to be above the waterline too. This would
tend to limit what stalls get toilets (let's call them "first class"),
and all the stalls below the waterline still have to have the 'waste'
moved by hand. Also, keep in mind that the toilets have to be above
the waterline AT ALL TIMES. If the ark is tossed about during the
initial deluge, and a toilet location goes below the waterline
momentarily, it won't be upstream, but downstream, and external water
will enter the ark. If enough of that happens, the ark will sink.
But what if we store the 'waste' in a tank at the bottom of the ark?
That will significantly cut down on room for passengers, because now
we have to have room for a year's worth of waste, as well as however
many stalls our passengers may need, as well as room for food.
How much space would a year's worth of piss and crap take up? What
would the aroma be like? Who's going to teach the passengers to use
the toilets?
[snip the rest]
Henry Barwood
John McCoy wrote:
>
> "Michael Painter" wrote in message
> > I'm not even going to try to figure out how much hay would be needed for
> > Not to mention the sheer volume excreted. Herbivores' digestive systems
> > aren't particularly efficient; most of what goes in comes out again.
> > Wonder how many shovels they had on the Ark? And how many hours per day
> > Noah, et. al. spent shoveling?
>
> It'd be nice if you calculated shoveling based on ready made conduits
> in which case no shoveling was necessary.
Would those include the tubes beneath the water line that discharged
directly into the ocean?
Barwood
John McCoy
I'd be nice that if you did a web search on the word hybernate and
discover two reasons that would cause animals to hibernate on the Ark.
>
> >
> >>
> >> I'm not even going to try to figure out how much hay would be needed for
> >> Not to mention the sheer volume excreted. Herbivores' digestive systems
> >> aren't particularly efficient; most of what goes in comes out again.
> >> Wonder how many shovels they had on the Ark? And how many hours per day
> >> Noah, et. al. spent shoveling?
> >
> >It'd be nice if you calculated shoveling based on ready made conduits
> >in which case no shoveling was necessary.
>
> And how much volume would such conduits take up?
Not much.
> <snip>
> >Y'all forgets that calculations already fit the animals on the Ark.
> >Now, as to how the animals get there, it says the Lord brought them
> >there. Y'all ignorant.
>
> Ah at last we have an explicit acknowledgement that a miracle is
> required.
It's nice to know that you've recognized that. But I hardly call the
Lord showing up as a miracle.
> >
> >>
> >> Problem 4: Even after he pares down the list (he posits 15,754 'kinds') he
> >> has a problem. In order for there to be physically enough space inside Ye
> >> Arke, Woody uses the _median_ to work out the size of cages. He says that if
> >> you have hippos, elephants, rats, and dogs, you can use the _median_ size
> >> animal and build cages for 'em, and they'll all fit. The median size,
> >> according to Woody, that of a sheep. Using that, he can shoehorn enough
> >> cages into Ye Arke to hold his 15,754 kinds... but only just. And the cages
> >> would be sized so that an animal in it would be able to stand up, but not
> >> move about... which means it gets no exercise, and its muscles will atrophy.
> >> And it won't live to see the end of the voyage. Unfortunately, Woody can't
> >> think of any other way to fit 'em all in.
> >
> >Y'all forget that most large animals are few in number, and small ones
> >o'plenty, never minding that these animals were young.
>
> Where in the Bible does it say they were young?
It doesn't but it makes sense and show how it could work to conserve
space. It'd be nice if you understood that.
>
> >Plenty o'room.
> >You haven't proved size limitations. You're bluffing out of
> >speculatation.
> >
> >>
> >> Problem 5: Remember that 67,000 tonnes of food? What goes in must come
> >> out... Noah and his crew (all eight of 'em) are gonna be kinda busy moving
> >> that 67,000 tonnes in one end, and removing the whatever amount of tonnes of
> >> waste products out the other.
> >
> >Y'all ignorant. If you've built an Ark how would y'all build it? With
> >toilets. Y'all ignoramuses or somethin'?
> >
> > _Each_ member of the crew would have about
> >> 2,000 'kinds' of animals to feed every day... and remember,
> >
> >And many of the cages had self feeders that interlinked? Y'all
> >ignorant. Throwin' up strawmen and blowin' em down.
>
> All right! Noah's one hell of an engineer!
It'd be nice if you looked at those bird feeders out in people's trees
sometime. Really easy to make.
What's there to comment on? Since the mountains were low on the
preflood environment, and geology proves that mountains had arisen,
there's is nothing of note to discuss. This means that the waters of
the earth probably had not been deep enough to destroy the coral. And
even if it were so, I doubt if a world wide flood could destroy all
life, and all coral. It doesn't make sense to me.
> >>
> >> Problem 7: Plants. Not only would Noah have had to carry food for all the
> >> animals (and, if predators such as tigers were then carnivores, this would
> >> include extra animals to furnish food for said predators, while if they were
> >> vegetarians, this would require extra fodder and an explanation as to when
> >> and why they changed...) but he's gonna have to carry all the various plants
> >> as well. All of them. Land plants don't care for major floods, and would all
> >> die. Fresh-water plants don't like too much salt, and would all die.
> >
> >Would seeds die too?
>
> Yep.
ALL seeds? Not one o' survive? Ones covered in rocks?
> >
> > Marine
> >> plants don't like too little salt and would all die. Estuary plants, who
> >> don't care about the salt content, do care about water pressure... and would
> >> all die long before the corals (see above) would. After Ye Floode would come
> >> Ye Dust Storm, as the wind dries up the mud and blows away the topsoil
> >> because there's no ground cover left to preserve it, it's all dead in Ye
> >> Floode.
> >
> >Under ye' all assumptions.
>
> Care to demonstrate how marine organisms and freshwater organisms
> could have lived?
Some suggest that the oceans were not as salty in the past, and that
the salt derives from the earth.
John McCoy
You still need to put that in.
>
> >
> >>
> >> I'm not even going to try to figure out how much hay would be needed for
> >> Not to mention the sheer volume excreted. Herbivores' digestive systems
> >> aren't particularly efficient; most of what goes in comes out again.
> >> Wonder how many shovels they had on the Ark? And how many hours per day
> >> Noah, et. al. spent shoveling?
> >
> > It'd be nice if you calculated shoveling based on ready made conduits
> > in which case no shoveling was necessary.
> >
> >> ***************************************************************************
> >> *
> >> ****
> >>
> >> O-kay... my problem with _anyone_ who takes creationism seriously
> >
> > It'd be nice if I could take you seriously.
>
> Address me, nameless. This is _my_ stuff.
>
> >
> >
> > is that it
> >> simply doesn't add up.
> >
> > It'd be nice if you had made those calculations but you had not.
>
> but I did, nameless.
>
I don't see it.
> >
> > Let's take my fav example, Ye Arke.
> >
> > It'd be nice if you did not use the term "Ye Arke" to prejudice people
> > not to accept the Ark reality.
>
> there is no Arke, nameless.
It'd be nice if you did not use the term "Arke" to prejudice people
not to accept the Ark reality.
>
> >
> >> So, depending on what you use for a cubit, Ye Arke is about 450 feet
> >> long,75
> >> wide, and 45 tall, right?
> >
> > Wrong. Moses was educated in Egypt, and used the Egyptian cubit. The
> > Ark was 515 ft long. It would have been nice if you had known that.
>
> 1 you _do_ realise that this makes it _worse_, don't you?
Good engineering makes it not worse, but better. It's up to the
engineer and some good laminated boards, which some of you have
admitted weren't used on wooden ships that you tried to sneakily
compare to the Ark, without disclosure.
>
> 2 why is it that most creationists agree with me on this, rather than you?
> AIG and the ICR agree with me, just to mention two.
Makes no difference. You can measure some the structures in the Bible,
and they measure out to the Egyptian cubit.
It'd be nice if you could cite this.
>
> However, given that Grand Admiral Noah didn't have laminates either, this
> makes no difference whatsoever.
It'd be nice if you could prove this.
>
> >
> > Don't take my
> >> word for it, look it up for yourself. One possible source: _The Wooden
> >> Fighting Ship In the Royal Navy, 897-1860_, EHH Archibald, Blandford Press,
> >> London. Sorry, my copy was published back before ISBNs. Edward Archibald
> >> was
> >> at the time of writing the curator of the National Maritime Museum,
> >> Portsmouth, England. Or build a wooden boat 250 feet long and see what
> >> happens. Ye Arke was the size of_two_ 1st rate line of battleships, laid
> >> end-to-end. Noah was a shepherd. He knew better than the shipwrights at
> >> Chatham who built the ships with which the RN dominated the world for 150
> >> years? If I'm wrong,
> >
> > It is possible that you are wrong. Since you've said a lot about these
> > ships, which were designed to travel to places, contrary to the Ark,
> > which was just meant to survive the flood, things be ye different,
> > wouldn't ye say?
>
> nope. Ships gotta float. That remains constant. Ye Arke could not float.
Invalid comparison. Did your wooden ships have laminated wood?
>
> >
> >
> > and it is possible to build a 450 foot wooden vessel,
> >> by all means demonstrate it. I'll even put up some of the money... so long
> >> as I get to record the launch of said vessel. And so long as those who say
> >> that such a craft would be safe are willing to stay on it while it's being
> >> launched. Me, I figure that I'd get some _great_ pix.
> >
> > A bit of ye assumptions, based on theoriticals, wouldn't ye say?
>
> I said quite clearly that if anyone thinks that they can build an Arke, that
> they should go for it, and that I would even put up some of the money to
> build it. All I ask is that I have the exclusive video rights and that those
> who say that Ye Arke would be safe would go to sea on it. This way I get to
> make some money _and_ to raise the average intelligence of the human race at
> the same time.
I'd be nice if I had the money to do it.
>
> >
> >
> >> Problem 2: Even though it's too big to work, Ye Arke is _too small_ to do
> >> its job. Noah was at sea for a year. The Bible explicitly states that he
> >> carried food for himself, his family, and the animals... where did he put
> >> it? John Woodmorappe (who is, BTW, a creationist) in his book _Noah's Ark:
> >> A
> >> Feasibility Study_, published by the Institute for Creation Research, El
> >> Cajon, California, (the ICR is not merely creationist; it _requires_ that
> >> all who work there take an oath that they feel that the Bible is inerrant,
> >> as demonstrated on their web site) calculates that Noah's ark carried 5.5
> >> million kilos by weight of animals. (I disagree with this figure, as it's
> >> much too low, but for purposes of argument I'll use it.) He also estimates
> >> that each animal, on average, ate one thirtieth of its body weight per day.
> >> Let's see... 5.5 million kilos is 5,500 tonnes. Divide by 30, multiply by
> >> 365... 66.917e+3. (Ye Arke was at sea for over a year, according to Gen
> >> 7and
> >> 8. I'll just use one year to keep things simple and to give Woody as much
> >> slack as possible. Wouldn't want anyone to say that I was railroading him.)
> >> Hmm. 67 thousand tonnes of food, by Woody's own figures. But... if you
> >> remember, we calculated that Ye Arke could displace a max of 46,000tonnes,
> >> or 46,400 if we were being generous. And that included the mass of the boat
> >> itself, and the animals. (Archimedes' Principle, you know) Looks like y'all
> >> need at least two Arkes just to carry the food.
> >
> > Wouldn't y'all prejudicing by using emotionalism y'all stop?
>
> Which 'emotionalism' did I use?
Like using the southern accent in the word y'all. I wish y'all would
stop it.
>
> > Also,
> > y'all forgot that the Ark was almost totally enclosed with small
> > window on top. Y'all forgot that this is a survival ship, not a
> > travellin' ship. Why y'all stupid or somethin'.
>
> Anything that floats is affected by Archimedes' Principle. it doesn't matter
> whether it was enclosed or not.
And y'all forgot to think about the ye anchorstones.
>
> >
> > So where's the mention of
> >> the Great Barge Fleet in the Bible? I once tried to work out just how big
> >> an
> >> Arke would have had to have been to carry the assorted animals and their
> >> food and have space for proper cages and exercise areas so that the
> >> animals'
> >> muscles don't atrophy... after I got to 900,000 tonnes displacement and
> >> still hadn't accounted for all the good stuff, I stopped. That's _three
> >> times the size of a supertanker_. Or _nine times the size of a nuke
> >> aircraft
> >> carrier_. There's simply no way that a wooden vessel could ever be that
> >> big.
> >> No way at all.
> >
> > Y'all hadn't proved it.
>
> Do you have any idea of just how _big_ 900,000 tonnes is? Hey, man, you say
> it's possible... build one.
It has been done.
>
> >
> >>
> >> Problem 3: In order to get the mass of the animals down, Woody pared things
> >> down. He tried to define 'kind' so as to have, say, one pair of cat-like
> >> what evers, and have all present day cats, from house cats to lions,
> >> descendants of that pair. Nice... except that doing it that way _requires_
> >> evolution on a scale so massive and rapid that _no_ evolutionary biologist
> >> would dare suggest it. And Woody does that with _all_ animals... It's the
> >> only way he could get 'em to fit.
> >
> > Y'all forgets that calculations already fit the animals on the Ark.
> > Now, as to how the animals get there, it says the Lord brought them
> > there. Y'all ignorant.
>
> nameless...
>
> Woody says that there were 15,754 'kinds' on Ye Arke. There are _millions_ of
> species alive today. How did things go from 15,754 to millions without
> _extremely rapid_ evolution, given the 4,000 years or so between Ye Alleged
> Arke and today?
Kinds would be like Dog, cat, elephant, etc. If you're saying
Rottweiler, Dalmation, etc., then that's deceptive. Because all these
dogs are related and only two dogs would deliver all the other dogs in
the Dog family.
So, in that "millions" of species is a David Copperfield slight of
hand. Ye all, be truthful.
>
> >
> >>
> >> Problem 4: Even after he pares down the list (he posits 15,754 'kinds') he
> >> has a problem. In order for there to be physically enough space inside Ye
> >> Arke, Woody uses the _median_ to work out the size of cages. He says that
> >> if
> >> you have hippos, elephants, rats, and dogs, you can use the _median_ size
> >> animal and build cages for 'em, and they'll all fit. The median size,
> >> according to Woody, that of a sheep. Using that, he can shoehorn enough
> >> cages into Ye Arke to hold his 15,754 kinds... but only just. And the cages
> >> would be sized so that an animal in it would be able to stand up, but not
> >> move about... which means it gets no exercise, and its muscles will
> >> atrophy.
> >> And it won't live to see the end of the voyage. Unfortunately, Woody can't
> >> think of any other way to fit 'em all in.
> >
> > Y'all forget that most large animals are few in number, and small ones
> > o'plenty, never minding that these animals were young. Plenty o'room.
> > You haven't proved size limitations. You're bluffing out of
> > speculatation.
>
> Sigh. Yet Another YEC Who Can't Tell The Difference Between 'Mean' and
> 'Median'.
It makes no difference. Play with those word and fiddle with all the
angels dancing on a needle all you want. Let's just not use mean or
median. The point is, all animals are small when they are children. So
it makes no difference whatsoever.
>
> >
> >>
> >> Problem 5: Remember that 67,000 tonnes of food? What goes in must come
> >> out... Noah and his crew (all eight of 'em) are gonna be kinda busy moving
> >> that 67,000 tonnes in one end, and removing the whatever amount of tonnes
> >> of
> >> waste products out the other.
> >
> > Y'all ignorant. If you've built an Ark how would y'all build it? With
> > toilets. Y'all ignoramuses or somethin'?
>
> the animals were _toilet-trained_? Ooh, boy. That's a keeper. So, exactly how
> strong _is_ a toilet sized for elephant, anyway?
Are you stupid?
> >
> > _Each_ member of the crew would have about
> >> 2,000 'kinds' of animals to feed every day... and remember,
> >
> > And many of the cages had self feeders that interlinked? Y'all
> > ignorant. Throwin' up strawmen and blowin' em down.
>
> self-feeders ain't small; any space they used would not be available for use
> in carrying animals. And they have to be loaded in the first place. And
> cleaned. Someone had to do all that.
Really. Ever seen those bird feeders? Not too complicated to work
out.
Really.
John McCoy
John McCoy
You know how much stupidity goes around. Stupid arguments like yours
are plenty in number. I just marvel at the technology of the early
Babylonians, the Mesopotamians, and other civilisations long, long
ago. Scientists marvel too, wondering in regard to how could these
early civilisations could have known the vast technology to construct
personal toilets, cisterns, and aqueducts. What you're doing is just
begging the question. But already, I see the genious of man and his
abilities while you sit there and denigrate them. You have no
appreciation nor grasp of the abilities and accomplishments of
mankind. It just goes to show what kind of fanatical devotion that you
have to a misguided theory, that causes you to have a false
perspective and perception of the world at large.
Some time in the past, some ignorant man living somewhere in the
Middle Ages, maybe, would have sat there laughing at the idea that
someday water could be piped in and moved upstairs in three or four
story buildings. I haven't proposed this mechanism, but your
questioning a broad range of technologies just makes me wonder what
kind of applied mental concentration you've actually put into this.
I ask this because all my life I've put my efforts into putting forth
solutions to problems and coming up with answers. Human endeavor has
created interchangeable parts, the assembly line, and an assortment of
ways of accomplishing great things in short order. In my workplace
I'm continually thinking of ways of making things happen in short
order, and in doing so, using the resources at hand.
I just think, what type of stupidity would sit there watching me all
day, saying, "don't try that, it won't work," or "you can do that
faster because..." and then conclude that it's impossible. With a
brain most all is possible, with limitations only being a time limit.
Here you're saying that a large ship could not be built out of wood.
That's stupidity. That's a dare. I bet you pessimists out there to
make that public challenge and offer a reward that's worth more than
the endeavor, as some guy is going to smurk at you and accomplish that
thing you're afraid of.
Humans are always looking for doing things the easy and fast way. If I
had a bunch of birds in a cage and I wanted to save myself the trouble
of dumping the droppings I would simply build a slot underneath the
cages (which are interlinked) and with a push broom slide the
droppings into a chute.
Any sensible person would have constructed the apparatus as such, but
for some reason you've overlooked it. I'm a practical person and I'm
just amazed at the stupidity that I see here.
I'm sorry, but your con game is over.
John McCoy
>
> [snip the rest]
David Jensen
>It'd be nice if you did not use the term "Arke" to prejudice people
>not to accept the Ark reality.
The Ark and flood described in Genesis never existed. You cannot point
to a shred of physical evidence to support the claim that this moral
tale was a historical fact.
David Jensen
....
>Here you're saying that a large ship could not be built out of wood.
>That's stupidity. That's a dare. I bet you pessimists out there to
>make that public challenge and offer a reward that's worth more than
>the endeavor, as some guy is going to smurk at you and accomplish that
>thing you're afraid of.
We're not afraid at all, but the mechanical properties of wood are well
known to those who use it, but, apparently, not to you.
>Humans are always looking for doing things the easy and fast way. If I
>had a bunch of birds in a cage and I wanted to save myself the trouble
>of dumping the droppings I would simply build a slot underneath the
>cages (which are interlinked) and with a push broom slide the
>droppings into a chute.
Now you've dumped all the guano into the bottom of the ship. Nice
breeding ground for pestilence.
>Any sensible person would have constructed the apparatus as such, but
>for some reason you've overlooked it. I'm a practical person and I'm
>just amazed at the stupidity that I see here.
Sensible people would know that you have to clean out the waste or you
will die of disease.
>I'm sorry, but your con game is over.
Heh.
Pat James
(in message <5f498a0a.01120...@posting.google.com>):
[snip]
>>>
>>> It would be nice if you could come up with ESTIMATES based on
>>> hibernation.
>>
>> the vast majority of animals don't hibernate. Some which spend time in
>> northern climes move south when the snow starts. Some which spend time in
>> northern climes die off but leave eggs and whatnot around for next year.
>> Most
>> don't live that for north.
>
> You still need to put that in.
if only 5% of the animals do something, and they only do it for a few months,
and you're at sea for a year, it makes no real difference... especially when
the animals which _don't_ do it include elephant, rhinos, buffalo (Merkin,
Asian, African...) and in fact most of the larger ones... the ones which need
the most food.
[snip]
>>>
>>> It'd be nice if you had made those calculations but you had not.
>>
>> but I did, nameless.
>>
>
> I don't see it.
that's 'cause you're innumerate.
I gave the _exact_ method by which I did my calculations. But, hey, maybe you
really are dim enough to have missed 'em, so here they are again.
So, depending on what you use for a cubit, Ye Arke is about 450 feet long,
75 wide, and 45 tall, right? I work best in metres, so lets do a bit of
conversion: that's 137.16 by 22.86 by 13.716 metres, right? For ease of
calculation, let's call it 140 x 23 x 14. This give you 45.080e+3 cubic
metres. One cubic metre of pure water is one metric tonne. Salt water is a
bit more dense. Be nice, add another thousand tonnes or so... Ye Arke
displaces 46,000 tonnes. Maybe 46,400 at max. And I'm being generous.
Now, if you want to use a bigger cubit, so that Ye Arke is 515 feet long,
that means a 14% increase in all dimensions. 156.97 x 26.16 x 15.697 metres.
Again, in the interests of an easy life, round up to 160 x 27 x 16 metres, or
69,120 cubic metres. In fresh water, that's 69,120 tonnes. In salt, 72,576.
Note that this adds up to about the total for the weight of the animals, as
calculated by Woody, plus the weight of their food... but _not_ including the
weight of Ye Arke itself. You _still_ need two Arkes to carry everything.
In the meantime, you've made Ye Arke even bigger than it was... and it was
too big in the first place. You've made things _worse_.
>>>
>>> Let's take my fav example, Ye Arke.
>>>
>>> It'd be nice if you did not use the term "Ye Arke" to prejudice people
>>> not to accept the Ark reality.
>>
>> there is no Arke, nameless.
>
> It'd be nice if you did not use the term "Arke" to prejudice people
> not to accept the Ark reality.
There was no Arke, nameless.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> So, depending on what you use for a cubit, Ye Arke is about 450 feet
>>>> long,75
>>>> wide, and 45 tall, right?
>>>
>>> Wrong. Moses was educated in Egypt, and used the Egyptian cubit. The
>>> Ark was 515 ft long. It would have been nice if you had known that.
>>
>> 1 you _do_ realise that this makes it _worse_, don't you?
>
> Good engineering makes it not worse, but better. It's up to the
> engineer and some good laminated boards, which some of you have
> admitted weren't used on wooden ships that you tried to sneakily
> compare to the Ark, without disclosure.
laminated wood won't work, nameless. Most laminates don't like it when they
get wet. They're not as strong as you say. And they're not used on ships
'cause the ship designers know very well that they won't work. If they _did_
work the way you say they do, wooden ships would still form the backbone of
the world's merchant and naval fleets. Wood is, after all, a renewable
resource and far easier to handle than metal.
>
>>
>> 2 why is it that most creationists agree with me on this, rather than you?
>> AIG and the ICR agree with me, just to mention two.
>
> Makes no difference. You can measure some the structures in the Bible,
> and they measure out to the Egyptian cubit.
I have recaled above. Makes no difference. You still need two Arkes. You
could have worked this out for yourself, except that you're a creationist and
therefore innumerate.
[snip]
>>>> Problem 1: The sheer size. HMS _Victory_, still preserved at Portsmouth,
>>>> was 186 feet long on the gundeck. HMS _Victoria_, the last full-rigged
>>>> 1strate ship of the line to serve as flag of the Channel Fleet, built in
>>>> 1859, was 250 feet long on the gundeck. And she had a steel frame because
>>>> the RN had found that building wooden ships much bigger than 225 feet
>>>> long
>>>> was not a good idea because they tended to straddle or to hog on being
>>>> launched; that is, they tended to bend, their bows and sterns to stick up
>>>> out of the water at an angle, (that's straddling) or to bend the other
>>>> way,
>>>> the bows and sterns supported by waves but the midships sections out of
>>>> the
>>>> water (or at least not as well supported) (that's hogging) and either way
>>>> their keels tended to crack under the strain. Even with steel frames,
>>>> wooden
>>>> ships bigger than 250 feet long tended to hog or straddle.
>>>
>>> Did these ships use laminated wood? It would be nice if you could
>>> tell me.
>>
>> nope. They didn't have glues that would do the job.
>
> It'd be nice if you could cite this.
I have. The glues required to create laminated woods were invented in the
19th century and are mostly in the class of glues called 'epoxies'. Du Pont
Chemicals, amongst other companies, makes epoxies. There was no chemical
industry in Palestine 4,000 years ago. The only glues available were simple
animal glues... which dissolve on contact with water.
>
>>
>> However, given that Grand Admiral Noah didn't have laminates either, this
>> makes no difference whatsoever.
>
> It'd be nice if you could prove this.
He couldn't have laminates if he didn't have the glues to make them. He
didn't have the glues.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Don't take my
>>>> word for it, look it up for yourself. One possible source: _The Wooden
>>>> Fighting Ship In the Royal Navy, 897-1860_, EHH Archibald, Blandford
>>>> Press,
>>>> London. Sorry, my copy was published back before ISBNs. Edward Archibald
>>>> was
>>>> at the time of writing the curator of the National Maritime Museum,
>>>> Portsmouth, England. Or build a wooden boat 250 feet long and see what
>>>> happens. Ye Arke was the size of_two_ 1st rate line of battleships, laid
>>>> end-to-end. Noah was a shepherd. He knew better than the shipwrights at
>>>> Chatham who built the ships with which the RN dominated the world for 150
>>>> years? If I'm wrong,
>>>
>>> It is possible that you are wrong. Since you've said a lot about these
>>> ships, which were designed to travel to places, contrary to the Ark,
>>> which was just meant to survive the flood, things be ye different,
>>> wouldn't ye say?
>>
>> nope. Ships gotta float. That remains constant. Ye Arke could not float.
>
> Invalid comparison. Did your wooden ships have laminated wood?
Matters not. Archimedes' Principle, all by itself, says that Ye Arke couldn't
float, no matter _what_ it was made of. The food required and the mass of the
animals totaled more mass than the volume of water displaced. This is called
'negative bouyancy' and is a Bad Thing in a ship. Even if it held together,
it would sink as soon as it hit the water.
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> and it is possible to build a 450 foot wooden vessel,
>>>> by all means demonstrate it. I'll even put up some of the money... so
>>>> long
>>>> as I get to record the launch of said vessel. And so long as those who
>>>> say
>>>> that such a craft would be safe are willing to stay on it while it's
>>>> being
>>>> launched. Me, I figure that I'd get some _great_ pix.
>>>
>>> A bit of ye assumptions, based on theoriticals, wouldn't ye say?
>>
>> I said quite clearly that if anyone thinks that they can build an Arke,
>> that
>> they should go for it, and that I would even put up some of the money to
>> build it. All I ask is that I have the exclusive video rights and that
>> those
>> who say that Ye Arke would be safe would go to sea on it. This way I get
>> to
>> make some money _and_ to raise the average intelligence of the human race
>> at
>> the same time.
>
> I'd be nice if I had the money to do it.
I said that I'd put up the cash... if you'd get on the barge when it went to
sea, and if I had the video rights. Besides, it ain't just you, nameless. All
your creationist cretin buddies should put their money where their big fat
mouths are, too.
It's the way I talk. It's the way I write. You can do a google search of my
posts and see that I've been doing things that way for a real long time.
Y'all don't like it, y'all can kiss my ass. Use plenty of tongue.
>
>>
>>> Also,
>>> y'all forgot that the Ark was almost totally enclosed with small
>>> window on top. Y'all forgot that this is a survival ship, not a
>>> travellin' ship. Why y'all stupid or somethin'.
>>
>> Anything that floats is affected by Archimedes' Principle. it doesn't
>> matter
>> whether it was enclosed or not.
>
> And y'all forgot to think about the ye anchorstones.
Nope. The anchorstones are irrelevant, as Ye Arke would be sitting at the
bottom of the ocean. It can't float. It weighs too much for the water it
displaces. And you have just demonstrated that you don't know what
Archimedes' Principle is... which means that any ideas you might have about
anything which floats cannot possibly be correct, as ol' Archy's Principle is
the very basis of marine architecture. If it's supposed to float, it uses
Archimedes' Principle... and you don't know what that is.
>
>>
>>>
>>> So where's the mention of
>>>> the Great Barge Fleet in the Bible? I once tried to work out just how
>>>> big
>>>> an
>>>> Arke would have had to have been to carry the assorted animals and their
>>>> food and have space for proper cages and exercise areas so that the
>>>> animals'
>>>> muscles don't atrophy... after I got to 900,000 tonnes displacement and
>>>> still hadn't accounted for all the good stuff, I stopped. That's _three
>>>> times the size of a supertanker_. Or _nine times the size of a nuke
>>>> aircraft
>>>> carrier_. There's simply no way that a wooden vessel could ever be that
>>>> big.
>>>> No way at all.
>>>
>>> Y'all hadn't proved it.
>>
>> Do you have any idea of just how _big_ 900,000 tonnes is? Hey, man, you
>> say
>> it's possible... build one.
>
> It has been done.
Someone's built a 900,000 tonne ship? Gee. And here I was thinking that the
largest supertankers were in the 500,000 tonne range. Which ship was it?
Where was it built? Who owns it? When did it go to sea? What kind of a ship
was it? What is it made of?
nameless... the 'dog family' includes dogs/wolves (same species) plus
coyotes, foxes, and others. The 'cat family' includes domestic cats, lions,
tigers, cougars, leopards, cheetahs, hyenas, and others. The 'weasle family'
includes weasles, otters, skunks, bears, and others. you may begin to see the
small problem with the rapid evolution required to go from one pair of 'dogs'
or 'cats' or 'weasles' to what we have now?
1 there is a considerable diff between mean and median. If you _really_ think
there is no diff, then you're even more innumerate than I'd thought.
2 immature animals eat more than adults. _they're growing children_. You just
increased the food requirements.
3 most mammals and birds (and even some reptiles) require some kind of
direction by one or more parents. This is particularly evident in cats, dogs,
cattle, and horses... and humans. No parents, no training...
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Problem 5: Remember that 67,000 tonnes of food? What goes in must come
>>>> out... Noah and his crew (all eight of 'em) are gonna be kinda busy
>>>> moving
>>>> that 67,000 tonnes in one end, and removing the whatever amount of
>>>> tonnes
>>>> of
>>>> waste products out the other.
>>>
>>> Y'all ignorant. If you've built an Ark how would y'all build it? With
>>> toilets. Y'all ignoramuses or somethin'?
>>
>> the animals were _toilet-trained_? Ooh, boy. That's a keeper. So, exactly
>> how
>> strong _is_ a toilet sized for elephant, anyway?
>
> Are you stupid?
nameless, you said that there'd be toilets for the animals. If they weren't
toilet-trained, how do you expect them to use said toilets? If they're not
toilet-trained, what's the point of having them, and there remains the
problem of getting rid of all the assorted waste products. 67,000 tonnes of
food makes for a lot of waste products, nameless.
>
>>>
>>> _Each_ member of the crew would have about
>>>> 2,000 'kinds' of animals to feed every day... and remember,
>>>
>>> And many of the cages had self feeders that interlinked? Y'all
>>> ignorant. Throwin' up strawmen and blowin' em down.
>>
>> self-feeders ain't small; any space they used would not be available for
>> use
>> in carrying animals. And they have to be loaded in the first place. And
>> cleaned. Someone had to do all that.
>
> Really. Ever seen those bird feeders? Not too complicated to work
> out.
Bird feeders have to be loaded. I've done it. I used to keep parakeets. You
have to check the water, too... damn birds will crap in _everything_,
including their water supply, and then they'll get sick after they drink it.
[snip]
Yes, really. I notice that you didn't comment on the 40 metres of rain point.
nameless, it's clear that you can't do math. If you could, you'd have run the
figures yourself. The figures are for _forty metres of rainfall_, nameless.
40 metres. 131 feet. That's not enough to cover a 'mountan', as per Genesis.
That's not enough to cover a 'high hill', as per Genesis. That's not even
enough to cover a bloody sand dune! The Bible specifically states that Ye
Floode covered the 'high hills and mountains' (Gen 7:19-20) and 40 metres
don't cut it for that.
Elmer Bataitis
> "Michael Painter" <m.pa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > And how many hours per day
> > Noah, et. al. spent shoveling?
> It'd be nice if you calculated shoveling based on ready made conduits
> in which case no shoveling was necessary.
Ahhh, the ksjj infamous "trained to poop on command" Ark animals.
**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis "Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!"
Planetech Services -Hobbes
716-442-2884
Proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor,
the straight jacket of conventional thought.
**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis
> If I
> had a bunch of birds in a cage and I wanted to save myself the trouble
> of dumping the droppings I would simply build a slot underneath the
> cages (which are interlinked) and with a push broom slide the
> droppings into a chute.
> Any sensible person would have constructed the apparatus as such, but
> for some reason you've overlooked it. I'm a practical person and I'm
> just amazed at the stupidity that I see here.
> I'm sorry, but your con game is over.
Hmmm, have you tried building these neat, easily cleaned, push-broom
bottomed equipped cages for a few hundred dinosaurs, elephants,
rhinos, whales yet?
Elmer Bataitis
> The point is, all animals are small when they are children. So
> it makes no difference whatsoever.
Lessee, small animals. OK. Did they simply cease growing for the year?
Who fed them milk or the food needed since many small animals can't
eat on their own? How about even smaller animals? Did Noah took
zygotes? How'd he keep them frozen?
Louann Miller
wrote:
>Hmmm, have you tried building these neat, easily cleaned, push-broom
>bottomed equipped cages for a few hundred dinosaurs, elephants,
>rhinos, whales yet?
Let's be fair; he doesn't have to build cages for the whales. Like the
rest of the sea life, they merely have to adapt to the sudden changes
in salinity, temprature, etc. of being out there in the Flood itself.
Roughest on the bottom feeders, I suspect, given the thousands of feet
of sediment being dumped on their heads. Well, rough on the bottom
feeders and the plants attached to the sea floor. And the creatures
who eat the bottom feeders or the plants attached to the sea floor.
I do admit that the idea of Noah as Steve Irwin is kind of a fun one.
gen2rev
I would point out that all these civilizations relied on passive water
flow, that is, harnessing water that was already upstream. Otherwise,
you need a pump of some kind. According to Wikipedia (at
http://www.wikipedia.com/) "The earliest pump was described by
Archimedes around 300BC and is known as the [Archimedes screw]? pump."
(Taken from http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Pump)
And in the book "Ancient Inventions" (ISBN: 0-345-36476-7) there is a
discussion of a pump for a fire engine invented by Ctesibius in
Alexandria in the third century B.C. So it would seem that pump
technology didn't exist 4000 years ago, and if it did, why was it
forgotten? Pumps are very useful to have around.
> But already, I see the genious of man and his
> abilities while you sit there and denigrate them.
Where have I dengrated anyone but you?
> You have no
> appreciation nor grasp of the abilities and accomplishments of
> mankind. It just goes to show what kind of fanatical devotion that you
> have to a misguided theory, that causes you to have a false
> perspective and perception of the world at large.
I certainly do have an appreciation of the accomplishments of mankind.
But I would suggest that you don't have an appreciation for the scale
of what you're proposing, or the implications.
> Some time in the past, some ignorant man living somewhere in the
> Middle Ages, maybe, would have sat there laughing at the idea that
> someday water could be piped in and moved upstairs in three or four
> story buildings. I haven't proposed this mechanism, but your
> questioning a broad range of technologies just makes me wonder what
> kind of applied mental concentration you've actually put into this.
That would imply that Noah had technology that was able to pump water
uphill, and as far as I know, he didn't. If you have evidence that
says otherwise, you should present it.
> I ask this because all my life I've put my efforts into putting forth
> solutions to problems and coming up with answers. Human endeavor has
> created interchangeable parts, the assembly line, and an assortment of
> ways of accomplishing great things in short order. In my workplace
> I'm continually thinking of ways of making things happen in short
> order, and in doing so, using the resources at hand.
I'm in a similar work situation.
> I just think, what type of stupidity would sit there watching me all
> day, saying, "don't try that, it won't work," or "you can do that
> faster because..." and then conclude that it's impossible. With a
> brain most all is possible, with limitations only being a time limit.
>
> Here you're saying that a large ship could not be built out of wood.
> That's stupidity. That's a dare.
All right, since you think that it can be done, why don't you do it?
> I bet you pessimists out there to
> make that public challenge and offer a reward that's worth more than
> the endeavor, as some guy is going to smurk at you and accomplish that
> thing you're afraid of.
So you want a monetary reward? I suppose I could pull a Hovind, and
offer money I don't have, but I like to think that I have more
scruples than that. Why not do it for the greater glory of God? You'd
put all the doubters in their place, and assure a lot of Christians
who are wavering in their belief. Raising money shouldn't be a
problem, since the ICR and Answers in Genesis don't seem to have
difficulties in that area. Heck, they might even contribute.
> Humans are always looking for doing things the easy and fast way. If I
> had a bunch of birds in a cage and I wanted to save myself the trouble
> of dumping the droppings I would simply build a slot underneath the
> cages (which are interlinked) and with a push broom slide the
> droppings into a chute.
But where does the chute go? Are you going to accumulate the droppings
somewhere, or throw them overboard?
> Any sensible person would have constructed the apparatus as such, but
> for some reason you've overlooked it. I'm a practical person and I'm
> just amazed at the stupidity that I see here.
I would suggest that you're not thinking the whole thing through.
Nowhere in your posting do you propose solutions to the problems I've
raised.
> I'm sorry, but your con game is over.
I might say the same to you.
John McCoy
Now really? You have a limited scope of primitive scope of natural
chemicals that could be used on this waste. So sad. The Jews are very
familiar with this. So sad.
John McCoy
>
> Heh.
Louann Miller
>> Sensible people would know that you have to clean out the waste or you
>> will die of disease.
>Now really? You have a limited scope of primitive scope of natural
>chemicals that could be used on this waste. So sad. The Jews are very
>familiar with this. So sad.
Please explain exactly what you mean by this, if you mean something.
The Jews were certainly familiar with some basic sanitation rules
about not pooping upstream and so forth. I am not familiar with any
Biblical texts showing that they could construct anaerobic septic
systems or the equivalent.
howard hershey
----------
In article <3C0ACB7F...@indiana.edu>, Henry Barwood
<hbar...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>
>
> John McCoy wrote:
>>
>> "Michael Painter" wrote in message
>> > I'm not even going to try to figure out how much hay would be needed for
>> > Not to mention the sheer volume excreted. Herbivores' digestive systems
>> > aren't particularly efficient; most of what goes in comes out again.
>> > Wonder how many shovels they had on the Ark? And how many hours per day
>> > Noah, et. al. spent shoveling?
>>
>> It'd be nice if you calculated shoveling based on ready made conduits
>> in which case no shoveling was necessary.
>
> Would those include the tubes beneath the water line that discharged
> directly into the ocean?
>
> Barwood
>
It seems that the 'toilets on Ye Arke' story is as full of s**t as the rest
of the attempts to produce a realistic ark.
David Jensen
jm...@hotmail.com (John McCoy) doing his impression of Judy Tenuta wrote
in <5f498a0a.01120...@posting.google.com>:
>David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message news:<1p2m0uomlgc5d61i0...@4ax.com>...
>> Sensible people would know that you have to clean out the waste or you
>> will die of disease.
>Now really? You have a limited scope of primitive scope of natural
>chemicals that could be used on this waste. So sad. The Jews are very
>familiar with this. So sad.
It's nice to see you maintain your perfect record of being able to
provide no evidence to support your silly claim. How will the animals
living right above this chemically treated waste pit survive?
David Fritzinger
Nameless,
You never did deal with the problems with toilets. I wonder why.
I guess _your_ con game is over
Dave Fritzinger
TomS
<rb8n0u48rn4fenkeb...@4ax.com>, Louann stated..."
>
>On 3 Dec 2001 10:43:09 -0500, Elmer Bataitis <elmerb...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Hmmm, have you tried building these neat, easily cleaned, push-broom
>>bottomed equipped cages for a few hundred dinosaurs, elephants,
>>rhinos, whales yet?
>
>Let's be fair; he doesn't have to build cages for the whales. Like the
>rest of the sea life, they merely have to adapt to the sudden changes
>in salinity, temprature, etc. of being out there in the Flood itself.
But whales are air-breathing. Some of the Ark-defenders tell
us that only air-breathing animals need be taken on the Ark, as the
Bible, in one of its accounts, says that all animals with breath in
their nostrils were taken. If whales are excluded, then insects and
worms are included. What's fair is fair.
>Roughest on the bottom feeders, I suspect, given the thousands of feet
>of sediment being dumped on their heads. Well, rough on the bottom
>feeders and the plants attached to the sea floor. And the creatures
>who eat the bottom feeders or the plants attached to the sea floor.
>
>I do admit that the idea of Noah as Steve Irwin is kind of a fun one.
>
Tom S.
TomS
stated..."
>
>John McCoy wrote:
>
>> The point is, all animals are small when they are children. So
>> it makes no difference whatsoever.
>
>Lessee, small animals. OK. Did they simply cease growing for the year?
>Who fed them milk or the food needed since many small animals can't
>eat on their own? How about even smaller animals? Did Noah took
>zygotes? How'd he keep them frozen?
Moreover, the Bible says that the pairs were taken, "male and
his mate". An infant doesn't have a mate.
Tom S.
Jack Dominey
> On Sat, 1 Dec 2001 20:05:32 -0500, Adam Marczyk wrote
> (in message <u0ivitl...@corp.supernews.com>):
>
> >>> Problem #10: Latent heat of vaporisation. Do you know how much heat water
> >>> releases when it turns from vapour to liquid? Ever have a steam burn? 1gof
> >>> steam condenses to 1g of liquid water plus 2261 joules! A cubic meter of
> >>> water is a million grams and the surface of the Earth is 5.09 x 10^8 km2or
> >>> 5.09 x1014 m2. Thus, if we drop a measely meter of water a day for 40days,
> >>> the amount of energy released is 2261 joules/g * 1,000,000 g/m3
> *5.09*10^14
> >>> m3 per day or 1.15 * 10^24 joules a day or 249,300,000 megatonnes/day! The
> >>> pentagon would envy such an arsenal. Put another way, for every m of water
> >>> level increase, we have to release 2.261 billion joules/m2. At a rate of 1
> >>> m/day, this comes to 2.261 billion joules/day/m2 or a radiance of 26
> >>> kilowatts/m2, roughly 20 times the brightness of the sun!
> > Okay, let's say 1% of the flood waters came from rain and rerun the
> > calculations above. The radiance of 26 kilowatts/m2 drops by two orders of
> > magnitude and becomes .26 kilowatts/m2. Now the planet is only 0.2 times the
> > brightness of the sun. Um, these aren't rigorous numbers, but I don't think
> > your model is doing much better here.
> it's worse than that. The figures are for _one metre a day_. That's _40
> metres_, total. Now, if the 'high hills and mountains' were, say, a mere 1000
> metres tall, you'd need 12.5 metres of water per day... hmm. The planet is
> back to being 2.5 times brighter than the sun if a mere 1% of Ye Floode was
> because of rain...
My apologies beforehand for not working out the details myself, but I
think maybe you should recheck your figures. The number for one
meter/day got me to considering world record rainfalls, and
http://sln.fi.edu/school/math/showers.html provided a figure of 182.5
cm in 24 hours recorded at "Foc-Foc, La Reunion" (South Pacific or
Indian Ocean?) in 1966. I would think that if the rain had raised
some insane amount of heat that this would be recorded, too.
But then again, this may have been during a cyclonic storm (a
hurricane in the North Atlantic), and I've always heard that they do
in fact release many, many megaton-equivalents of energy. So if the
heat is getting spread all around the storm, the *heat* effects (as
opposed to the rain and wind effects) at ground level may not be
particularly noticeable
My guess is that if the numbers are correct, the 4+gigajoules/m**2
dumped on hapless Foc-Foc were dispersed over a much larger volume
that one gets by treating it as a two-dimensional situation. With a
global flood, all you get is the atmospheric column and the ground for
dispersing that heat, since every adjacent square meter is feeling the
same effects.
Jack Dominey
elvon livengood is a spamtrap
email is jack_dominey, same domain
howard hershey
----------
In article <5f498a0a.01120...@posting.google.com>,
jm...@hotmail.com (John McCoy) wrote:
Does not answer the point. How do you get a working toilet on shipboard
when that requires that the water source be above the shit-producers and the
exit for shit be below them?
>
> Some time in the past, some ignorant man living somewhere in the
> Middle Ages, maybe, would have sat there laughing at the idea that
> someday water could be piped in and moved upstairs in three or four
> story buildings. I haven't proposed this mechanism, but your
> questioning a broad range of technologies just makes me wonder what
> kind of applied mental concentration you've actually put into this.
Does not answer the point. How do you get a working toilet on shipboard
when that requires that the water source be above the shit-producers and the
exit for shit be below them?
>
> I ask this because all my life I've put my efforts into putting forth
> solutions to problems and coming up with answers. Human endeavor has
> created interchangeable parts, the assembly line, and an assortment of
> ways of accomplishing great things in short order. In my workplace
> I'm continually thinking of ways of making things happen in short
> order, and in doing so, using the resources at hand.
>
> I just think, what type of stupidity would sit there watching me all
> day, saying, "don't try that, it won't work," or "you can do that
> faster because..." and then conclude that it's impossible. With a
> brain most all is possible, with limitations only being a time limit.
>
> Here you're saying that a large ship could not be built out of wood.
> That's stupidity. That's a dare. I bet you pessimists out there to
> make that public challenge and offer a reward that's worth more than
> the endeavor, as some guy is going to smurk at you and accomplish that
> thing you're afraid of.
And I also claim that you cannot build a perpetual motion machine. But you
say that if I offer an award that is worth more than the endeavor (very
difficult to do, since the reward of actually having a perpetual motion
machine would be far more than any award any institution could present --
the machine would be its own award) that someone will then be able to invent
one?
>
> Humans are always looking for doing things the easy and fast way. If I
> had a bunch of birds in a cage and I wanted to save myself the trouble
> of dumping the droppings I would simply build a slot underneath the
> cages (which are interlinked) and with a push broom slide the
> droppings into a chute.
>
> Any sensible person would have constructed the apparatus as such, but
> for some reason you've overlooked it. I'm a practical person and I'm
> just amazed at the stupidity that I see here.
I do have a solution to the problem of shit and food. Simply have all the
animals be far enough above the water line so that you can store sufficient
water above them to flush the shit out above the water line. You can also
store all the food above the animals too. That way you can have gravity
feed the oats and all to the animals. So then we would have an ark with the
following. First the waterline, then the shit holes, then the decks with
the animals, then the decks with the water storage, then the decks with the
food storage. There, that would solve all your problems. I can think of
one minor problem this might create, but I am sure that Noah would have been
able to solve that minor problem. ;-)
>
> I'm sorry, but your con game is over.
>
David Fritzinger
> John McCoy wrote:
> > "Michael Painter" <m.pa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>
> > > And how many hours per day
> > > Noah, et. al. spent shoveling?
>
> > It'd be nice if you calculated shoveling based on ready made conduits
> > in which case no shoveling was necessary.
>
> Ahhh, the ksjj infamous "trained to poop on command" Ark animals.
Now that we've got nameless back, you don't think the karlpecker will
follow, do you?
Dave Fritzinger
Pat James
(in message <e5450afd.0112...@posting.google.com>):
French Overseas Department in the Indian Ocean, near Madagascar (for large
values of 'near', that's just the nearest sizable land). And Foc-Foc either
no longer exists, or had its name changed, or is real small 'cause it doesn't
show on my map. Not that Reunion is large; maybe 50 miles or so long and 30
wide.
> in 1966. I would think that if the rain had raised
> some insane amount of heat that this would be recorded, too.
>
> But then again, this may have been during a cyclonic storm (a
> hurricane in the North Atlantic), and I've always heard that they do
> in fact release many, many megaton-equivalents of energy.
They do. That's what drives them. They are _vastly_ more powerful than nuke
bombs. Tropical cyclones are Really Big self-sustaining heat engines. So long
as they have reasonably warm water to work with, they keep on trucking. When
they hit land they get cut off from the main part of their motor, and start
to die, but secondary effects can still reach hundreds of miles inland.
> So if the
> heat is getting spread all around the storm, the *heat* effects (as
> opposed to the rain and wind effects) at ground level may not be
> particularly noticeable
The heat effects of the latent heat are used to drive the storm, mostly;
there is often an increase in temperature but it's usually on the order of a
few degrees. What changes a lot is the pressure.
>
> My guess is that if the numbers are correct, the 4+gigajoules/m**2
> dumped on hapless Foc-Foc were dispersed over a much larger volume
> that one gets by treating it as a two-dimensional situation.
It would cover the ocean for hundreds of miles around the eye and would reach
up into the upper atmosphere. Some of that energy was also used to move the
storm around.
> With a
> global flood, all you get is the atmospheric column and the ground for
> dispersing that heat, since every adjacent square meter is feeling the
> same effects.
You have one big storm which can't go anywhere 'cause there's nowhere else to
go.
And there's the minor difference between a storm in the western part of the
Indian Ocean, with the entire ocean as a heat sink, and a global storm with
no heat sink. (The oceans were caused by Ye Floode, remember, and didn't
exist before. The weather must have been Really Strange back then.)
Alan Barclay
Jack Dominey <elvon_l...@email.com> wrote:
>think maybe you should recheck your figures. The number for one
>meter/day got me to considering world record rainfalls, and
>http://sln.fi.edu/school/math/showers.html provided a figure of 182.5
>cm in 24 hours recorded at "Foc-Foc, La Reunion" (South Pacific or
>Indian Ocean?) in 1966. I would think that if the rain had raised
>some insane amount of heat that this would be recorded, too.
What was happening in the rest of the world that day? There is a big
difference between a localized rainstorm and a global one.
John McCoy
> John McCoy wrote:
>
> > If I
> > had a bunch of birds in a cage and I wanted to save myself the trouble
> > of dumping the droppings I would simply build a slot underneath the
> > cages (which are interlinked) and with a push broom slide the
> > droppings into a chute.
>
> > Any sensible person would have constructed the apparatus as such, but
> > for some reason you've overlooked it. I'm a practical person and I'm
> > just amazed at the stupidity that I see here.
>
> > I'm sorry, but your con game is over.
>
> Hmmm, have you tried building these neat, easily cleaned, push-broom
> bottomed equipped cages for a few hundred dinosaurs, elephants,
> rhinos, whales yet?
For larger animals I've already suggested a shaft for receiving the said excrement.
Why don't you, for once, think of solutions?
I guess you don't know the word creativity.
John McCoy
John McCoy
> "On 2 Dec 2001 12:14:23 -0500, in article <3c0a5ef5.36377078@news>,
> nullifidi...@godisdead.com stated..."
> >
> >On 1 Dec 2001 05:06:00 -0500, jm...@hotmail.com (John McCoy) wrote:
> >
> >-snipping everything else because its already received exhaustive
> >replies-
> >
> >>Wrong. Moses was educated in Egypt, and used the Egyptian cubit. The
> >>Ark was 515 ft long. It would have been nice if you had known that.
> >
> >there's absolutely no reason to assume that Moses drew up the specs
> >for the boat or had anything to do with it whatsoever. Frankly, it
> >sounds like you're doing some creative Bible interpretation.
>
> I caught a glimpse of a program on TV the other day, enough
> to see the claim that the side of The Pyramid was exactly
> 365.2422 Hebrew cubits long. (365.2422 being the length of the
> year in days, more precise than the 365 1/4 of the Julian
> calendar.) Other than the amazing fact that we know, today,
> to such precision (somewhere around 1 part per million) what
> the Hebrew cubit was and what the dimensions of the pyramid was
> ... isn't it interesting that the Egyptians used the Hebrew
> cubit ... and, now, I find out, that Moses used the Egyptian
> cubit.
You have not provided sufficient information to allow anyone to base a
conclusion. Except you saw some tv show.
John McCoy
>
> Tom S.
Elmer Bataitis
> Elmer Bataitis <elmerb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3C0B2D92...@yahoo.com>...
> > John McCoy wrote:
> > > If I
> > > had a bunch of birds in a cage and I wanted to save myself the trouble
> > > of dumping the droppings I would simply build a slot underneath the
> > > cages (which are interlinked) and with a push broom slide the
> > > droppings into a chute.
> > > Any sensible person would have constructed the apparatus as such, but
> > > for some reason you've overlooked it. I'm a practical person and I'm
> > > just amazed at the stupidity that I see here.
> > > I'm sorry, but your con game is over.
> > Hmmm, have you tried building these neat, easily cleaned, push-broom
> > bottomed equipped cages for a few hundred dinosaurs, elephants,
> > rhinos, whales yet?
> For larger animals I've already suggested a shaft for receiving the said excrement.
> Why don't you, for once, think of solutions?
> I guess you don't know the word creativity.
Great, using an adz (a bronze one BTW) and trees, build just one
working model, sized for an elephant, poop chute and all and keep the
elephant and yourself alive and well for one year in your backyard.
Now, how many people were on the arke and how many large animals were
with them?
Jon Fleming
>Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message news:<bsdi0uo32iqokaov6...@4ax.com>...
>> On 1 Dec 2001 05:06:00 -0500, jm...@hotmail.com (John McCoy) wrote:
>>
>> >It would be nice if you could come up with ESTIMATES based on
>> >hibernation.
>>
>> Only if you come up with a method for inducing the above-mentioned
>> animals to hibernate.
>
>I'd be nice that if you did a web search on the word hybernate and
>discover two reasons that would cause animals to hibernate on the Ark.
It'd be nice if you presented your evidence for your assertions. I
suspect there is none. What I know of hibernation indicates that
there's nothing that would induce elephants, horses, cows, bison, and
giraffes to hibernate. A web search on hybernate probably wouldn't
turn up much.
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I'm not even going to try to figure out how much hay would be needed for
>> >> Not to mention the sheer volume excreted. Herbivores' digestive systems
>> >> aren't particularly efficient; most of what goes in comes out again.
>> >> Wonder how many shovels they had on the Ark? And how many hours per day
>> >> Noah, et. al. spent shoveling?
>> >
>> >It'd be nice if you calculated shoveling based on ready made conduits
>> >in which case no shoveling was necessary.
>>
>> And how much volume would such conduits take up?
>
>Not much.
What percentage of the volume of the Ark?
>
>> <snip>
>> >Y'all forgets that calculations already fit the animals on the Ark.
>> >Now, as to how the animals get there, it says the Lord brought them
>> >there. Y'all ignorant.
>>
>> Ah at last we have an explicit acknowledgement that a miracle is
>> required.
>
>It's nice to know that you've recognized that. But I hardly call the
>Lord showing up as a miracle.
I'd hardly call it science. What's your intention? Are you trying to
get the Ark accepted as an object of scientific stud? If so, no
miracles.
>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Problem 4: Even after he pares down the list (he posits 15,754 'kinds') he
>> >> has a problem. In order for there to be physically enough space inside Ye
>> >> Arke, Woody uses the _median_ to work out the size of cages. He says that if
>> >> you have hippos, elephants, rats, and dogs, you can use the _median_ size
>> >> animal and build cages for 'em, and they'll all fit. The median size,
>> >> according to Woody, that of a sheep. Using that, he can shoehorn enough
>> >> cages into Ye Arke to hold his 15,754 kinds... but only just. And the cages
>> >> would be sized so that an animal in it would be able to stand up, but not
>> >> move about... which means it gets no exercise, and its muscles will atrophy.
>> >> And it won't live to see the end of the voyage. Unfortunately, Woody can't
>> >> think of any other way to fit 'em all in.
>> >
>> >Y'all forget that most large animals are few in number, and small ones
>> >o'plenty, never minding that these animals were young.
>>
>> Where in the Bible does it say they were young?
>
>It doesn't but it makes sense and show how it could work to conserve
>space. It'd be nice if you understood that.
I understand that. Can you come up with two problems that make it
impossible for all of the animals, or even a large percentage of them
to be young? I can.
>
>>
>> >Plenty o'room.
>> >You haven't proved size limitations. You're bluffing out of
>> >speculatation.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Problem 5: Remember that 67,000 tonnes of food? What goes in must come
>> >> out... Noah and his crew (all eight of 'em) are gonna be kinda busy moving
>> >> that 67,000 tonnes in one end, and removing the whatever amount of tonnes of
>> >> waste products out the other.
>> >
>> >Y'all ignorant. If you've built an Ark how would y'all build it? With
>> >toilets. Y'all ignoramuses or somethin'?
>> >
>> > _Each_ member of the crew would have about
>> >> 2,000 'kinds' of animals to feed every day... and remember,
>> >
>> >And many of the cages had self feeders that interlinked? Y'all
>> >ignorant. Throwin' up strawmen and blowin' em down.
>>
>> All right! Noah's one hell of an engineer!
>
>It'd be nice if you looked at those bird feeders out in people's trees
>sometime. Really easy to make.
I haven't seen any that interlinked, or that feed horses and giraffes
and elephants and pandas and everything.
>
>>
>> >
>> >some of those,
>> >> the clean ones, would be in sevens, and the others in pairs. Let's see.
>> >> 15,754 divided by eight is a tad over 1,969. Number of seconds/day is
>> >> 86,400.Noah & Co. had 43.875 _seconds_ per 'kind' per day if they worked
>> >> continously24/7 for the year they were at sea to feed and clean 'em.
>> >
>> >See previous comment.
>> >
>> > Must've
>> >> been trailing bloody Cherenkov radiation as they ran about the boat, or at
>> >> least sonic booms. And, of course, if there were more 'kinds' than Woody's
>> >> 15,754,Noah & Co. would have had less time per 'kind', while if there were
>> >> less 'kinds', the hyperevolution problem would be worse.
>> >>
>> >> Problem 6: Ye Floode itself. It covered the 'high hills and mountains'.
>> >> Hmm... Some creationists say that there was massive amounts of mountain
>> >> building post-Floode, which is why Everest, for example, is as tall as it
>> >> is.
>> >
>> >Y'all know what the Bible says? That the mountains rose and the
>> >valleys sunk. Y'all know you find sea shells on top o' mountains?
>> >Where y'all come from? Ignoromuslan?
>> >
>> > For the purposes of argument, I'll take 'em at their word. How tall
>> >> _were_ the 'high hills and mountains', though? 100 feet? 1000 feet? 2000
>> >> feet? Well, they'd better have been less than 250 feet, 'cause if you put
>> >> that much water above coral reefs, the reefs die.
>> >
>> >Y'all correct, but mountain building did occur. Mountains high now.
>> >
>> > (You can check it for
>> >> yourself.) Every coral reef in the world should be dead... unless Noah
>> >> carried a few corals with him on Ye Arke, which gives him some extra
>> >> problems. And which is not supported by the Bible, anyway. It's easy to work
>> >> out how much water would be required for a Floode that size. Now, divide by
>> >> 24 by 40, and you see how much fell per hour in the 40 days and 40 nights...
>> >> and that's one hell of a lot of water, even if you restrict it to 250 feet
>> >> extra. I've been in hurricanes. They didn't dump anywhere _near_ that kind
>> >> of water. Not even within three orders of magnitude. No way a wooden boat's
>> >> gonna survive that. None. I won't bother go into varves, sandstones, and
>> >> salt domes...
>>
>> No comment on corals and varves and salt domes?
>
>
>What's there to comment on? Since the mountains were low on the
>preflood environment, and geology proves that mountains had arisen,
>there's is nothing of note to discuss. This means that the waters of
>the earth probably had not been deep enough to destroy the coral. And
>even if it were so, I doubt if a world wide flood could destroy all
>life, and all coral. It doesn't make sense to me.
The Bible says that everything not on the Arks was destroyed.
Coral dies in sediment.
>
>> >>
>> >> Problem 7: Plants. Not only would Noah have had to carry food for all the
>> >> animals (and, if predators such as tigers were then carnivores, this would
>> >> include extra animals to furnish food for said predators, while if they were
>> >> vegetarians, this would require extra fodder and an explanation as to when
>> >> and why they changed...) but he's gonna have to carry all the various plants
>> >> as well. All of them. Land plants don't care for major floods, and would all
>> >> die. Fresh-water plants don't like too much salt, and would all die.
>> >
>> >Would seeds die too?
>>
>> Yep.
>
>ALL seeds? Not one o' survive? Ones covered in rocks?
Yep.
>> >
>> > Marine
>> >> plants don't like too little salt and would all die. Estuary plants, who
>> >> don't care about the salt content, do care about water pressure... and would
>> >> all die long before the corals (see above) would. After Ye Floode would come
>> >> Ye Dust Storm, as the wind dries up the mud and blows away the topsoil
>> >> because there's no ground cover left to preserve it, it's all dead in Ye
>> >> Floode.
>> >
>> >Under ye' all assumptions.
>>
>> Care to demonstrate how marine organisms and freshwater organisms
>> could have lived?
>
>Some suggest that the oceans were not as salty in the past, and that
>the salt derives from the earth.
Suggesting is easy. Evidence shows otherwise.
>> >> Problem 9: Disease/parasites. Tapeworm, AIDs, leprosy, etc, they're all
>> >> living creatures too. If they were not on Ye Arke, they died. Some of them
>> >> _require_ a _living_ host. Which one or ones of Noah's crew carried herpes,
>> >> which hookworm, which Ebola? How about ticks, fleas, lice?
>> >
>> >Under y'all assumptions. No evolutionists really tell us where AIDS,
>> >leprosy and so fourth come from.
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Problem #10: Latent heat of vaporisation. Do you know how much heat water
>> >> releases when it turns from vapour to liquid? Ever have a steam burn? 1gof
>> >> steam condenses to 1g of liquid water plus 2261 joules! A cubic meter of
>> >> water is a million grams and the surface of the Earth is 5.09 x 10^8 km2or
>> >> 5.09 x1014 m2. Thus, if we drop a measely meter of water a day for 40days,
>> >> the amount of energy released is 2261 joules/g * 1,000,000 g/m3 *5.09*10^14
>> >> m3 per day or 1.15 * 10^24 joules a day or 249,300,000 megatonnes/day! The
>> >> pentagon would envy such an arsenal. Put another way, for every m of water
>> >> level increase, we have to release 2.261 billion joules/m2. At a rate of 1
>> >> m/day, this comes to 2.261 billion joules/day/m2 or a radiance of 26
>> >> kilowatts/m2, roughly 20 times the brightness of the sun! Result: The
>> >> atmosphere rapidly turns into incandescent plasma incinerating Noah and Ye
>> >> Arke. Nothing survives, the oceans boil and the land is baked into pottery.
>> >> There's more, but this has gotten too long already. If you _really_ want to
>> >> see why I use that sig, check out the t.o FAQs and run the calcs for
>> >> yourself. It's not difficult to do. It's simple. Anyone who takes Ye Arke
>> >> seriously either hasn't done the math or can't add.
>> >
>> >
>> >If you all believe that all the water came from rain, y'all be wrong.
>> >Some of the water came out of the earth. Additionally, the mountains
>> >were not as tall, so again, ye assumptions be wrong.
>> >
>> >Ye all come back here again and see all the mischief debunked, ya
>> >hear?
>> >
>> >John McCoy
Tracy P. Hamilton
Tsk, tsk. You are reading the text literally, unlike the creationists!
Tracy P. Hamilton
Adam Marczyk
news:5f498a0a.01120...@posting.google.com...
[snip]
> > Ah at last we have an explicit acknowledgement that a miracle is
> > required.
>
> It's nice to know that you've recognized that. But I hardly call the
> Lord showing up as a miracle.
ROFL! Oh, if only this were on a.a., we'd have a strong contender for Theist
Quote of the Month. ;)
[snip]
--
And I want to conquer the world,
give all the idiots a brand new religion,
put an end to poverty, uncleanliness and toil,
promote equality in all of my decisions...
--Bad Religion, "I Want to Conquer the World"
Adam Marczyk
news:<3C0B2D92...@yahoo.com>...
> > John McCoy wrote:
> >
> > > If I
> > > had a bunch of birds in a cage and I wanted to save myself the trouble
> > > of dumping the droppings I would simply build a slot underneath the
> > > cages (which are interlinked) and with a push broom slide the
> > > droppings into a chute.
> >
> > > Any sensible person would have constructed the apparatus as such, but
> > > for some reason you've overlooked it. I'm a practical person and I'm
> > > just amazed at the stupidity that I see here.
> >
> > > I'm sorry, but your con game is over.
> >
> > Hmmm, have you tried building these neat, easily cleaned, push-broom
> > bottomed equipped cages for a few hundred dinosaurs, elephants,
> > rhinos, whales yet?
>
>
> For larger animals I've already suggested a shaft for receiving the said
excrement.
>
> Why don't you, for once, think of solutions?
>
> I guess you don't know the word creativity.
And as has been pointed out, if this shaft has an opening below the
waterline, Ye Arke will rapidly take on water, flood and sink. You can only
have moon pools in an airtight enclosed vessel such as a submarine. OTOH, if
the shaft has an opening _above_ the waterline ... well, I don't know how
you propose Noah and company pumped it.
Robin Levett
> On 2 Dec 2001 23:25:26 -0500, jm...@hotmail.com (John McCoy) wrote:
>
> >Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bsdi0uo32iqokaov6...@4ax.com>...
> >> On 1 Dec 2001 05:06:00 -0500, jm...@hotmail.com (John McCoy) wrote:
> >>
<snip>
> >> >Y'all forgets that calculations already fit the animals on the Ark.
> >> >Now, as to how the animals get there, it says the Lord brought them
> >> >there. Y'all ignorant.
> >>
> >> Ah at last we have an explicit acknowledgement that a miracle is
> >> required.
> >
> >It's nice to know that you've recognized that. But I hardly call the
> >Lord showing up as a miracle.
>
> I'd hardly call it science. What's your intention? Are you trying to
> get the Ark accepted as an object of scientific stud?
How does a scientific stud differ from an ordinary stud? Is it his
methoids, or the letters after his name?
> If so, no
> miracles.
>
The Ark as an "object of scientifc stud"? If that means what it looks like
it means, miracles are required; the Arke is allegedly 450 (or 515) feet
long!
--
________________________________________________________________
Robin Levett
rle...@ibmrlevett.uklinux.net
(address munged by addition of Big Blue)
Atheist = knows of and uses Occam's Razor
Agnostic = knows of but isn't sure whether to use Occam's Razor
Fundy = what's Ockam's erasure?
___________________________________________________
eyelessgame
> pounds.
> A bale of hay weighs about 50 pounds. Dimensions are 2 x 2 x 4 for total of
> 16 cu feet. Approximately 18,000 bales of hay.
>
> Doing some calcs, gives us 288,000 cubic feet of hay. That's 32,000 cubic
> yards of hay.
The Ark is nonsense, of course, but your math has an error. There's 27
cubic feet to a yard. 288000 cu ft is only 10667 cubic yards.
Jesse976
> Darwin told us that swim bladders transmuted into lungs.
Is that as basic an error as Woodmorappe's confusion of mean and
median? Btw what's wrong with Darwin's idea? mvp>>
No evolutionist continues to hold that view. I did not think that my example
(of utter failures of Darwin and Evolution) would be seriously maintained by
evolutionists, today.
mel turner
[Jesse976] wrote...
>> Darwin told us that swim bladders transmuted into lungs.
And he was right as far as that went. The "swim bladders" that he had
in mind were evidently the primitive "lungs" of things like lungfish
and _Polypterus_. "Swim bladders" or "lungs" like those did indeed
give rise to tetrapod lungs and to the specialized swim bladders of
modern teleosts. Darwin erred perhaps if he thought the flotation
function was the original one, but the early "swim bladder"/"lungs"
of early bony fish may well have served both types of functions
simultaneously. So, Darwin's suggested sequence of functional changes
would be modified a bit, but not his suggested precursor structures.
>Is that as basic an error as Woodmorappe's confusion of mean and
>median? Btw what's wrong with Darwin's idea? mvp>>
As far as I can tell, Darwin's suggestion wasn't an "error"
at all.
Are suggested reasonable hypotheses ever really "errors", even
if they are later found to be incorrect?
Woody's mistake on the other hand was just silly. How do you put an
elephant into a matchbox? Simple. Put several small insects in there
as well, so that the median size of the group will be
small-insect-sized. Room to spare...
>No evolutionist continues to hold that view.
Wrong. It's more just a semantic/terminological quibble whether
the ancestral structures are to be called "swim bladders" or
"primitive lungs". The structures are the same.
I did not think that my example
>(of utter failures of Darwin and Evolution)
You have no real examples of any such "utter failures"
>would be seriously maintained by
>evolutionists, today.
Again, you're wrong about that. Darwin was basically right,
apart perhaps from the flotation vs respiration functionality...
cheers
syvanen
If you really want to find suggestions by Darwin that are totally
incorrect you should read his Plants and Animals Under Cultivation and
learn about gemules. The swim bladder hypothesis is the wrong one in
that it is close to right.
Mike Syvanen
pz
syv...@ucdavis.edu (syvanen) wrote:
Except that it is backwards, and lungs transmuted into swim bladders.
--
pz
John McCoy
> In article <5f498a0a.0112...@posting.google.com>,
> jm...@hotmail.com says...
> > "Michael Painter" <m.pa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<omcN7.133893$WW.84...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
>
> > > An elephant alone eats 300 pounds of hay a day. A horse eats about 30
> > > pounds, a cow about 20-25, a bison about the same, a giraffe perhaps 100, a
> > > rhinocerous about 175-200.
> > > These are good estimated weights of the amount of food needed.
> >
> > It would be nice if you could come up with ESTIMATES based on
> > hibernation.
>
> I used to be a zoo keeper, trust me.
I'd be nice that you'd know that I never said that. It would also be
nice to know how these animals deal with coldness.
>
> > > I'm not even going to try to figure out how much hay would be needed for
> > > Not to mention the sheer volume excreted. Herbivores' digestive systems
> > > aren't particularly efficient; most of what goes in comes out again.
> > > Wonder how many shovels they had on the Ark? And how many hours per day
> > > Noah, et. al. spent shoveling?
> >
> > It'd be nice if you calculated shoveling based on ready made conduits
> > in which case no shoveling was necessary.
>
> Healthy elephant manure comes out with the consistancy of wet hay, at
> least a 100 pounds of it per animal per day. Then you use high preassure
> water hoses and brooms. Feeding, watering and cleaning two elephants
> takes one person a minimum of three hours of work per day. Doing all
> this aboard ship at sea with only manual labor . . . It'd be nice if you
> had a clue.
It'd be nice if you told us what age the elephant has to be to
produce at leat 100 pounts od manure.
>
> > It's hard to imagine that a sizable flood could destroy all of the
> > billions of creatures that you've y'all said would happen, specially
> > since it just take just y'all two of a pair to survive.
>
> No one is arguing against a "sizable flood". It's Noah's flood, covering
> the entire Earth that we're talking about. Remember?
It'd be nice if you weren't presumptive.
>
>
> rg
John McCoy
> "Robt Gotschall" <resta...@theend.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1672abc8b...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> > In article <5f498a0a.0112...@posting.google.com>,
> > jm...@hotmail.com says...
>
>
> > > It's hard to imagine that a sizable flood could destroy all of the
> > > billions of creatures that you've y'all said would happen, specially
> > > since it just take just y'all two of a pair to survive.
> >
> > No one is arguing against a "sizable flood". It's Noah's flood, covering
> > the entire Earth that we're talking about. Remember?
>
> ~240km X ~200km), the biggest known flood incident on Earth
> were the Scablands floods, which represents about 0.04% of the
> land surface of Earth, generously speaking. [All are encouraged
> to sanity-check my math.] The local flood-related landforms
> there are huge, unlike standard stream-cut features like the Grand
> Canyon.
It must've been a pretty wide stream at one time. Or did a tremendous
amount of ziggy zaggy.
It'd also be nice if you told those American Indians that they lied
when they said a world wide flood made the Grand Canyon.
John McCoy
>
> Noelie
John McCoy
I'd be nice if you knew that nobody would suggest a shaft below the waterline.
John McCoy
pz
Well, I'm confused now. I thought I knew what a moon pool was, but are
you now suggesting that it does *not* involve a hole in the bottom of a
ship?
--
pz
mel turner
wrote...
It's right in that swim bladders and lungs are homologous, and
that significant changes in functions were involved.
>Except that it is backwards, and lungs transmuted into swim bladders.
It seems to me that Darwin's idea was really "backwards" only in fact
he clearly thought the bouyancy function was the original one. From
the text it's pretty clear that the "swim bladders" that he had in
mind were the "primitive lungs" of things like lungfish and Polypterus,
etc.. [I don't recall seeing him referring to the 'lungs' of any fish
as anything but "swim-bladders".More recent workers might prefer to
call these "lungs", but the ancestral structures may well have
functioned both as "lungs" and as "swimbladders".
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=638voq%24df0%241%40news.duke.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=79jpdc%244d7%241%40news.duke.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=848r4f%24488%241%40news.duke.edu
etc.
cheers
Pat James
(in message <5f498a0a.01120...@posting.google.com>):
> It'd also be nice if you told those American Indians that they lied when
> they said a world wide flood made the Grand Canyon.
nameless, if you're right, and there _was_ a World-Wide Floode as per
Genesis, with Grand Admiral Naoh and his family on the superbarge Arke, then
there were (pay close attention, now) _no witnesses to the creation of the
Grand Canyon_. Everyone not on Ye Arke died, remember? Ye Arke launched from
Palestine, remember? No-one in the Grand Admiral's crew came from anywhere
near the Grand Canyon, remember? So therefore no-one of those who _did_
survive knew what was there before Ye Floode, right? Even if some of the
Grand Admiral's crew went over _after_ Ye Floode, then they wouldn't have
known what was there beforehand, right?
So now, nameless... you're saying that Genesis is _not_ an accurate
description of events, 'cause obviously if any Amerinds survived, then the
Bible is _incorrect_ when it says that all not on Ye Arke died. That, or
_you're_ saying that the Amerinds are lying. They couldn't have been there!
Andrew Glasgow
> "Noelie S. Alito" <noe...@deadspam.com> wrote in message
> news:<9uc4s1$7g702$1...@ID-117948.news.dfncis.de>...
> > "Robt Gotschall" <resta...@theend.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1672abc8b...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> > > In article <5f498a0a.0112...@posting.google.com>,
> > > jm...@hotmail.com says...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > It's hard to imagine that a sizable flood could destroy all of the
> > > > billions of creatures that you've y'all said would happen, specially
> > > > since it just take just y'all two of a pair to survive.
> > >
> > > No one is arguing against a "sizable flood". It's Noah's flood, covering
> > > the entire Earth that we're talking about. Remember?
> >
> > By my calculations (Earth's radius=6400km, Scablands covering
> > ~240km X ~200km), the biggest known flood incident on Earth
> > were the Scablands floods, which represents about 0.04% of the
> > land surface of Earth, generously speaking. [All are encouraged
> > to sanity-check my math.] The local flood-related landforms
> > there are huge, unlike standard stream-cut features like the Grand
> > Canyon.
>
> It must've been a pretty wide stream at one time. Or did a tremendous
> amount of ziggy zaggy.
The Colorado is a pretty big river as rivers go. Has some fairly
violent floods, too, or used to before it was dammed.
> It'd also be nice if you told those American Indians that they lied
> when they said a world wide flood made the Grand Canyon.
Well, we're telling the Hebrews the same thing. Why should that bother
us?
OK: Any Indians out there who believe that a world-wide flood made the
GC: you're wrong. HTH, HAND.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> Note: address in header munged. |
| "It's 106 light-years to Chicago, we've got a full chamber of anti-matter, |
| a half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing visors." |
| "Engage." -- Paul Tomblin in the scary devil monastery |
Louann Miller
>On Fri, 7 Dec 2001 0:22:44 -0500, John McCoy wrote
>(in message <5f498a0a.01120...@posting.google.com>):
>
>> It'd also be nice if you told those American Indians that they lied when
>> they said a world wide flood made the Grand Canyon.
>
>nameless, if you're right, and there _was_ a World-Wide Floode as per
>Genesis, with Grand Admiral Naoh and his family on the superbarge Arke, then
>there were (pay close attention, now) _no witnesses to the creation of the
>Grand Canyon_. Everyone not on Ye Arke died, remember? Ye Arke launched from
>Palestine, remember? No-one in the Grand Admiral's crew came from anywhere
>near the Grand Canyon, remember? So therefore no-one of those who _did_
>survive knew what was there before Ye Floode, right? Even if some of the
>Grand Admiral's crew went over _after_ Ye Floode, then they wouldn't have
>known what was there beforehand, right?
>
>So now, nameless... you're saying that Genesis is _not_ an accurate
>description of events, 'cause obviously if any Amerinds survived, then the
>Bible is _incorrect_ when it says that all not on Ye Arke died. That, or
>_you're_ saying that the Amerinds are lying. They couldn't have been there!
He didn't respond to this line of reasoning the last time it was
posted, so I doubt he'll do so now. (With the possible exception of an
ad hominem, which would still be a non-response to the main body of
the text.) It's his M.O.
Andrew Glasgow
Pat James <patj...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2001 0:22:44 -0500, John McCoy wrote
> (in message <5f498a0a.01120...@posting.google.com>):
>
> > It'd also be nice if you told those American Indians that they lied when
> > they said a world wide flood made the Grand Canyon.
>
> nameless, if you're right, and there _was_ a World-Wide Floode as per
> Genesis, with Grand Admiral Naoh and his family on the superbarge Arke, then
> there were (pay close attention, now) _no witnesses to the creation of the
> Grand Canyon_. Everyone not on Ye Arke died, remember? Ye Arke launched from
> Palestine, remember? No-one in the Grand Admiral's crew came from anywhere
> near the Grand Canyon, remember? So therefore no-one of those who _did_
> survive knew what was there before Ye Floode, right? Even if some of the
> Grand Admiral's crew went over _after_ Ye Floode, then they wouldn't have
> known what was there beforehand, right?
>
> So now, nameless... you're saying that Genesis is _not_ an accurate
> description of events, 'cause obviously if any Amerinds survived, then the
> Bible is _incorrect_ when it says that all not on Ye Arke died. That, or
> _you're_ saying that the Amerinds are lying. They couldn't have been there!
Prediction: The Unreal McCoy will ignore Pat's post.
^5, Pat.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> Note: address in header munged. |
| "SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical reasons* why it |
| is necessary to sacrifice a young goat to your SCSI chain now and then." |
| -- John Woods |
Barrett Richardson
On 7 Dec 2001, John McCoy wrote:
> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@hotmailNOTexcite.com> wrote in message news:<u0ogd0k...@corp.supernews.com>...
> >
> > And as has been pointed out, if this shaft has an opening below the
> > waterline, Ye Arke will rapidly take on water, flood and sink. You can only
> > have moon pools in an airtight enclosed vessel such as a submarine. OTOH, if
> > the shaft has an opening _above_ the waterline ... well, I don't know how
> > you propose Noah and company pumped it.
>
> I'd be nice if you knew that nobody would suggest a shaft below the waterline.
>
In which case you have to pack all the crap to above waterline to dispose
of it and don't get a significant savings in labor for crap disposal.
You're better off by not introducing a break in the middle of a 450+ ft
wooden structure and packing the crap up to the top deck and tossing
it overboard.
-
B
pz
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2001 0:22:44 -0500, John McCoy wrote
> (in message <5f498a0a.01120...@posting.google.com>):
>
> > It'd also be nice if you told those American Indians that they lied when
> > they said a world wide flood made the Grand Canyon.
>
> nameless, if you're right, and there _was_ a World-Wide Floode as per
> Genesis, with Grand Admiral Naoh and his family on the superbarge Arke, then
> there were (pay close attention, now) _no witnesses to the creation of the
> Grand Canyon_. Everyone not on Ye Arke died, remember? Ye Arke launched from
> Palestine, remember? No-one in the Grand Admiral's crew came from anywhere
> near the Grand Canyon, remember? So therefore no-one of those who _did_
> survive knew what was there before Ye Floode, right? Even if some of the
> Grand Admiral's crew went over _after_ Ye Floode, then they wouldn't have
> known what was there beforehand, right?
>
> So now, nameless... you're saying that Genesis is _not_ an accurate
> description of events, 'cause obviously if any Amerinds survived, then the
> Bible is _incorrect_ when it says that all not on Ye Arke died. That, or
> _you're_ saying that the Amerinds are lying. They couldn't have been there!
Good job invoking the ol' cognitive dissonance, and flattening his
argument with a logical contradiction. Too bad McCoy is completely
immune to such attacks: cognition and logic aren't part of his makeup.
--
pz
syvanen
Isn't that pretty close in this business? Just got the direction of
the arrow wrong. Gould has argued that wouldn't even be necessarily
wrong in his Time's Arrow.
Mike Syvanen
pz
I'd give Chuck credit on that one. The significant point is that they
are homologous organs.
--
pz
Adam Marczyk
> Robt Gotschall <resta...@theend.com> wrote in message
news:<MPG.1672abc8b...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
> > In article <5f498a0a.0112...@posting.google.com>,
> > jm...@hotmail.com says...
> > > "Michael Painter" <m.pa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:<omcN7.133893$WW.84...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> >
> > > > Obviously he hasn't a clue how much it takes to feed herbivores.
> > > > An elephant alone eats 300 pounds of hay a day. A horse eats about
30
> > > > pounds, a cow about 20-25, a bison about the same, a giraffe perhaps
100, a
> > > > rhinocerous about 175-200.
> > > > These are good estimated weights of the amount of food needed.
> > >
> > > It would be nice if you could come up with ESTIMATES based on
> > > hibernation.
> >
> > Elephants, horses, cows. bisons, giraffes and rhinos, do not hibernate.
> > I used to be a zoo keeper, trust me.
>
> I'd be nice that you'd know that I never said that. It would also be
> nice to know how these animals deal with coldness.
Hmm. Apparently Noah now had cryogenic technology.
> > > > I'm not even going to try to figure out how much hay would be
needed for
> > > > Not to mention the sheer volume excreted. Herbivores' digestive
systems
> > > > aren't particularly efficient; most of what goes in comes out again.
> > > > Wonder how many shovels they had on the Ark? And how many hours per
day
> > > > Noah, et. al. spent shoveling?
> > >
> > > It'd be nice if you calculated shoveling based on ready made conduits
> > > in which case no shoveling was necessary.
> >
> > Healthy elephant manure comes out with the consistancy of wet hay, at
> > least a 100 pounds of it per animal per day. Then you use high
preassure
> > water hoses and brooms. Feeding, watering and cleaning two elephants
> > takes one person a minimum of three hours of work per day. Doing all
> > this aboard ship at sea with only manual labor . . . It'd be nice if
you
> > had a clue.
>
> It'd be nice if you told us what age the elephant has to be to
> produce at leat 100 pounts od manure.
Younger elephants eat even more, owing to the fact that they're still
growing. You can move the problem around, but you can't get rid of it.
[snip]
--
And I want to conquer the world,
give all the idiots a brand new religion,
put an end to poverty, uncleanliness and toil,
promote equality in all of my decisions...
--Bad Religion, "I Want to Conquer the World"
http://www.ebonmusings.org ICQ: 8777843
Adam Marczyk
news:01HW.B83622430...@enews.newsguy.com...
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2001 0:22:44 -0500, John McCoy wrote
> (in message <5f498a0a.01120...@posting.google.com>):
>
> > It'd also be nice if you told those American Indians that they lied when
> > they said a world wide flood made the Grand Canyon.
>
> nameless, if you're right, and there _was_ a World-Wide Floode as per
> Genesis, with Grand Admiral Naoh and his family on the superbarge Arke,
then
> there were (pay close attention, now) _no witnesses to the creation of the
> Grand Canyon_. Everyone not on Ye Arke died, remember? Ye Arke launched
from
> Palestine, remember? No-one in the Grand Admiral's crew came from anywhere
> near the Grand Canyon, remember? So therefore no-one of those who _did_
> survive knew what was there before Ye Floode, right? Even if some of the
> Grand Admiral's crew went over _after_ Ye Floode, then they wouldn't have
> known what was there beforehand, right?
>
> So now, nameless... you're saying that Genesis is _not_ an accurate
> description of events, 'cause obviously if any Amerinds survived, then the
> Bible is _incorrect_ when it says that all not on Ye Arke died. That, or
> _you're_ saying that the Amerinds are lying. They couldn't have been
there!
Arguments such as those about the drying time of sedimentary rock or angular
unconformities in Grand Canyon strata will doubtless have no effect on the
nameless one, so let me try something closer to his level of cognition: If
the Grand Canyon is the result of a global flood, how come there aren't
Grand Canyon-like features all over the planet?
Adam Marczyk
It was you who suggested moon pools, was it not? "Shaft below the waterline"
is a precise definition of what a moon pool is.
But okay, I'll let you change your argument again. If the toilet openings
are above the waterline, then someone's got to shovel all that crap and cart
it up there. That's hundreds of pounds of manure per day, from thousands of
different animals. This is a totally implausible amount of work for a crew
of eight. The stench must have been literally intolerable, and a better
breeding ground for infectious disease could not be imagined. You can move
the problem around, but you can't get rid of it.
--
And I want to conquer the world,
give all the idiots a brand new religion,
put an end to poverty, uncleanliness and toil,
promote equality in all of my decisions...
--Bad Religion, "I Want to Conquer the World"
http://www.ebonmusings.org ICQ: 8777843
Dana Tweedy
snip
> > > It would be nice if you could come up with ESTIMATES based on
> > > hibernation.
> >
> > Elephants, horses, cows. bisons, giraffes and rhinos, do not hibernate.
> > I used to be a zoo keeper, trust me.
>
> I'd be nice that you'd know that I never said that. It would also be
> nice to know how these animals deal with coldness.
They deal with coldness by dying. What makes you think Noah had
refrigeration?
Snip of rest.
DJT