Ark Problems - why I can't believe...
ksjj
In article <57mtgj$n...@news.gate.net>, dan...@gate.net wrote:
> I've been watching the Ark thread for awhile, and I thought I'd post my own
> take on the story. Even though I grew up believing the story to be
literal and
> true, I cannot now believe that it really happened. Most of the
objections I've
> come up with over the years are the same objections I see here on
talk.origins.
> So I thought I'd summarize:
>
> 1. A handful of people built a huge wooden ship in about a year, plus cages,
> temperature controls, food distribution and waste management systems, and
> gathered enough food for every kind of animal on earth to last at least two
> years, and in the case of predators, possibly up to 10 years (see item 9 way
> down below). Without a miracle, impossible.
Noah and his help had 120 years to build the ark.
>
> 2. Animals show up from all over the planet neatly sorted according to
> Hebrew dietary restrictions. Need a miracle here, obviously.
Just like uniformatarian/evolution models, the creation model has the
worlds joined as one or two land masses. The animals did not have to
cross great oceans in order to meet the ark. Other animals could have
been collected by people Noah hired or even brought in from zoos. Still
other animals could have been local animals living in the area. Noah had
over 120 years to collect all of the animals.
>
> 3. Food storage would occupy at least 2/3 of the ark. My two dogs (total
> weight: 160 lbs) eat 40-50 lbs of food a month between the two of them.
> Even if I cut that to 20 lbs/month, that's still 240 lbs per year, well over
> their combined body weight. I don't know how dogs compare to larger or
> smaller animals w/respect to body weight, but my guess is that most
> animals eat way more than their own body weight in one year. Maybe a
> miracle occurred here too, perhaps a trial run of Christ feeding the 5,000
> with a couple of fish...<g>
The average size animal in the animal kingdom is about the size of a
house cat or small rodent.
Of course one knows that and elephant is large and requires much more
space than a cat, but, we also must remember that a mouse is small and
requires much less space than a cat. In the animal kingdom it should also
be mentioned that there is also more smaller animals than larger animals.
Approximately 11% of the animals on the ark would have been bigger than a
sheep. Keep in mind that the animal size would also have been greatly
reduced by bringing onboard infants at the start of the flood.
>
> 4. Food and water. Storing these is one thing, but distribution? Buckets
> and wheelbarrows? I consume .5 to 1 gallon of water a day, which (I think)
> comes to up to a half ton of water in one year. Was all that water also on
> board? Or did they sneak on a massive water purification/deslinization sytem
> and not tell Moses about it when Moses wrote this story? Even if the water
> outside the ark was fresh, it was filled with rotting carcasses and could not
> have been potable. Need a miracle here, too.
Noah probably started with a supply on the ark, then collected rain water
from the roof of the ark. No miracle needed.
>
> 5. No Biblical mention of waste disposal systems. I canNOT imagine a
> handful of people chugging up and down the decks with buckets and wheel-
> barrows full of recycled chow for all those animals - to do what, dump it
> out the one window in the ark? Looks like we need miracle number 3 in
> reverse!
The ark would have incorporated specially designed self cleaning cages in
some instances. (sloping floors and collection gutters)
As one of the process for disposing the manure on the ark Noah could have
used a technique known as *Vermicomposting*. Noah could have easily used
thousands or even millions of worms to decompose the animal droppings. In
fact this process is seen today in some rabbit hatcheries. This method
virtualy eliminates all problems associated with odors or noxious gases.
>
> 6. Speaking of that one window, there is no way a single window on a huge
> vessel like that can provide enough air circulation to keep all those animals
> alive. Maybe the next miracle permitted them to hold their breath throughout
> the voyage.
The window went around the top of the ark and was quite large. Sorry, no
miracle needed here.
Noah would have incorporated a flue in the ark to bring in fresh air. The
warm body heat against the cool walls of the ark would have caused natural
ventilation to help circulate the air up and out the window than ran along
the sides of the ark. If that wasn't enough noah could have used some of
the larger ox like animals to turn fans to force the ventillaton.
>
> 7. Seaworthiness of the ark: held together by pitch? *How* big was this
> thing? No way. Even if we give Moses the benefit of the doubt and trust
> that he neglected to mention some structural detail that *would* have kept
> the ark from collapsing under its own weight, we now have to look at
> stability. We can only assume that even if properly ballasted, the helmless
> rudderless ark must have spent a great deal of time broadside to the waves.
> Many flood theorists insist that the flood was forcefull enough to create
> mountain ranges, carve out the Grand Canyon, etc. Such forces would have
> had that ark rolling over many times. Unless, of course, miracle number 7
> put angels on each side of it to steer the thing into the waves.
Who said it was held together by pitch? The pitch was a waterproofing/wood
preservative.
For the rest of your point about the construction and sea-worthyness of
the ark I suggest you learn a little more about the shape and construction
style of the boat. Tank test have already demonstrated that the ark would
not capsize.
BTW: The Grand Canyon was formed after the flood when the Hopi and the
Grand lakes busted through the natural dams and eroded away the newly laid
down semi-hard strata.
>
> 8. Landing - after a turbulent sea voyage, you don't have to send birds out
> the window to figure out when you're hard aground....
This point makes no sense at all.
>
> 9. Now that you're on dry ground, you pretty much have to sit there and keep
> feeding your zoo for at least another year to give the plant seeds (which have
> presumably been drifting in the water) time to re-establish themselves in
> ground that has had all of its top-soil stripped away by a violent flood. So
> we're looking at two years from the time the animals came on board to the
> time when enough vegetation is around to support *some* of them. Once your
> vegetation munching animals are out and about, you now have to give *them*
> time to establish populations that could then support the predators.
Let's say
> seven deer get on the ark. Noah and family eat one in a year, and let's say
> the remaining deer are one male and five females. When you let the animals
> off the ark, you might (at best) have 1 male, five females, and five fawns,
> (also hopefully females). Five years later, assuming way-disproportionately
> low male/female ratios, you might have several hundred deer. Now let your
> wolves and lions and tigers and jaguars and hyenas and foxes and badgers and
> etc off the boat. One pather will eat at least a dozen deer in a year. When
> that panther breeds, it doesn't give birth to one or two at a time, but to
> litters of 6-10. Same with the wolves. Better give the prey herds at least
> a 10 year head start...
> So now you're feeding a population of predators for *much* longer than
> the other animals, meaning even more food to be stored on the ark. That or
> more and more divine intervention.
The answer to your argument is presented in two parts below.
PLANT SURVIVAL AND THE FLOOD
There are many ways inwhich plants could have survived the flood of Noah.
The first and most obvious is that some of the seeds were aboard the ark.
The ark stored grains and other foods used to feed the animals. These
stored foods would have had seeds associated with them that later could
have germinated and grown outside of the ark. It零 possible/probable that
Noah could have brough an assortment of seeds on board of the ark so he
could re-populate the earth with these plants after the waters receded.
Other methods of preserving the seed is for them to float on the water
during the flood where after the water receded they could then germinate
in the soil. Of course not all seed would be able to survive in that
fashion, yet some would. Floating vegetation rafts would have also
provided a means for other plants to have survived the flood waters. As
the flood waters uprooted trees and other vegetation they would have
clumped together in extremely large rafts later settling on to the moist
ground after the waters receded and then begin to grow. Still others
seeds would have been buried during the flood only to sprout after the
waters had left the surface of the continents. Some of the seeds buried
deep in the flood sediment during the initial phase of the flood could
have been brought to the surface as flood waters eroded away the upper
layers as the water receded. Once that happened they to would have a
chance to germinate.
Trees like the olive or the locust can root just by sticking a branch
into the ground and certainly would have survived the flood if they were
buried or settled on the surface.
Ref, Noah零 Ark a feasibility study, John Woodmorappe
SOME FOOD PROBLEM SOLUTIONS
1. Seaweed. Here are some of the following animals that eat seaweed:
Moose, buffalo,Elephants,sheep,rabbits,cattle,horses,bears etc.
2. Edible Fungi would have also been avialable for consumption.
3. Carcasses. Dead animals that sunk to great depth would not be subject
to much bacterial decay. Later if they floated to the surface or an area
drained, the animals could have eaten them. Especially the scavengers.
Other animals that eat carrion are, vultures, hyenas, jackals, lions,
tigers, cheetas, ratels, leopards, foxes, wolves, otters, wild pigs,
elephants various snakes etc.
4. Fish, molluscs, crustaceans and other aquatic life would have made nice
meals for some of the animals after they left the ark.
5. Rodents that were released from the ark would multiply quite rapidly
and provide food for some of the animals. These rodents were probably bred
on the ark as food for some of the animals during the flood. What what
not used was let go.
>
> 10. It's been suggested here that maybe "microevolution" happened after the
> flood, and that 1 cat pair was aboard that evolved into all the cat kinds we
> see today. Likewise one cow/ox pair, one doggy pair, one monkey pair, etc.
> This would be quite a stunning redefinition of "micro" evolution. Did the
> kitty cats on the ark evolve into the lion slain by Sampson only 1000-1500
> years later? Sounds miraculous to me.
The following is a list from Noahs Ark A feasibilty Study. The list shows
the needed class/order of the animals and the genera number to the right.
It's quite clear that all the cats did not come from just 2 cats like you
suggest. The carnivora had 696 different kinds to *micro-evolve* (as you
put it.)
Number of animals (Male & Female) present from each order-class on ark.
Passeriformes 2,236
Squamata 1,938
Rodentia 1,746
Artiodactyla 1,144
Carnivora 696
Therapsida 508
Marsupialia 468
Perrissodactyla 436
Chiroptera 412
Primates 412
Insectivora 404
Saurischia 390
Gruiformes 280
Ornithischia 278
Apodiformes 276
Notoungulata 252
Edentata 250
Charadriiformes 208
Condylartha 198
Galliformes 176
Falconiformes 170
Psittaciformes 164
Captorhinida 152
Thecodontia 144
Piciformes 128
(add remaining 61 land-vertebrate orders
15,754
Reference Noahs Ark a Feasibility Study page 11
John Woodmorappe
>
> 11. And finally, most of the animals in the Americas would have found ideal
> environments to thrive in between Ararat and their present locales, yet they
> left no populations behind and no fossils of themselves behind. There should
> be bison, raccoons, pumas and prairie dogs all over Europe and Asia. Not to
> mention kanagaroos and kiwi birds (flightless, but they got 1000 miles off
> shore to New Zealand). And let's not forget the Llama, an animal perfectly
> suited to high snowy peaks, but we're supposed to believe that they *left*
> the Himalayas, crossed plains and deserts and oceans to go half-way around
> the world to the Andes mountains? Riiiiiiiight.
At one time in america there were millions (maybe billions) of buffalo
roaming the plains. Today the total population is but a fraction of the
original.
If you could leap ahead in time a few million years and do a dig to try
and discover the buffalo in the americas past, you would find nothing.
Despite an enourmous amount of buffalo in our countrys history, the
geology has captured very little in any evidence. We know they were there
because our recent past has witnessed it. The same may also be true for
the carrier pigeon.
Just because remains of a species is not found, does not mean that the
species in question did not exist in that area.
Animals, like today, have also be introduced into areas by man.
>
> So, without divine intervention at almost every step, the ark would have been
> just as deadly for the animals aboard as for the animals that took their
> chances in the flood. And if divine intervention is needed for this "ark"
> scheme to work, then the scheme doesn't really work at all. For all the
> miracles required, God might have saved himself the trouble and transported
> the whole lot to some high dry peak somewhere and had Noah build a seawall
> and plant a garden, rather than build that huge floating death trap.
Every single point you presented has been answered.
>
> For the Creationists reading this, I hope you now understand why so many
> people have such a hard time accepting the Flood story as fact. I don't point
> these out to attack anyone's beliefs, these points are only my own reasons
> for not accepting the story as literal.
Dan, I think you should have studied up first before you made your points.
As you can see they were unfounded and easily refuted.
>
> Peace,
>
> Dan
--
see ya,
karl
*********************************************
The Bible says dust. Not evolution.
Unknown
In article <ksjj-29119...@ppp-abe-415.fast.net>, ks...@fast.net says...
>
>In article <57mtgj$n...@news.gate.net>, dan...@gate.net wrote:
>
>> I've been watching the Ark thread for awhile, and I thought I'd post my own
>> take on the story. Even though I grew up believing the story to be
>literal and
>> true, I cannot now believe that it really happened. Most of the
>objections I've
>> come up with over the years are the same objections I see here on
>talk.origins.
>> So I thought I'd summarize:
>>
>> 1. A handful of people built a huge wooden ship in about a year, plus cages,
>> temperature controls, food distribution and waste management systems, and
>> gathered enough food for every kind of animal on earth to last at least two
>> years, and in the case of predators, possibly up to 10 years (see item 9 way
>> down below). Without a miracle, impossible.
>
>Noah and his help had 120 years to build the ark.
>>
>> 2. Animals show up from all over the planet neatly sorted according to
>> Hebrew dietary restrictions. Need a miracle here, obviously.
>Just like uniformatarian/evolution models, the creation model has the
>worlds joined as one or two land masses.
Excuse me but what land masses are those?. Are you referring to Pangaea?
Was that before or after the formation of the Appalachians/Caledonian
mountain systems.
How did the Appalachians and Caledonians form in your Creationist geology?
Just curious.....
Go Hide,
Archae Solenhofen (jmca...@gtn.net)
*********************************************
Structural geology says hard old earth . Not young soft plasticine earth.
<SNIP>
dan...@gate.net
I've been watching the Ark thread for awhile, and I thought I'd post my own
take on the story. Even though I grew up believing the story to be literal and
true, I cannot now believe that it really happened. Most of the objections I've
come up with over the years are the same objections I see here on talk.origins.
So I thought I'd summarize:
1. A handful of people built a huge wooden ship in about a year, plus cages,
temperature controls, food distribution and waste management systems, and
gathered enough food for every kind of animal on earth to last at least two
years, and in the case of predators, possibly up to 10 years (see item 9 way
down below). Without a miracle, impossible.
2. Animals show up from all over the planet neatly sorted according to
Hebrew dietary restrictions. Need a miracle here, obviously.
3. Food storage would occupy at least 2/3 of the ark. My two dogs (total
weight: 160 lbs) eat 40-50 lbs of food a month between the two of them.
Even if I cut that to 20 lbs/month, that's still 240 lbs per year, well over
their combined body weight. I don't know how dogs compare to larger or
smaller animals w/respect to body weight, but my guess is that most
animals eat way more than their own body weight in one year. Maybe a
miracle occurred here too, perhaps a trial run of Christ feeding the 5,000
with a couple of fish...<g>
4. Food and water. Storing these is one thing, but distribution? Buckets
and wheelbarrows? I consume .5 to 1 gallon of water a day, which (I think)
comes to up to a half ton of water in one year. Was all that water also on
board? Or did they sneak on a massive water purification/deslinization sytem
and not tell Moses about it when Moses wrote this story? Even if the water
outside the ark was fresh, it was filled with rotting carcasses and could not
have been potable. Need a miracle here, too.
5. No Biblical mention of waste disposal systems. I canNOT imagine a
handful of people chugging up and down the decks with buckets and wheel-
barrows full of recycled chow for all those animals - to do what, dump it
out the one window in the ark? Looks like we need miracle number 3 in
reverse!
6. Speaking of that one window, there is no way a single window on a huge
vessel like that can provide enough air circulation to keep all those animals
alive. Maybe the next miracle permitted them to hold their breath throughout
the voyage.
7. Seaworthiness of the ark: held together by pitch? *How* big was this
thing? No way. Even if we give Moses the benefit of the doubt and trust
that he neglected to mention some structural detail that *would* have kept
the ark from collapsing under its own weight, we now have to look at
stability. We can only assume that even if properly ballasted, the helmless
rudderless ark must have spent a great deal of time broadside to the waves.
Many flood theorists insist that the flood was forcefull enough to create
mountain ranges, carve out the Grand Canyon, etc. Such forces would have
had that ark rolling over many times. Unless, of course, miracle number 7
put angels on each side of it to steer the thing into the waves.
8. Landing - after a turbulent sea voyage, you don't have to send birds out
the window to figure out when you're hard aground....
9. Now that you're on dry ground, you pretty much have to sit there and keep
feeding your zoo for at least another year to give the plant seeds (which have
presumably been drifting in the water) time to re-establish themselves in
ground that has had all of its top-soil stripped away by a violent flood. So
we're looking at two years from the time the animals came on board to the
time when enough vegetation is around to support *some* of them. Once your
vegetation munching animals are out and about, you now have to give *them*
time to establish populations that could then support the predators. Let's say
seven deer get on the ark. Noah and family eat one in a year, and let's say
the remaining deer are one male and five females. When you let the animals
off the ark, you might (at best) have 1 male, five females, and five fawns,
(also hopefully females). Five years later, assuming way-disproportionately
low male/female ratios, you might have several hundred deer. Now let your
wolves and lions and tigers and jaguars and hyenas and foxes and badgers and
etc off the boat. One pather will eat at least a dozen deer in a year. When
that panther breeds, it doesn't give birth to one or two at a time, but to
litters of 6-10. Same with the wolves. Better give the prey herds at least
a 10 year head start...
So now you're feeding a population of predators for *much* longer than
the other animals, meaning even more food to be stored on the ark. That or
more and more divine intervention.
10. It's been suggested here that maybe "microevolution" happened after the
flood, and that 1 cat pair was aboard that evolved into all the cat kinds we
see today. Likewise one cow/ox pair, one doggy pair, one monkey pair, etc.
This would be quite a stunning redefinition of "micro" evolution. Did the
kitty cats on the ark evolve into the lion slain by Sampson only 1000-1500
years later? Sounds miraculous to me.
11. And finally, most of the animals in the Americas would have found ideal
environments to thrive in between Ararat and their present locales, yet they
left no populations behind and no fossils of themselves behind. There should
be bison, raccoons, pumas and prairie dogs all over Europe and Asia. Not to
mention kanagaroos and kiwi birds (flightless, but they got 1000 miles off
shore to New Zealand). And let's not forget the Llama, an animal perfectly
suited to high snowy peaks, but we're supposed to believe that they *left*
the Himalayas, crossed plains and deserts and oceans to go half-way around
the world to the Andes mountains? Riiiiiiiight.
So, without divine intervention at almost every step, the ark would have been
just as deadly for the animals aboard as for the animals that took their
chances in the flood. And if divine intervention is needed for this "ark"
scheme to work, then the scheme doesn't really work at all. For all the
miracles required, God might have saved himself the trouble and transported
the whole lot to some high dry peak somewhere and had Noah build a seawall
and plant a garden, rather than build that huge floating death trap.
For the Creationists reading this, I hope you now understand why so many
people have such a hard time accepting the Flood story as fact. I don't point
these out to attack anyone's beliefs, these points are only my own reasons
for not accepting the story as literal.
Peace,
Dan
Tim Walters
In article <ksjj-29119...@ppp-abe-415.fast.net>,
ksjj <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
> As one of the process for disposing the manure on the ark Noah could have
>used a technique known as *Vermicomposting*. Noah could have easily used
>thousands or even millions of worms to decompose the animal droppings. In
>fact this process is seen today in some rabbit hatcheries. This method
>virtualy eliminates all problems associated with odors or noxious gases.
Karl, how could there have been millions of worms aboard the Ark? The
Bible says there were only two.
Don't you agree with what the Bible says?
--
Tim Walters twal...@netcom.com
Alan Barclay
>other animals could have been local animals living in the area. Noah had
>over 120 years to collect all of the animals.
You do realize this makes your problem worse, not easier. If Noah collected
any animals earlier than a few years before the flood, he now has two new
problems:
1) How to establish breeding populations in captive animals.
2) How to reintroduce captive animals to the wild.
ksjj
In article <twaltersE...@netcom.com>, twal...@netcom.com (Tim
Walters) wrote:
> In article <ksjj-29119...@ppp-abe-415.fast.net>,
> ksjj <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
> > As one of the process for disposing the manure on the ark Noah could have
> >used a technique known as *Vermicomposting*. Noah could have easily used
> >thousands or even millions of worms to decompose the animal droppings. In
> >fact this process is seen today in some rabbit hatcheries. This method
> >virtualy eliminates all problems associated with odors or noxious gases.
>
> Karl, how could there have been millions of worms aboard the Ark? The
> Bible says there were only two.
>
> Don't you agree with what the Bible says?
sure, the bible only referenced what was needed to keep the classes and
orders of animals alive. The worm would have been included. The bible
does not limit Noah to just two worms. As mentioned before, he could have
brought along a few more to help handle the waste. The bible doesn't say
that Noah took on board any clothes, does that mean he was naked? Of
coarse not.
> --
> Tim Walters twal...@netcom.com
ksjj
In article <57pd21$d...@elaine.drink.com>, gor...@elaine.drink.com (Alan
Barclay) wrote:
> In article <ksjj-29119...@ppp-abe-415.fast.net>,
> ksjj <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
> >been collected by people Noah hired or even brought in from zoos. Still
> >other animals could have been local animals living in the area. Noah had
> >over 120 years to collect all of the animals.
>
> You do realize this makes your problem worse, not easier. If Noah collected
> any animals earlier than a few years before the flood, he now has two new
> problems:
>
> 1) How to establish breeding populations in captive animals.
> 2) How to reintroduce captive animals to the wild.
So, by this post your suggesting that points 1 and 2 are impossible?
dan...@gate.net
Karl, I just can't buy your speel. A 120 year old wooden vessel does not
increase my confidence in its seaworthiness. Nor can I buy the idea that
Noah started collecting animals 120 years before they boarded the ark.
The Creation model holds that one or two land masses existed millions of
years ago? That's a new one.
Bringing animals on board the ark as puppies and kittens and cubs would NOT
work for the same reason that animals raised in captivity cannot be released
into the wild when they grow up. They must learn hunting and stalking skills
from others of their own kind in order to survive in the wild. Bringing a lion
cub onto the ark without its parents would be a death sentence for the
entire species.
As for collecting rain water, the rain stopped after 150 days (Gen. 8:2). I
hope Noah collected enough to last another year.
The window size was one cubit (Gen. 6:16), not something that went all the
way around the ark. Stick to the Bible, Karl.
If the flood was so violent that it split the land masses from one or two to
the geography we have today, the keel on the ark just have been colossal to
prevent it from rolling. No design in the world will prevent a vessel from
rocking violently in the kind of seas that would result from a sudden global
flood. Maybe it would help us if you were to post the numbers from that
"tank test" you keep talking about.
As for animals not having to cross oceans to get to the ark, you didn't
address the question I asked, which was how they got from Ararat to their
present locations. More importantly, why would they bother when ideal
environments for most of them can be found within 1000 miles of Ararat. I
still want to know how the platypus got to Australia from there, or how the
hundreds of unique species of worms got to New Zealand, but are found
nowhere else in the world. How did the limpkin snail get from Turkey to
the only place in the world it is found - the Florida Everglades?
Also, no matter how the seeds were planted after the flood, they would still
require up to a year to establish themselves well enough to support thousands
of animals pouring out of the ark. And no matter how well a carcass is
preserved during the flood, it will still go bad in a matter of days once it
becomes exposed to the atmosphere. So you still have to keep the predators
on board the ark for 5-10 years to allow the prey heards to establish
themselves.
Dan
dan...@gate.net
I did spend a couple of hours this afternoon looking at the "feasability study"
Karl posted. I know I'm only going to get a flippant response for my efforts,
but what the hell, here goes.
According to my KJV the ark was 450 feet long, 45 feet tall, 75 feet wide,
and had three decks. If the ark was packed to capacity its volume would be
about 1,500,000 cubic feet.
The study posted leaves out some significant animal groupings. Where are
the dinosaurs? Did they die out only 1000 years after they were "created"?
What about insects? There are 3,000,000 species of insects, yet they are
absent from the feasability study. How many were aboard the ark? The
Bible states that every kind "that creepeth upon the earth" was on the ark.
I would think it would take Noah most of that 120 years just to build
3,000,000 little cages for them all. And cramming cages into a floating
death trap is one thing, but you need to be able to access each and every
cage to feed and water the animals.
The list includes 2,236 perching and song birds (Passeriformes) requiring
cages of about 1x1x1 foot each if these birds are to be allowed to even
stretch their wings. That's 2,236 cubic feet. 280 grails and cranes
(Gruiformes), somewhat larger, better give them 2x2x2 cages = 2240 ft3.
Swifts, hummingbirds, shorebirds, gulls, pheasants, hawks, parrots, macaws,
and woodpeckers made the list (Apodiformes, Charadriformes, Galliformes,
Falconiformes, Psittaciformes, Piciformes). Need *at least* 2x2x2 cages
avg for each pair of these, times 1122 total equals 8976 ft3. So far we
have over 13,000 cubic feet occupied by *some* of the birds. Not on the
list are Ciconiiformes (herons, ibis, egrets, bitterns, storks), Columbiformes
(pigeons, doves), Coraciiformes (kingfishers), Pelecaniformes (pelicans,
cormorants, anhingas), Sphenisciformes (penguins), and let's not forget a
nice pair of Struthioniformes (Ostriches!) Most of these birds are larger,
some *much* larger, than the birds in the feasability study. I have to assume
that the amount of space occupied by these larger unlisted birds would be
at least equal to the amount of space taken up by the others, so in the end
let's call it 26,000 cramped cubic feet for the birds. That's NOT taking into
account that some of them are "kosher" and would be aboard in 7's not 2's.
Just trying to give the study the benefit of the doubt here.
Artiodactyla: even-toed hooved animals. Seven apiece for some of them.
1,144 on the list. Includes (take a deep breath) antelopes, gnus, waterbucks,
hartebeests, reedbucks, rheboks, dik-diks, impallas, gazelles, pronghorn
anelopes, oxen, cattle, buffalo, bison, deer-oxen, twist-horn oxen, kudus,
bushbucks, duikers, camels, llamas, mountain goats, muskox, ibexes, turs,
markhors, sheep, fallow deer, red deer, white-tailed deer, marsh deer,
pampas deer, brockets, pudus, moose, reindeer, caribous, roe deer, giraffes
okapis, hippopatamus, pigs, warthogs, bush hogs, and apparently about 1100
more.
What's the average cage size for this batch? My guess is the average would
have to be 3 feet wide, 6 feet long, 5 feet high, 6x6x5 to accomodate a pair
of them. Times 1144 gives us 205,920 cubic feet.
Carnivora: lions tigers leopards jaguars pumas ocelots marbled cats, house cats
caracals lynxes bobcats cheetahs jaguarundis civets linsangs hemingales
banded-mongoose marsh-mongoose white-tailed mongoose xenogales aardwolf
hyaenas raccoons coatis coatimundis lesser-panda giant-panda wolves foxes
jackals dholes brown-bear black-bear grizzly-bear polar-bear weasel polecat
mink marten grison wolverine badger skunk otter and on and on to 696 on the
list. Cage size? 3x3x2 minimum average. 12,528 cubic feet.
rodents: 1746, 1x1x1 to have room for their little exercise wheels, 1746 ft3.
primates: for the big guys, gibbons, orangutans, chimps, gorillas, baboons,
mandrills, and some I'm sure I'm forgetting you'll need something like 10x6x6.
2160 ft3. For the remaining 406 on the list (langurs, guerezas, mangabeys,
marmosets, howler monkeys, spider monkeys, etc.) you should only need
about 3x3x2 for them to move around. 7308 cubic feet.
elephants: Indian and African, cages 20 feet wide, 15 feet long, 10 feet
high for each pair to stand for a year. 6,000 ft3.
Marsupiala: 468 opossums, phascogales, jerboas, pouched wolf, numbats
wombats, bandicoots, koalas, wallabies wallaroos kangaroos etc. Better
average 3x3x2 minimum unless we keep them under sedation. 8424 ft3.
Perissodactyla: hoofed animals with an odd number of toes. Horses, donkeys,
zebras, tapirs, rhinocerous. Cage: 8ft high, 10 feet wide, 10 feet long?
436 kinds = 348,800 cubic feet.
Edentata: 250 anteaters, sloths, armadillos. How about an average of 4x4x4?
16,000 ft 3.
Insects - not on the list, and no wonder. Let's say we give a quarter of a
foot to each pair of these little guys. For 3,000,000 species you would need
750,000 cubic feet. Hell, cut that in half, 375,000 cubic feet, who cares if
they lay 10zillion eggs a month? <g>
Total so far, with only 10 groups accounted for, comes to 1,003,000 cubic
feet. That's about 2/3 the space available in the ark. Notice we have not
added in reptiles and amphibians yet. And we won't, cuz I'm getting tired<g>.
These tiny cage sizes are NOT large enough for the animals to move around
very much, much less exercise. We also did not account for the aisles and
passageways necessary to access all these cages for food, water, and cleaning.
So the remaining 1/3 of the ark is occupied by the remaining 16,000+ pairs
of animals in Karl's feasability study, plus enough food to last all the creatures
for 1 plus ? years.
WHY is it so hard for me to believe this ark tale?
Dan
Alan Barclay
In article <ksjj-30119...@ppp-abe-314.fast.net>,
ksjj <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
>In article <57pd21$d...@elaine.drink.com>, gor...@elaine.drink.com (Alan
>Barclay) wrote:
>> You do realize this makes your problem worse, not easier. If Noah collected
>> any animals earlier than a few years before the flood, he now has two new
>> problems:
>>
>> 1) How to establish breeding populations in captive animals.
>> 2) How to reintroduce captive animals to the wild.
>
>So, by this post your suggesting that points 1 and 2 are impossible?
Not impossible. But zookeepers have been struggling with these problems
for a long time, and haven't solved them for all or even most species.
Surely you've noticed the conspicious failures in breeding Giant Panadas,
great apes and others.
If tens of thousands of Zoological scientists haven't managed to solve
these problems over a period of 120 years or so, why do you think 6
amateurs, busy doing other things too, would manage?
ksjj
> Karl, I just can't buy your speel. A 120 year old wooden vessel does not
> increase my confidence in its seaworthiness. Nor can I buy the idea that
> Noah started collecting animals 120 years before they boarded the ark.
Oh well.
BTW: I read the rest of of your post. I realized that you really don't
want to learn and I'd be wasting my time with you.
Perhaps I'm wrong. If so E-mail me your questions and I'll be glad to show
you where your wrong.
BTW again. Why don't you stick to the bible. According to Genesis 6:16 the
window was finished to a cubit from the top. That does not mean that the
window was only one cubit big as you are claiming. It meansthe top of it
was one cubit from the top of the ark.
ksjj
> I did spend a couple of hours this afternoon looking at the "feasability
study"
> Karl posted. I know I'm only going to get a flippant response for my efforts,
> but what the hell, here goes.
>
BACKGROUND:
As mentioned previously, the average size animal in the animal kingdom is
about the size of a house cat or small rodent.
Of course one knows that and elephant is large and requires much more
space than a cat, but, we also must remember that a mouse is small and
requires much less space than a cat. In the animal kingdom it should also
be mentioned that there is also more smaller animals than larger animals.
Approximately 11% of the animals on the ark would have been bigger than a
sheep. Keep in mind that the animal size would also have been greatly
reduced by bringing onboard infants at the start of the flood.
THE MODEL:
I suggest that the average size cage on the ark could have been
3นx1.5นx1.5น which will allow a pair of animals 6.75 cubic feet of room
to move around in. The cage size is the same as a crate that I purchased
from a pet store to put our new puppy in.
The question is, how many 3นx1.5นx1.5น cages could be placed on the ark?
The ark was 450น long by 75น wide and 45น tall. Using these figures each
of the three levels would then be 450นx75นx15น. To be on the conservative
side lets subtract 2น from each level to make up for the amount of timber
required to construct the flooring, and 2น from each wall for its
construction.
Each floor would them measure 450นx71นx13น.
The space on the ark will then be divided up equally for the cages, room
for food and other items. That is 1/2 of the ark for the animals and 1/2
of the ark for Noah and his family, food, supplies, etc.
therefore, half of 450 or,
225นx71นx13น will be the measurements used for the calculations.
and
3นx1.5นx1.5น will be used for the cage size.
and
2น will be used for the width of the aisle between cages.
WIDTH (71น) PLACEMENT OF CAGES:
The cages in this model will be placed back to back allowing cages to
share an aisle in the same way a supermarket shares their aisles.
The first row of cages will be placed against the wall, thus requiring
only 3น for the cage and 2น for the aisle.
The remaining cage sets will require 8น per row. That is 3น for first
cage, 3น for 2nd cage and 2น for the aisle way.
The last row, on the opposite side of the ark from the first row, will be
placed against the wall just as the first row was placed. No aisle
calculation is needed seeing how the 2ฒ is already figured in with the
proceeding row of cages. (see figure 1)
Using the 71น of available width, we should be able to place a total of
8.875 rows. (71น of ark width divided by 8น needed for cages)
or to be conservative, dropping the .875, 8 rows using up 64น of the 71น
of available ark width.
Each row consist of 2 cages , therefore, 16 cages can be positioned across
the ark leaving 16น to be divided up for aisle width.
***********************************************
figure 1. (see note 1 at bottom of article)
arrangement of cages and aisles
front of ark
w|c|a|c|c|a|c|c|a|c|c|a|c|c|a|c|c|a|c|c|a|c|c|a|c|w (x 8 high and 150 long)
w=wall
c=cage
a=aisle
or
3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 = 64 feet (walls not included)
**************************************************
STACKED:
Each cage is 1.5ฒ high and the ceiling height in our model is 13น
high.(15'- 2' for floor timber)
13น divided by 1.5น equals 8.6 cages high or to be conservative, 8 cages
high once again dropping the .6 fraction.
LENGTH OF ROW:
The length of the ark is 450น but in our calculations we will use 225น or
half of the available ark space.
therefore,
225น divided by the 1.5น cage width equals, 150 caged in the row.
The total amount of cages then placed on 1/2 of the ark is,
16 cages wide by, 8 cages high by, 150 cages long.
or
19,200 cages per level.
or
19,200 cages times 3 levels
is
a total of 57,600 cages. (keep in mind this is using one half of the ark.)
Each cage can hold a pair of animals
or
room for 115,200 animals on half of the ark.
Note 1. The model above assumes that every animal was the same size and
requires the same amount of space and cage size. Obviously in the real
world, Noah would not have stacked/arranged the ark in this fashion.
This model was designed to show that 115,200 animals could be placed on
one half of the arks available storage space.
What you did below is nothing but nonsense. It's not real hard or even
good science to pick out the largest animals of a species and assume all
the animals were the same size then base a cage size on it.
--
Damian Hammontree
in <ksjj-30119...@ppp-abe-314.fast.net>, ksjj (ks...@fast.net) writes:
>In article <57qhkg$1o...@news.gate.net>, dan...@gate.net wrote:
>> I did spend a couple of hours this afternoon looking at the "feasability study"
>> Karl posted. I know I'm only going to get a flippant response for my efforts,
>> but what the hell, here goes.
>BACKGROUND:
>As mentioned previously, the average size animal in the animal kingdom is
>about the size of a house cat or small rodent.
[ ... and on, and on, snipped ... ]
Karl, you still haven't answered my question to you about why god, who is,
afterall all-powerful, needs such elaborate rationalizations. Why are you
even listening to the objections of your critics, when god is plenty powerful
enough to miracle away any problems they could come up with?
As I've asked you a _bunch_ of times now, if you're assuming that god played
a hand in all of this, then why do you feel the need to explain anything? Is
your faith so weak that you need to find a naturalistic explanation when you
_ought_ to have a perfectly good supernatural one? God created the entire
universe out of absolutely nothing - why do you keep insisting that this ark
thing was a problem for him?
I mean, do you just not understand the question, or what?
D
--
Damian Hammontree dam...@groucho.med.jhu.edu
"A spokesman for the Lyon Group, producers of _Barney and Friends_, denied
that Barney is an instrument of Satan." --the Advocate, spring 1994
...forever in debt to your priceless advice...
Tim Walters
>> >used a technique known as *Vermicomposting*. Noah could have easily used
>> >thousands or even millions of worms to decompose the animal droppings. In
>> >fact this process is seen today in some rabbit hatcheries. This method
>> >virtualy eliminates all problems associated with odors or noxious gases.
>>
>> Bible says there were only two.
>>
>> Don't you agree with what the Bible says?
>
>sure, the bible only referenced what was needed to keep the classes and
>orders of animals alive. The worm would have been included. The bible
>does not limit Noah to just two worms. As mentioned before, he could have
>brought along a few more to help handle the waste. The bible doesn't say
>that Noah took on board any clothes, does that mean he was naked? Of
>coarse not.
Oh, I see, even though the Bible told Noah to bring two worms he could
have brought more if he had wanted to.
In that case, do you think he built more than one Ark? Do you think they
were launched from more than one place? I'll bet the Bible doesn't limit
Noah to one Ark with 8 people in it either. He obviously needed more than
one Ark, and just because the Bible doesn't say so doesn't mean there wasn't
one.
--
Tim Walters twal...@netcom.com
Mats Andersson
ks...@fast.net (ksjj) wrote:
>In article <57mtgj$n...@news.gate.net>, dan...@gate.net wrote:
>
>> I've been watching the Ark thread for awhile, and I thought I'd post my own
>> take on the story. Even though I grew up believing the story to be
>literal and
>
>Noah and his help had 120 years to build the ark.
It's absolutely incredible!!!
Karl!!! Halloo!!!!!!!
Do you remember a thread from last week 'The Ark size continued' or
something like that. It got pretty big, some 200+ messages. You even
complained it was getting too big to handle and chickened out of it.
EVERYONE of your so called arguments was blown to pieces in this
previous thread and now you bring them back like nothing happened!?!?!
Who do you think listens to you anymore. Why don't you ask the lurkers
and posters in t.o. if they care about your postings anymore? Do you
think you have some 'silent majority' backing you up and cheering you
along?? Try to get it through your head:
"THE ARK DID NOT, COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED AS WRITTEN IN GENESIS"
Sorry for shouting but sometimes it's the only way to get morons to
understand.
- Mats
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Argue for your limitations Mats Andersson
and you can be sure to keep them Jakobstad
Donald Shimoda FINLAND 967-7236 105
The Delphi FAQ is at http://proxy.sbrain.syh.fi/delphi/delphi_faq.html
Mark Isaak
In article <ksjj-29119...@ppp-abe-415.fast.net> ks...@fast.net (ksjj) writes:
>The average size animal in the animal kingdom is about the size of a
>house cat or small rodent.
You are repeating a lie. The average size of animal on the ark, according
to Woodmorappe [Table 1, page 10], was about three times larger than a
sheep. I challenge you to provide *any* source to support what you say. It
doesn't appear in any of Woodmorappe's writings, not even in the last
paragraph on page 13.
>PLANT SURVIVAL AND THE FLOOD
Given that the flood geologists say miles of sediments were laid down during
the flood, all soil would have been torn up and/or buried. Plants don't
grow very well on sterile dirt or solid rock. They have an even harder time
growing up through miles of dirt. The planet after the flood would support
a little algae, but it would otherwise be lifeless.
>SOME FOOD PROBLEM SOLUTIONS
>1. Seaweed. Here are some of the following animals that eat seaweed:
>Moose, buffalo,Elephants,sheep,rabbits,cattle,horses,bears etc.
Okay, now list the animals that don't eat seaweed. What's the matter, not
enough disk space?
>2. Edible Fungi would have also been avialable for consumption.
Edible fungi would not grow in the sterile dirt that existed after the flood.
>3. Carcasses.
How many animals eat year-old carcasses? Maybe a few microscopic ones, not
much else. Besides, all the carcasses, and then some, would have to have
been buried to account for all the fossils we see.
>4. Fish, molluscs, crustaceans and other aquatic life. . .
The vast majority of them would have been killed by the flood, too.
>5. Rodents that were released from the ark would multiply quite rapidly...
Not a chance. Rodents need to eat in order to multiply. They would have
starved after the flood.
Besides, you have a more fundamental problem. Roughly one-third of all
species, and therefore one-third of the animals after the flood, are
predators, but each predator requires much more than three times its numbers
for food. The predators would have begun starving after a few days.
>Every single point you presented has been answered.
But only by ignoring most problems and proposing more miracles.
--
Mark Isaak "Have you seen this side? Look also
is...@aurora.com at the other." - Marcus Aurelius
Charles Dyer
> In article <ksjj-29119...@ppp-abe-415.fast.net>,
> ksjj <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
> > As one of the process for disposing the manure on the ark Noah could have
> >used a technique known as *Vermicomposting*. Noah could have easily used
> >thousands or even millions of worms to decompose the animal droppings. In
> >fact this process is seen today in some rabbit hatcheries. This method
> >virtualy eliminates all problems associated with odors or noxious gases.
>
> Karl, how could there have been millions of worms aboard the Ark? The
> Bible says there were only two.
>
> Don't you agree with what the Bible says?
Ah, and one more thing... The Bible says 'male and female'. Earthworms are
hermaphrodites. So are snails and a lot of other animals. Please point to
an earthworm that's male, and only male, and another that's female, and
only female. Please.
> --
> Tim Walters twal...@netcom.com
--
"The old order changeth, yeilding place to new,
And God fulfils Himself in many ways"
-- from _Morte D'Arthur_, part of _The Idylls of the King_, Alfred, Lord
Tennyson
ksjj
> In article <ksjj-29119...@ppp-abe-415.fast.net> ks...@fast.net
(ksjj) writes:
> >The average size animal in the animal kingdom is about the size of a
> >house cat or small rodent.
>
> You are repeating a lie. The average size of animal on the ark, according
> to Woodmorappe [Table 1, page 10], was about three times larger than a
> sheep. I challenge you to provide *any* source to support what you say. It
> doesn't appear in any of Woodmorappe's writings, not even in the last
> paragraph on page 13.
>
Now your fibbing. shame on you.
from the last paragraph on page 13...quote THE MEDIAN ANIMAL ON THE ARK
WOULD HAVE BEE THE SIZE OF A SMALL RAT. unquote.
As far as table one page 10 goes, I would recommend you re-read the table
and re-do your math.
Please stop trying to win an argument through deception. Be honest. You
owe it to your self and the others on this newsgroup.
Andrea Lynn Leistra
In article <ksjj-01129...@ppp-abe-303.fast.net>,
>> In article <ksjj-29119...@ppp-abe-415.fast.net> ks...@fast.net
>(ksjj) writes:
>> >The average size animal in the animal kingdom is about the size of a
^^^^^^^
>> >house cat or small rodent.
>> You are repeating a lie. The average size of animal on the ark, according
^^^^^^^
>> to Woodmorappe [Table 1, page 10], was about three times larger than a
>> sheep. I challenge you to provide *any* source to support what you say. It
>> doesn't appear in any of Woodmorappe's writings, not even in the last
>> paragraph on page 13.
>from the last paragraph on page 13...quote THE MEDIAN ANIMAL ON THE ARK
^^^^^^
>WOULD HAVE BEE THE SIZE OF A SMALL RAT. unquote.
Karl, you have been told many, many times that the average is *not* the
same as the median, *and* that the important quantity in this case is the
mean, or average. Since you keep conflating the two, I have to conclude
you're doing so deliberately.
A quick and easy example:
Take the following numbers:
1,1,1,1,2,3,3,4,10000.
The *median* is the number 'in the middle'; it is less than half, and
greater than half.
In this case, the median is two.
The *mean* or average is the sum of all the numbers, divided by the number
of numbers.
In this case, the mean is approximately 113.
Now, for concreteness, say the numbers represent the area, in square feet,
that different animals require.
If you use the median to conclude that all the animals can fit into 18
square feet (total), you'll have one very uncomfortable creature.
If you use the mean to conclude that they can all fit into 1016 square
feet, everybody will be comfortable.
Of course, in *this* case you could calculate the required area directly,
since you know the individual requirements. If all you have is the mean
and median, though, the mean is the one you need.
--
Andrea Leistra http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~aleistra
-----
Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts.
ksjj
In article <57r71f$h...@news.jhu.edu>, dam...@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu
(Damian Hammontree) wrote:
> in <ksjj-30119...@ppp-abe-314.fast.net>, ksjj (ks...@fast.net) writes:
> >In article <57qhkg$1o...@news.gate.net>, dan...@gate.net wrote:
> >> I did spend a couple of hours this afternoon looking at the
"feasability study"
> >> Karl posted. I know I'm only going to get a flippant response for my
efforts,
> >> but what the hell, here goes.
>
> >BACKGROUND:
> >As mentioned previously, the average size animal in the animal kingdom is
> >about the size of a house cat or small rodent.
>
> [ ... and on, and on, snipped ... ]
>
> Karl, you still haven't answered my question to you about why god, who is,
> afterall all-powerful, needs such elaborate rationalizations. Why are you
> even listening to the objections of your critics, when god is plenty powerful
> enough to miracle away any problems they could come up with?
>
> As I've asked you a _bunch_ of times now, if you're assuming that god played
> a hand in all of this, then why do you feel the need to explain anything? Is
> your faith so weak that you need to find a naturalistic explanation when you
> _ought_ to have a perfectly good supernatural one? God created the entire
> universe out of absolutely nothing - why do you keep insisting that this ark
> thing was a problem for him?
>
I don't insist this ark thing is a problem. You do. Infact it is very
easy to explain. The ark works very well. That's why no one has refuted
the ark as of yet.
Every question presented on this forum about the ark has multiple
plausable answers.
No one and I repeat NO ONE has been able to refute the ark.
I've proven the creatonist point on this subject. Accept it and move on.
Class dismissed.
> --
> Damian Hammontree dam...@groucho.med.jhu.edu
> "A spokesman for the Lyon Group, producers of _Barney and Friends_, denied
> that Barney is an instrument of Satan." --the Advocate, spring 1994
> ...forever in debt to your priceless advice...
--
Steve Henderson
In article <57qj3f$a...@elaine.drink.com>,
gor...@elaine.drink.com (Alan Barclay) wrote:
}In article <ksjj-30119...@ppp-abe-314.fast.net>,
the Bible, but Karl, being a biblical literalist with no particular training
evident in any known science, feels free to interpet the Bible however he
pleases.
It always amazes me how creationalists can contort the Bible into
various shapes while still claiming inerrency and accusing others who call
their attention to the actual words of not really understanding what the words
mean. The chief thing that interests me about creationalists is that their
biblical knowledge and scholarship is frequently even worse than their
scientific knowledge. Hard to believe, but it seems to be so often true.
Kenneth Fair
In article <ksjj-30119...@ppp-abe-314.fast.net>, ks...@fast.net
(ksjj) wrote:
>In article <57qfkt$1o...@news.gate.net>, dan...@gate.net wrote:
>
>> Karl, I just can't buy your speel. A 120 year old wooden vessel does not
>> increase my confidence in its seaworthiness. Nor can I buy the idea that
>> Noah started collecting animals 120 years before they boarded the ark.
>
>Oh well.
>
>BTW: I read the rest of of your post. I realized that you really don't
>want to learn and I'd be wasting my time with you.
>Perhaps I'm wrong. If so E-mail me your questions and I'll be glad to show
>you where your wrong.
*SHPROING!* Darn, another Irony-O-Meter bites the dust!
--
KEN FAIR - U. Chicago Law | <http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/kjfair>
Of Counsel, U. of Ediacara | Power Mac! | CABAL(tm) | I'm w/in McQ - R U?
"Isn't it amazing with all of the post presented by creationist in these
newsgroups were wrong 100% of the time?" - ks...@fast.net
Shawn
dan...@gate.net wrote:
: I've been watching the Ark thread for awhile, and I thought I'd post my own
: take on the story. Even though I grew up believing the story to be literal and
: come up with over the years are the same objections I see here on talk.origins.
: So I thought I'd summarize:
: temperature controls, food distribution and waste management systems, and
: gathered enough food for every kind of animal on earth to last at least two
: years, and in the case of predators, possibly up to 10 years (see item 9 way
: down below). Without a miracle, impossible.
The only miracle is that people believe such stories.
Matthew Priestley
ksjj <ks...@fast.net> schrieb im Beitrag
<ksjj-01129...@ppp-abe-303.fast.net>...
> from the last paragraph on page 13...quote THE MEDIAN ANIMAL ON THE ARK
> WOULD HAVE BEE THE SIZE OF A SMALL RAT. unquote.
Karl the median is not at all same as the mean. If you maintain that the
*average* animal was the size of a rat, you want the *mean* size.
--
-matthew Priestley
prie...@uiuc.edu
"The only bible-honouring conclusion is, of course, that Genesis 1-11 is
actual historical truth, regardless of any scientific or chronological
problems thereby entailed." H. M. Morris. 1972
Thomas Swanson
In article <E1qtG...@aurora.com> is...@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) writes:
>
>Besides, you have a more fundamental problem. Roughly one-third of all
>species, and therefore one-third of the animals after the flood, are
>predators, but each predator requires much more than three times its numbers
>for food. The predators would have begun starving after a few days.
>
IIRC, in order to get a stable predator-prey population, you need something
like 100 prey for every predator. (Rough numbers; this is from Bakker's
_The Dinosaur Heresies_, it may be a mass ratio)
____________________________________________________________
Tom Swanson | "I have a cunning plan that cannot fail"
TRIUMF | S Baldrick
><DARWIN> "Your grasp of science lacks opposable thumbs."
L L B Waggoner
Thomas Swanson
In article <ksjj-01129...@ppp-abe-303.fast.net> ks...@fast.net (ksjj) writes:
>In article <E1qtG...@aurora.com>, is...@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) wrote:
>
>> In article <ksjj-29119...@ppp-abe-415.fast.net> ks...@fast.net
>>
>> sheep. I challenge you to provide *any* source to support what you say. It
>> doesn't appear in any of Woodmorappe's writings, not even in the last
>>
>Now your fibbing. shame on you.
>
>WOULD HAVE BEE THE SIZE OF A SMALL RAT. unquote.
>
>and re-do your math.
>
>Please stop trying to win an argument through deception. Be honest. You
>owe it to your self and the others on this newsgroup.
>
Do you know the difference between mean and median? If you don't, then
I suggest you learn, because those that do can see the huge flaw in
your argument.
If you do, then you're engaged in deception.
Which is it?
dan...@gate.net
Yeah, I think I predicted I'd only get a flippant response from him. I also
read enough of his posts to know that asking him questions that he can't find
answers for in his Creationist brochures is a waste of time.
Dan
David Jensen
On Sun, 01 Dec 1996 22:40:18 -0400, ks...@fast.net (ksjj) wrote:
[moral outrage deleted]
>from the last paragraph on page 13...quote THE MEDIAN ANIMAL ON THE ARK
>WOULD HAVE BEE THE SIZE OF A SMALL RAT. unquote.
So? that has nothing to do with the mean weight, which is the problem
the ark has. The elephants by themselves would make the average (mean)
weight of each animal greater than that of a rat even if all the other
(what did you say? 2000 or so) animals. Given that there are over 4000
mammal species and many are clean, I would expect nearly 10,000 mammals
on board.
===========================================================
The talk.origins faqs are at http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/
Mark Isaak
In article <ksjj-30119...@ppp-abe-314.fast.net> ks...@fast.net (ksjj) writes:
>As mentioned previously, the average size animal in the animal kingdom is
>about the size of a house cat or small rodent.
Not true. According to Woodmorappe, the *median* size animal aboard was
about the size of a rat, but median is not average, and median is a
dishonest statistic to use in this context. The *average* size animal was
about three times the size of a sheep.
I'm curious, Karl. Where did you come up with "house cat"?
dan...@gate.net
Karl, you have yet to answer any of the questions posed. You've come back
with some flippant rejoinders, but...
You haven't responded at all to the one problem that blows the feasability
study right out of the water: the fact that it uses a MEDIAN value to compute
average cage size rather than a MEAN value. This little slip invalidates the
entire study, but you can't seem to respond to it, and I guess I'm not very
surprised. You haven't described how animals around the world got to their
present locations from Mt. Ararat (maybe angels carried the llamas to the
Andes?), you haven't responded very well to the question of how long the
predators had to stay in the ark before prey herds could be established well
enough to support them (oh wait, they ate carcasses from the flood for 10
years, right?) You haven't touched the question of how eight people could
keep 3,000,000 insects fed and watered in the horrendous sea conditions of
a global flood, much less the tens of thousands of other animals aboard. You
did not tell us where thousands of tons of rainwater was stored after day 150
until half a year later when they opened the doors - yet you insist you have
"refuted" objections to the ark story? All you've done is make Creationists
look like morons.
Dan
Damian Hammontree
in <ksjj-01129...@ppp-abe-303.fast.net>, ksjj (ks...@fast.net) writes:
>In article <E1qtG...@aurora.com>, is...@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) wrote:
>> >The average size animal in the animal kingdom is about the size of a
>> You are repeating a lie. The average size of animal on the ark, according
>> to Woodmorappe [Table 1, page 10], was about three times larger than a
>> sheep. ...
>from the last paragraph on page 13...quote THE MEDIAN ANIMAL ON THE ARK
>WOULD HAVE BEE THE SIZE OF A SMALL RAT. unquote.
>As far as table one page 10 goes, I would recommend you re-read the table
>and re-do your math.
>Please stop trying to win an argument through deception. Be honest. You
>owe it to your self and the others on this newsgroup.
So, let me get this straight. You don't know what the difference is between
a median and an average (a mean), and you're criticizing other people for
their math _and_ their reading comprehension? The mind boggles.
D
Michael D. Painter
karl, will you explain the difference between mean and median and how it
applies to the size of animals on your boat?
Mark Isaak <is...@aurora.com.EditThis> wrote in article
<E1stG...@aurora.com>...
> In article <ksjj-30119...@ppp-abe-314.fast.net> ks...@fast.net
(ksjj) writes:
> >As mentioned previously, the average size animal in the animal kingdom
is
> >about the size of a house cat or small rodent.
>
David Hultgren
ksjj wrote:
> >
> > Hebrew dietary restrictions. Need a miracle here, obviously.
>
> Just like uniformatarian/evolution models, the creation model has the
> worlds joined as one or two land masses. The animals did not have to
But it doesnt say that the masses moved with earth-shattering speed (without leaving
any evidence of that speed).
> cross great oceans in order to meet the ark. Other animals could have
> been collected by people Noah hired or even brought in from zoos. Still
> other animals could have been local animals living in the area. Noah had
> over 120 years to collect all of the animals.
> (and presumably held them captured, fed a.s.o. during that 120 years.
(did he wait until the end to get those species who wouldnd survive the
conditions at his starting point))
>
> >
> > 3. Food storage would occupy at least 2/3 of the ark. My two dogs (total
> > weight: 160 lbs) eat 40-50 lbs of food a month between the two of them.
> > Even if I cut that to 20 lbs/month, that's still 240 lbs per year, well over
> > their combined body weight. I don't know how dogs compare to larger or
> > smaller animals w/respect to body weight, but my guess is that most
> > animals eat way more than their own body weight in one year. Maybe a
> > miracle occurred here too, perhaps a trial run of Christ feeding the 5,000
> > with a couple of fish...<g>
>
> The average size animal in the animal kingdom is about the size of a
> house cat or small rodent.
Could I see that calculation, or is it just a guess?
> Of course one knows that and elephant is large and requires much more
> space than a cat, but, we also must remember that a mouse is small and
> requires much less space than a cat. In the animal kingdom it should also
> be mentioned that there is also more smaller animals than larger animals.
> Approximately 11% of the animals on the ark would have been bigger than a
> sheep. Keep in mind that the animal size would also have been greatly
> reduced by bringing onboard infants at the start of the flood.
>
Dwarf infants?
Otherwise they would have a year to grow on the ark..
> >
> > 4. Food and water. Storing these is one thing, but distribution? Buckets
> > and wheelbarrows? I consume .5 to 1 gallon of water a day, which (I think)
> > comes to up to a half ton of water in one year. Was all that water also on
> > board? Or did they sneak on a massive water purification/deslinization sytem
> > and not tell Moses about it when Moses wrote this story? Even if the water
> > outside the ark was fresh, it was filled with rotting carcasses and could not
> > have been potable. Need a miracle here, too.
>
> Noah probably started with a supply on the ark, then collected rain water
> from the roof of the ark. No miracle needed.
>
> >
> > 5. No Biblical mention of waste disposal systems. I canNOT imagine a
> > handful of people chugging up and down the decks with buckets and wheel-
> > barrows full of recycled chow for all those animals - to do what, dump it
> > out the one window in the ark? Looks like we need miracle number 3 in
> > reverse!
>
> The ark would have incorporated specially designed self cleaning cages in
> some instances. (sloping floors and collection gutters)
> As one of the process for disposing the manure on the ark Noah could have
> used a technique known as *Vermicomposting*. Noah could have easily used
> thousands or even millions of worms to decompose the animal droppings. In
> fact this process is seen today in some rabbit hatcheries. This method
> virtualy eliminates all problems associated with odors or noxious gases.
>
Great, try doing it in all of those small boxes, then get the ammoniac out...
> >
> > 6. Speaking of that one window, there is no way a single window on a huge
> > vessel like that can provide enough air circulation to keep all those animals
> > alive. Maybe the next miracle permitted them to hold their breath throughout
> > the voyage.
>
> The window went around the top of the ark and was quite large. Sorry, no ^^^^^^^
A single window going around the top, (how does one open/close that?)
> miracle needed here.
> Noah would have incorporated a flue in the ark to bring in fresh air. The
> warm body heat against the cool walls of the ark would have caused natural
> ventilation to help circulate the air up and out the window than ran along
> the sides of the ark. If that wasn't enough noah could have used some of
Try turning off the aircirculation in a modern chicken farm, ewen with a window,
most would perish, now... many of the animals collected had MUCH smaller margins
for survivability than a chicken.
> the larger ox like animals to turn fans to force the ventillaton.
> >
You are trolling arent You?
> > 7. Seaworthiness of the ark: held together by pitch? *How* big was this
> > thing? No way. Even if we give Moses the benefit of the doubt and trust
> > that he neglected to mention some structural detail that *would* have kept
> > the ark from collapsing under its own weight, we now have to look at
> > stability. We can only assume that even if properly ballasted, the helmless
> > rudderless ark must have spent a great deal of time broadside to the waves.
> > Many flood theorists insist that the flood was forcefull enough to create
> > mountain ranges, carve out the Grand Canyon, etc. Such forces would have
> > had that ark rolling over many times. Unless, of course, miracle number 7
> > put angels on each side of it to steer the thing into the waves.
>
> Who said it was held together by pitch? The pitch was a waterproofing/wood
> preservative.
> For the rest of your point about the construction and sea-worthyness of
> the ark I suggest you learn a little more about the shape and construction
> style of the boat. Tank test have already demonstrated that the ark would
> not capsize.
And a scale model of a paperboat shows that You can build airplanecarriers of
waxed ordinary paper...
>
> BTW: The Grand Canyon was formed after the flood when the Hopi and the
> Grand lakes busted through the natural dams and eroded away the newly laid
> down semi-hard strata.
>
You could try reading the defutation of the ICR "grand canyon" project sometime
> >
> > 8. Landing - after a turbulent sea voyage, you don't have to send birds out
> > the window to figure out when you're hard aground....
>
> This point makes no sense at all.
> >
> > 9. Now that you're on dry ground, you pretty much have to sit there and keep
> > feeding your zoo for at least another year to give the plant seeds (which have
> > presumably been drifting in the water) time to re-establish themselves in
> > ground that has had all of its top-soil stripped away by a violent flood. So
> > we're looking at two years from the time the animals came on board to the
> > time when enough vegetation is around to support *some* of them. Once your
> > vegetation munching animals are out and about, you now have to give *them*
> > time to establish populations that could then support the predators.
> Let's say
> > seven deer get on the ark. Noah and family eat one in a year, and let's say
> > the remaining deer are one male and five females. When you let the animals
> > off the ark, you might (at best) have 1 male, five females, and five fawns,
> > (also hopefully females). Five years later, assuming way-disproportionately
> > low male/female ratios, you might have several hundred deer. Now let your
> > wolves and lions and tigers and jaguars and hyenas and foxes and badgers and
> > etc off the boat. One pather will eat at least a dozen deer in a year. When
> > that panther breeds, it doesn't give birth to one or two at a time, but to
> > litters of 6-10. Same with the wolves. Better give the prey herds at least
> > a 10 year head start...
> > So now you're feeding a population of predators for *much* longer than
> > the other animals, meaning even more food to be stored on the ark. That or
> > more and more divine intervention.
>
> The answer to your argument is presented in two parts below.
>
> PLANT SURVIVAL AND THE FLOOD
> There are many ways inwhich plants could have survived the flood of Noah.
> The first and most obvious is that some of the seeds were aboard the ark.
> The ark stored grains and other foods used to feed the animals. These
> stored foods would have had seeds associated with them that later could
> have germinated and grown outside of the ark. It零 possible/probable that
> Noah could have brough an assortment of seeds on board of the ark so he
> could re-populate the earth with these plants after the waters receded.
(how did the salt magically became removed from the ground so the plants
could survive?)
> Other methods of preserving the seed is for them to float on the water
> during the flood where after the water receded they could then germinate
> in the soil. Of course not all seed would be able to survive in that
> fashion, yet some would.
very few would survive floating for a year, but ok, a few hardy coconut types
might..
> Floating vegetation rafts would have also
> provided a means for other plants to have survived the flood waters. As
> the flood waters uprooted trees and other vegetation they would have
> clumped together in extremely large rafts later settling on to the moist
And all but a few would have been killed by the salt, or brackish water
> ground after the waters receded and then begin to grow. Still others
> seeds would have been buried during the flood only to sprout after the
> waters had left the surface of the continents. Some of the seeds buried
> deep in the flood sediment during the initial phase of the flood could
> have been brought to the surface as flood waters eroded away the upper
> layers as the water receded. Once that happened they to would have a
> chance to germinate.
Not after being pressurized under a ocean for a year, they wouldnt!
> Trees like the olive or the locust can root just by sticking a branch
> into the ground and certainly would have survived the flood if they were
> buried or settled on the surface.
nope, the salt would kill them...
> Ref, Noah零 Ark a feasibility study, John Woodmorappe
>
> SOME FOOD PROBLEM SOLUTIONS
> 1. Seaweed. Here are some of the following animals that eat seaweed:
> Moose, buffalo,Elephants,sheep,rabbits,cattle,horses,bears etc.
Make anothe list with creatures that doesnt and compare them...
> 2. Edible Fungi would have also been avialable for consumption.
You can no doubt give us such a list...
> 3. Carcasses. Dead animals that sunk to great depth would not be subject
> to much bacterial decay. Later if they floated to the surface or an area
> drained, the animals could have eaten them. Especially the scavengers.
Even if they didnt rot then, a few weeks on the surface would certainly do that!
(we are not talking about a single feast, You must supply food for a LONG time)!
> Other animals that eat carrion are, vultures, hyenas, jackals, lions,
> tigers, cheetas, ratels, leopards, foxes, wolves, otters, wild pigs,
> elephants various snakes etc.
Note however that few of them eat rotten meat.
> 4. Fish, molluscs, crustaceans and other aquatic life would have made nice
> meals for some of the animals after they left the ark.
And how long untill they rot?
> 5. Rodents that were released from the ark would multiply quite rapidly
> and provide food for some of the animals. These rodents were probably bred
> on the ark as food for some of the animals during the flood. What what
> not used was let go.
>
And died out after their food had rottened to a toxic state
<snip>
> see ya,
> karl
> *********************************************
> The Bible says dust. Not evolution.(Try using "the bible says flat circle with four corners supported by pillars, not globe"
instead, thats just as true, and is a much funnier .sig)
DH.
Tim Walters
>reduced by bringing onboard infants at the start of the flood.
I have this wonderful image of thousands of baby birds with their mouths
open, begging for food to be dropped in. And thousands of baby mammals
begging for milk. You are aware, aren't you, that infants require
significantly more care than adults? How did Noah take care of 40,000
babies?
>If that wasn't enough noah could have used some of
>the larger ox like animals to turn fans to force the ventillaton.
Oh, wait, the large animals weren't infants after all! They were turning
fans! Guess Noah couldn't have saved that much space with the large
animals. Of course, now they're eating more too...
--
Tim Walters twal...@netcom.com
//
In article <ksjj-30119...@ppp-abe-314.fast.net>,
ks...@fast.net (ksjj) wrote:
>In article <twaltersE...@netcom.com>, twal...@netcom.com (Tim
>Walters) wrote:
>
>> In article <ksjj-29119...@ppp-abe-415.fast.net>,
>> ksjj <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > As one of the process for disposing the manure on the ark Noah could have
>> >used a technique known as *Vermicomposting*. Noah could have easily used
>> >thousands or even millions of worms to decompose the animal droppings. In
>> >fact this process is seen today in some rabbit hatcheries. This method
>> >virtualy eliminates all problems associated with odors or noxious gases.
>>
>> Karl, how could there have been millions of worms aboard the Ark? The
>> Bible says there were only two.
>>
>> Don't you agree with what the Bible says?
>
>sure, the bible only referenced what was needed to keep the classes and
>orders of animals alive. The worm would have been included. The bible
>does not limit Noah to just two worms. As mentioned before, he could have
>brought along a few more to help handle the waste. The bible doesn't say
>that Noah took on board any clothes, does that mean he was naked? Of
>coarse not.
Karl, yet again, bastardizes the Bible.
----------------------------
Steve "Chris" Price
Associate Professor of Computational Aesthetics
Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 530,000,000 BC"
ra...@kaiwan.com
Mark Isaak
>WOULD HAVE BEE THE SIZE OF A SMALL RAT. unquote.
You said average, not median. Woodmorappe says the average size was much,
much, much larger.
>As far as table one page 10 goes, I would recommend you re-read the table
>and re-do your math.
You're right; I made a mistake in my original calculations. It turns out
the average size animal aboard the ark was more than twice as large as I
have been saying. Here are my calculations; check them yourself:
1: Log mass (g) 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 total
2: # mammals 466 1570 1378 1410 1462 892 246 0 7424
3: # birds 630 2272 1172 450 70 4 0 0 4598
4: # reptiles 642 844 688 492 396 286 270 106 3724
5: tot # animals 1738 4686 3238 2352 1928 1182 516 106 15746
6: ave mass (kg) .005 .05 .5 5 50 316 3160 31600 -
7: tot mass (kg) 8.7 234.3 1619 11760 96400 373512 1630560 3349600 5463694
average size = 5463694/15746 = 347 kg = 763 lb.
Line 1-4 are taken directly from Table 1 (page 10) of Woodmorappe's _Noah's
Ark: A Feasibility Study_. (The totals are recalculated; Woodmorappe had
some small arithmetic errors in his totals.) Line 5 is the sum of lines
2-4; i.e., the total number of animals in each weight class. Line 6 is the
average weight of animals in each weight class, given by Woodmorappe in the
fourth paragraph on page 13. (Note to nitpickers: I realize there's
justification for challenging some of these numbers, but not so as to affect
the final calculation all that much. Besides, I'm trying to follow
Woodmorappe throughout.) Line 7 is the total mass of all animals in each
weight class, calculated by multiplying lines 5 and 6. The column at the
far right is the summation of the values for each weight class.
As you can see, the average size of animal aboard the ark, according to the
numbers Woodmorappe himself specifies, is 347 kilograms. I would guess
that's the size of a large horse.
Of course, Woodmorappe goes on to say that these numbers don't mean a lot to
him anyway, because he takes only juvenile animals in the three or four
largest weight classes. Apparently, the Bible doesn't mean a lot to him,
either, since the Bible says sexually mature animals were aboard. The Bible
also says that more than mammals, birds, and reptiles were aboard. Adding
amphibians and invertebrates to the numbers would lower the average size,
but would not, of course, decrease the crowding problems.
Matthew Priestley
// <ra...@kaiwan.com> schrieb im Beitrag <MHzoywZH...@kaiwan.com>...
> In article <ksjj-30119...@ppp-abe-314.fast.net>,
> ks...@fast.net (ksjj) wrote:
> >does not limit Noah to just two worms. As mentioned before, he could
have
> >brought along a few more to help handle the waste. The bible doesn't say
> >that Noah took on board any clothes, does that mean he was naked? Of
> >coarse not.
> Karl, yet again, bastardizes the Bible.
What? Oh, come on. Certainly the bible says two of each, but nowhere does
it enjoin him to take *only* two. What makes you think God would have
objected? There are plenty of more substantial faults with the ark than to
make such pettiness necessary.
David Iain Greig
On Mon, 2 Dec 1996 18:16:50 GMT, Mark Isaak <is...@aurora.com.EditThis> wrote:
>In article <ksjj-30119...@ppp-abe-314.fast.net> ks...@fast.net (ksjj) writes:
>>about the size of a house cat or small rodent.
>
>about the size of a rat, but median is not average, and median is a
>dishonest statistic to use in this context. The *average* size animal was
>about three times the size of a sheep.
>
>I'm curious, Karl. Where did you come up with "house cat"?
Would "fox terrier" make you feel better? =]
--D.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Iain (Chris) Greig gr...@ediacara.org
Vice-Dean, University Computing Services http://www.ediacara.org/~greig
Prof. of Biochemistry and Philosophy
University of Ediacara "Arbor plena alouattarum"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David L Evens
Alan Barclay (gor...@elaine.drink.com) wrote:
: In article <ksjj-29119...@ppp-abe-415.fast.net>,
: ksjj <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
: >other animals could have been local animals living in the area. Noah had
: >over 120 years to collect all of the animals.
: You do realize this makes your problem worse, not easier. If Noah collected
: any animals earlier than a few years before the flood, he now has two new
: problems:
: 1) How to establish breeding populations in captive animals.
: 2) How to reintroduce captive animals to the wild.
And don't forget many of his animals are now more than a hundred times
more trouble to feed.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron, | "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,| But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion, +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down! | "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David L Evens
: > Karl, I just can't buy your speel. A 120 year old wooden vessel does not
: > increase my confidence in its seaworthiness. Nor can I buy the idea that
: > Noah started collecting animals 120 years before they boarded the ark.
: Oh well.
: BTW: I read the rest of of your post. I realized that you really don't
: want to learn and I'd be wasting my time with you.
: Perhaps I'm wrong. If so E-mail me your questions and I'll be glad to show
: you where your wrong.
Karl is obviously aware that he cannot answer the questions.
: BTW again. Why don't you stick to the bible. According to Genesis 6:16 the
: window was finished to a cubit from the top. That does not mean that the
: window was only one cubit big as you are claiming. It meansthe top of it
: was one cubit from the top of the ark.
Which precludes it being very big, or it would let in the waves.
David L Evens
ksjj (ks...@fast.net) wrote:
: In article <57pd21$d...@elaine.drink.com>, gor...@elaine.drink.com (Alan
: Barclay) wrote:
: > In article <ksjj-29119...@ppp-abe-415.fast.net>,
: > ksjj <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
: > >been collected by people Noah hired or even brought in from zoos. Still
: > >other animals could have been local animals living in the area. Noah had
: > >over 120 years to collect all of the animals.
: >
: > You do realize this makes your problem worse, not easier. If Noah collected
: > any animals earlier than a few years before the flood, he now has two new
: > problems:
: >
: > 1) How to establish breeding populations in captive animals.
: > 2) How to reintroduce captive animals to the wild.
: So, by this post your suggesting that points 1 and 2 are impossible?
They are imposible for les than a dozen people to accomplish fast enough
to be useful.
Kai-Mikael Jää-Aro
> > >used a technique known as *Vermicomposting*. Noah could have easily used
> > >thousands or even millions of worms to decompose the animal droppings. In
> > >fact this process is seen today in some rabbit hatcheries. This method
> > >virtualy eliminates all problems associated with odors or noxious gases.
> As mentioned before, he could have
> brought along a few more to help handle the waste.
As having been the responsible for the compost of our tenants' society
for the last few years I'm wondering why you insist on worm composting
as a practical way of handling animal wastes. It seems to me that if
you are floating on a large mud ocean and have a lot of animal tending
to do, the dumping of several cubic metres of manure and urine into the
sea every day is much less of a chore than tending to a compost - and a
worm compost at that.
The are several problems with composting as opposed to just dumping the
muck overboard:
* You still have to transport the muck to the compost, so why not just
transport it overboard?
* There is a certain compaction of the wastes due to the decomposition
process (and simple pressure, I wager) but it certainly isn't
instantaneous (we are talking on the order of weeks and months here) and
certainly does not decrease the volume to zero - this means you have to
use up large amounts of he precious space on board for storing muck.
What for, what are you going to do with it afterwards?
* As noted above, you are going to be adding to the heap with several
cubic metres a day (someone in a statistical mood work out the precise
figures?) - even if worms can breed fairly rapidly, they certainly can't
handle such a rate of increase.
* We certainly don't dump feces and urine into our house compost, but
any smell of what goes into it certainly doesn't disappear immediately.
In fact, if the compost hasn't been properly tended (more about that
later), the smell due to rotting can get quite bad. Due to enclosing
house walls the smell doesn't dissipate quite as fast as I would like -
I fear to imagine what it would be like indoors.
* Worms are actually quite fussy with what they will and will not live
in and decompose (which is the reason we have a "hot" (bacterial
decomposition) compost which is more indiscriminate, instead) and
something tells me that pure manure, especially if mixed with urine, is
not an environment worms will thrive in. My guesstimate (I'm open to
corrections on this from someone who has worms :-) is that you would
need to mix the composted material in something like one part manure and
three parts cellulose or the like, both to bring down the proportion of
ammonia to less aggresive substances and also to make the wastes more
solid - the worms can't live in a (semi-)liquid sludge. (Check out he
manure pools at a farm someday.)
* Composts need to be tended. For maximal decomposition effectivity you
must turn it over, break up clumps and aerate it more or less
continuously. Worms indeed do help with this, but yet again, this takes
time and you have to speed up the process to achieve the turnover you
need. If you fail to do this some rather nasty-smelling anaerobic
processes take over and you will want to move somewhere quite distant.
To conclude, composting is a lot of hard work. *We* do it because it's
an environmental statement and cuts down on our garbage collection
expenses (since I have friends who are willing to cart away the
resulting fertilizer for free (I'll write about the effort to get the
stuff from the compost to the potato field some other day)), but I can't
see that the Noah family would have wanted to add that effort to their
prssed schedule unless composting had some *very* tangible advantages
compared to just dumping wastes overboard.
So, please write a few words abut *why* vermicomposting is such a good
thing.
--
Kai-Mikael Jää-Aro email: k...@nada.kth.se "Don't win, don't lose."
IPLab voice: +46 8 790 62 79 -- Yoshigasaki-sensei
NADA, KTH fax: +46 8 790 09 30
S-100 44 Stockholm telex: 812 6154 1156 SICS
SWEDEN teletex:2401-812 6154 1156=SICS
Brandon M. Gorte
Looking at it, Karl's "world" can mean a lot of different things.
The term "world" is not only used to describe the planet Earth, but also
describes our region, immediate area, or people we associate with.
Therefore, I am proposing that there was a flood, but it was only a major
flood of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, not unlike the 1993 flood of
the Mississippi.
The "world" to these people would have been their region, their immediate
area. When the region flooded, they claimed that the "world" had been
covered in water.
So maybe it is possible that a person and his family survived this flood
on a boat with their animals - oxen, cows, etc.
As for the length of a year...
Many ancient cultures used the lunar calendar. So a year in the Bible
could be translated as a lunar cycle. A friend and I tried this once,
and found that Adam's age using this was about 75 years; rather
respectable for an ancient culture. So this flood could have lasted 30
days, and Noah was about 50 when it happened. This explains why there
were only two or three generations at the time of the flood.
So the Bible could be telling the truth when it comes to the flood, just
in a way the ancients could understand it with the lunar cycle, the
"world"(their region), and a family surviving with THEIR animals.
BMG
Historical data can be mistranslated, and has been in the past.
The facts state evoution, not myths and legends.
Robert M Derrick
ksjj:
: Noah and his help had 120 years to build the ark.
Almost two weeks ago I questioned this number, and went
on to delve into several more of the "literal" applications
of Genesis to the so-called Creation/Flood model. The
entire thing was uniformly ignored by the original poster,
but here we see the same statement asserted yet again.
I ask again, where does "120" above come from, and how
is it justified as a Biblical literalism that gives Noah
120 years to build the ark? And, how does the C/F model
which is clearly based on Biblical literalism justify
it's clear contradictions and diametrically opposed
assertions to that self-same Biblical literalism?
And lastly, why is it necessary to posit a totally
naturalistic model for C/F that removes the very
Creator that C/F so desparately claims to be
supporting?
The entire previous article is quoted below:
Date: 23 Nov 1996 00:13:08 GMT
ksjj (ks...@fast.net) wrote:
: Noah had 120 years to collect all of the animals.
Where does this number come from? I see no reference to the length
of time from God's speaking to Noah, 6:13, to the time of the flood.
The only reference to 120 is 6:3, which has nothing to do with Noah.
God is speaking, but to no one in particular, and the reference is
to the lifespan of man, not to Noah.
[Gen 6:3] And Jehovah saith, `My Spirit doth not strive in man -- to the
age; in their erring they [are] flesh:' and his days have been an hundred
and twenty years.
120 years would mean that Noah was told in his 480th year. Where is
the reference to this?
Also, despite further specific statements about land based life,
6:13 does not make any such exceptions
[Gen 6:13] And God said to Noah, `An end of all flesh hath come before Me,
for the earth hath been full of violence from their presence; and lo, I am
destroying them with the earth.
It says all, not land-based only, and besides, this is a specious
distinction, since it says nothing about the many forms of life
which inhabit at differing times both land and water. The later
slightly more specific statement that mentions 'earth'
[Gen 6:17] `And I, lo, I am bringing in the deluge of waters on the earth to
destroy all flesh, in which [is] a living spirit, from under the heavens;
all that [is] in the earth doth expire.
still does not exclude the non-land life, and does not even precisely
imply that. "all ... under the heavens" and "in the earth" does not
in any fashion exclude life in the water. And further
[Gen 6:19] and of all that liveth, of all flesh, two of every [sort] thou
dost bring in unto the ark, to keep alive with thee; male and female are
they.
the phrase used is not "some", or "except", but all. "all that liveth", and
"all flesh". The next verse then list some kinds
[Gen 6:20] Of the fowl after its kind, and of the cattle after their kind,
of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every [sort]
they come in unto thee, to keep alive.
but it does not exclude any others. Now, I can see how the lack of mention
of the others might be seen as an exclusion of them, but only if you impune
that God's language is imprecise:
end of all flesh
destroy all flesh ... under the heavens
all that liveth... all flesh
If these words are literally true, then how can you simply quote one of the
other verses that simply mentions specific instances that neither exclude nor
claim total inclusiveness as a proof that the above quotes from God himself
are not actually and literally true?
Further, as proof that the waters have receded, the dove returns with the
olive branch only 47 days after the waters began to recede. How, if the
earth is now covered with, in some case, miles of sediment, is an olive
branch as indication that the waters have receded, since under no normal
circumstances could an olive seed sprouted and produced a branch in
47 days, nor could a dove dig up a buried olive tree, nor could a tree
have been floating on the waters (since the whole point of the symbol
of the branch is that the waters have receded, nor could the tree have
been a survivor of a "vegetable mat" for the same reason? The real
questions here are, why do you, if you are convinced of literalism, deny
God's unequivocal words above, and also deny God's majesty and
preeminence by eschewing His active participation in the miraculous
necessities of a literal flood and the destruction of all life upon
the earth, and the subsequent repopulation and redistribution of life
on the earth? Why do you require that it all be explainable through
non-miraculous, and non-God involved, and extraordinary chance
occurrences? How does the removal of God from the process further your
witness for God?
Again, your scenario is a mountain of assumptions that if true, might lend
some credence to the possibility that some of the things could have
happened as you claim, given a lot of very fortuitous chance occurrences.
The differences between your string of coincidences and evolution's is
that yours have a definite goal, a fixed series of steps which must
all happen "just so", from 'a' to 'b' to ... to 'z', whereas evolution's
steps only can be known after the fact, and make no sense trying to predict
apriori where it will end. Yours must proceed in precisely a fashion that
allows for each non-miraculous event to occur, and there are a huge
number of required events. Solving a dozen through ad hoc supposition
does not diminish the number by any significance. You may solve the
Koala, but the Death Valley pupfish needs another unique solution.
You may solve an Elephant, but there is a specific beetle that lives
in a specific location eating a specific food and it will need it's
own solution, and there are likely to be millions of unique problems
that will all need unique solutions if you are to get from point 'a',
the pre-flood world, to point 'z', where each and every form of life
in the world has been preserved. And lowering the numbers by moving
up the taxonomic tree (why, in one sentence you used class, order,
and genera as if they were interchangable) does not help much, because
you now have to move down the tree to create the genetic diversity
that we see today. And John Woodmorappe's
"Furthermore, a single pair of founders most definitely can
have the same genetic diversity as fifty founders, and
without any miraculous or unusual procedures."
is preposterous. If there are five alleles for a single locus, then
a pair of founders cannot contain that diversity without genetic
deformity. And as the number rises, so lowers the credibility of
the statement.
And you try to accomplish all of this without a single intervening
helping hand from the Creator that you are trying to affirm. Removing
God does not obviate the need for the miracles that this event
requires, and in my mind, blasphemes the One you are trying to support!
Well, that is a long way from "120 years", but it is all part and
parcel of the "cut and paste" rape that the creationists are willing
to put the Bible and God through to support the cult dogma to which they
have become addicted.
rob derrick
Kyle Dillon
Tim Walters <twal...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<twaltersE...@netcom.com>...
> In article <ksjj-29119...@ppp-abe-415.fast.net>,
> ksjj <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
> >Keep in mind that the animal size would also have been greatly
> >reduced by bringing onboard infants at the start of the flood.
>
> I have this wonderful image of thousands of baby birds with their mouths
> open, begging for food to be dropped in. And thousands of baby mammals
> begging for milk. You are aware, aren't you, that infants require
> significantly more care than adults? How did Noah take care of 40,000
> babies?
Actually, it wasn't just Noah. There was his wife, his three sons: Ham,
Shem, and Japeth, and their wives. And how did you get exactly, or even
approximately, 40,000 as the number of animals? The Bible does say *kinds*
of animals, not species, all he needed was a couple from each family. They
could easily feed all of the animals.
And on another note, I've read that some people on this newsgroup find it
impossible to take them as infants because they would lose all instincts in
captivity and not be able to survive. The Bible does a pretty good job of
explaining this. First of all, carnivores didn't exist before the Flood
[no creature was allowed to eat meat until after the Flood (Gen. 9:3)(Gen.
1:29-30 says God provided herbs and fruits that yielded seeds for man, and
green herbs for beast and bird. No meat was eaten)], and animals were in
complete obedience under man (Gen. 1:26). So basically, animal instincts
did not exist until after the Flood.
>
> >If that wasn't enough noah could have used some of
> >the larger ox like animals to turn fans to force the ventillaton.
>
> Oh, wait, the large animals weren't infants after all! They were turning
> fans! Guess Noah couldn't have saved that much space with the large
> animals. Of course, now they're eating more too...
I'm not so sure about that. He could have taken oxen as adults and the
rest as babies. Like they say: ask a stupid question...
I've heard that the ark may have had a moon-pole (or moon-pull), which is a
hole in the bottom of large boats with walls extending upwards. This could
be used for many reasons. One of which would be ventilation. The
moon-pole acts as a piston when moving over waves: sucking out harmfull
gasses(CO2, ammonia from urine) and pushing in fresh air. It could also be
used to dispose of wastes and be used to keep the Ark balanced over large
waves.
Tim Walters
>> 2. Animals show up from all over the planet neatly sorted according to
>> Hebrew dietary restrictions. Need a miracle here, obviously.
>
>Just like uniformatarian/evolution models, the creation model has the
>worlds joined as one or two land masses. The animals did not have to
Just a point of clarification, Karl. What do you mean by "one or two
land masses"? Surely if you are saying that animals did not have to
cross an ocean, you meant to say, "the creation model has the world
joined as exactly one huge land mass". Am I right? The creation model
does require this? Thanks for clearing this up.
--
Tim Walters twal...@netcom.com
Tim Walters
In article <ksjj-29119...@ppp-abe-415.fast.net>,
ksjj <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
>In article <57mtgj$n...@news.gate.net>, dan...@gate.net wrote:
>> environments to thrive in between Ararat and their present locales, yet they
>> left no populations behind and no fossils of themselves behind. There should
>> be bison, raccoons, pumas and prairie dogs all over Europe and Asia. Not to
>> mention kanagaroos and kiwi birds (flightless, but they got 1000 miles off
>> shore to New Zealand). And let's not forget the Llama, an animal perfectly
>> suited to high snowy peaks, but we're supposed to believe that they *left*
>> the Himalayas, crossed plains and deserts and oceans to go half-way around
>> the world to the Andes mountains? Riiiiiiiight.
>
>At one time in america there were millions (maybe billions) of buffalo
>roaming the plains. Today the total population is but a fraction of the
>original.
>If you could leap ahead in time a few million years and do a dig to try
>and discover the buffalo in the americas past, you would find nothing.
>Despite an enourmous amount of buffalo in our countrys history, the
>geology has captured very little in any evidence. We know they were there
>because our recent past has witnessed it. The same may also be true for
>the carrier pigeon.
>Just because remains of a species is not found, does not mean that the
>species in question did not exist in that area.
>
>Animals, like today, have also be introduced into areas by man.
I'm awfully troubled by this Karl. For example, I keep trying to think
how you would explain the rattlesnake.
You see, the rattlesnake has to be a kind, because creationist
literature keeps talking about how impossible it would be for
poisonous snakes to evolve. Too many dependent parts and all that. So
I know that there were rattlesnakes on the Ark.
Rattlesnakes live in North and South America, not in Asia, so I'm not
sure how they got to the Ark. From what you've said before, Noah must
have hired somebody to go get them, since they couldn't crawl all the
way over to Asia. Not a great job, but I'm sure they knew how to
identify and handle poisonous snakes they'd never seen before.
What I'm curious about is what happened to them after the boat landed.
It would seem to me that the Middle East would be perfect territory
for them, but maybe they died out as you say for unknown reasons.
Still, how did they get back to North America? I can imagine humans
introducing horses and rabbits, but rattlesnakes? Who in his right
mind would take a rattlesnake with him on a trip?
How did rattlesnakes get back to North America after the Flood?
--
Tim Walters twal...@netcom.com
David Hultgren
Kyle Dillon wrote:
>
> Tim Walters <twal...@netcom.com> wrote in article
> <twaltersE...@netcom.com>...
> > >reduced by bringing onboard infants at the start of the flood.
> >
> > I have this wonderful image of thousands of baby birds with their mouths
> > open, begging for food to be dropped in. And thousands of baby mammals
> > begging for milk. You are aware, aren't you, that infants require
> > significantly more care than adults? How did Noah take care of 40,000
> > babies?
>
> Actually, it wasn't just Noah. There was his wife, his three sons: Ham,
> Shem, and Japeth, and their wives.
Still, feeding and removing waste for 20000 different species (with many
different feeding needs) manually, is not something You could do even
today..
> And how did you get exactly, or even
> approximately, 40,000 as the number of animals? The Bible does say *kinds*
40000 is a LOW estimate by creationists (it requires a lot of VERY fast
"microevolution" (orders of magnitued higher than evolution is observed
today by "evolutionists")
> of animals, not species, all he needed was a couple from each family. They
> could easily feed all of the animals.
>
> And on another note, I've read that some people on this newsgroup find it
> impossible to take them as infants because they would lose all instincts in
> captivity and not be able to survive. The Bible does a pretty good job of
> explaining this. First of all, carnivores didn't exist before the Flood
> [no creature was allowed to eat meat until after the Flood (Gen. 9:3)(Gen.
> 1:29-30 says God provided herbs and fruits that yielded seeds for man, and
> green herbs for beast and bird. No meat was eaten)], and animals were in
> complete obedience under man (Gen. 1:26). So basically, animal instincts
> did not exist until after the Flood.
What did they live on until the populations allowed meat (the farmland
was just salty mud when they leaved the ark!)
> >
> > >If that wasn't enough noah could have used some of
> > >the larger ox like animals to turn fans to force the ventillaton.
> >
> > Oh, wait, the large animals weren't infants after all! They were turning
> > fans! Guess Noah couldn't have saved that much space with the large
> > animals. Of course, now they're eating more too...
>
> I'm not so sure about that. He could have taken oxen as adults and the
> rest as babies. Like they say: ask a stupid question...
>
The most impressive thing down in the ark was probably not even the
fan(s)?, and the massive mechanisms that would be nessesary drive it
24h/day in a year, but the inditricate climate control that would be
nessesary to allow all the various climate for the different species
> I've heard that the ark may have had a moon-pole (or moon-pull), which is a
> hole in the bottom of large boats with walls extending upwards. This could
> be used for many reasons. One of which would be ventilation. The
> moon-pole acts as a piston when moving over waves: sucking out harmfull
> gasses(CO2, ammonia from urine) and pushing in fresh air. It could also be
> used to dispose of wastes and be used to keep the Ark balanced over large
> waves.
All very nice, some calulations please...
Burch Seymour
ash...@ccnet.com (Steve Henderson) writes:
> It always amazes me how creationalists can contort the Bible into
>various shapes while still claiming inerrency and accusing others who call
>their attention to the actual words of not really understanding what the words
>mean. The chief thing that interests me about creationalists is that their
>biblical knowledge and scholarship is frequently even worse than their
>scientific knowledge. Hard to believe, but it seems to be so often true.
You and a buncha other people too. I can't understand how they can read the
tale of Utnapishtim (summary below), and not realize that the authors of
the bible are just rehashing an old legend.
Assyrian:
The gods agreed to cleanse the earth of an overpopulated humanity, but
Utnapishtim was warned by the god Ea in a dream. He and some craftsmen
built a large boat (one acre in area, seven decks) in a week. He then
loaded it with his family, the craftsmen, and "the seed of all living
creatures." The waters of the abyss rose up, and it stormed for six
days. Upon seeing all the people killed, the gods repented and wept.
The waters covered everything but the top of the mountain Nisur, where
the boat landed. Seven days later, the waters had receded enough for
the people to emerge. Utnapishtim made a sacrifice to the gods. He and
his wife were given immortality and lived at the end of the earth.
[Sandars, chpt. 5]
Summary from Mark Isaac's Flood page:
http://pubweb.acns.nwu.edu/~pib/flood.htm#Europe
Check out the method by which Christmas became fixed on December 25th
sometime for another example of "borrowing" from other pagan cults.
-Burch-
Kyle Dillon
There is nothing wrong with the ark or Flood. Every question has an
answer. First of all, let me say that since the bible doesn't explain
every detail of the Flood, we can't *know* what really happened. What I
will show is some ideas.
1)Q. How did all the animals from the ark get to all those isolated
islands and continents?
A. There are two possibilities. The first is that there was a
temporary "Ice Age" after the Flood. Water could have frozen over and land
bridges could have formed. This could have given animals plenty of time to
get where they are now. It is also possible that there was a "Pangea"
after the Flood. The seperation of the continents probably did not occur
until the days of Peleg (Gen. 10:25 - "...the name of one son was Peleg,
for in his days the earth was divided).
And, of course, there's the good old miracle idea. There's a god. If he
can can create the universe in less than a week, why would he have a
problem with moving a few animals?
2)Q. How could all of the animals (including the 3,000,000 insects)
survive the weather conditions of a global flood?
A. The safety of the people and animals on the ark was a priority of
God. He made the Flood, after all. He would certainly make sure that none
of them died. A scientific explanation is unnecessary. Most things in the
Bible require God, plain and simple. You can't explain the parting of the
Red Sea as a combination of tides and winds. It was all God's doing.
(There may be a scientific explanation, but it is unknown to me and, as I
said, unnecessary)
3)Q. How long did the predators have to stay on board until the herbivores
had enough time to reproduce enough offspring to establish a population
large enough to survive?
A. First of all, there were no predators pre-Flood. No creature ate
meat. God gave permission of eating meat after the Flood. This does *not*
mean that everything that could eat meat did. Eating meat would have been
an aquired taste. After all, if the herbivores and the pre-predators were
both eating herbs, there would obviously be a shortage of plants and some
would have to resort to meat-eating. And the fact that there was *seven*
of every clean animal on board helps. That would have given every clean
animal (animals suitable to be eaten by man) three pairs to start off with.
A large population could easily be established quickly.
4)Q. Where did all the large amounts of rainwater go?
A. You can't expect a scientific answer. Don't. The Bible says that
God made the "...mountains rise and the valleys sink..." This means that
all of the water was stored in "valleys". Where are these valleys? Every
time you go to the ocean, you'll know. All of the water was drained into
the oceans.
You may not know that before the Flood, there was *never* rain. No clouds
were present. There was, however, a large vapor canopy above the earth
that trapped in the warmth and made the entire earth sub-tropical (Gen 1:2
says a firmament divided the waters from the waters, meaning that the
oceans were separated from the vapor canopy by our atmoshpere). Water came
from large
fountain-like geysers which sprayed a lot of mist into the air. The
collapse of the vapor canopy and the eruption of these fountains (sometimes
in the form of volcanoes) caused the torrential rain.
Douglas Weller
On 4 Dec 1996 04:32:01 GMT, "Kyle Dillon" <spi...@summitsoft.com> wrote:
>
>explaining this. First of all, carnivores didn't exist before the Flood
>[no creature was allowed to eat meat until after the Flood (Gen. 9:3)(Gen.
>1:29-30 says God provided herbs and fruits that yielded seeds for man, and
>green herbs for beast and bird. No meat was eaten)], and animals were in
>complete obedience under man (Gen. 1:26). So basically, animal instincts
>did not exist until after the Flood.
>>
So before the 'flood' carnivores had different teeth?
xona
The BIBLE says-- get a life-- the BIBLE is pure fiction for little
boys with little minds and no where for to spew their clap-trap, like
this shit.
xona
Brandon M. Gorte
Kyle Dillon (spi...@summitsoft.com) wrote:
[ Bunch of creationist jargon ]
Q: Where's your evidence?
A: Evolution is a fact. The Earth is 4.6 billion years old. Humans and
other simeons (apes) evolved from a common ancestor. There is tons of
evidence for this (literally).
BMG
The facts state evolution, not myths and legends.
Charles Dyer
In article <01bbe1f7$04f8b340$a314f0cd@summit03>, "Kyle Dillon"
<spi...@summitsoft.com> wrote:
> There is nothing wrong with the ark or Flood.
Wrong. The Ark could not have supported its own weight. And would have been
too small to carry the required animals even if it could. And the internal
environment would have been fatal to most animals even if you could somehow
pack 'em in. The Flood is simply not credible, not if it was going to cover
the entire Earth. Everest is 29,000 feet plus, straight up. That's _a lot
of water_, man.
Every question has an
> answer. First of all, let me say that since the bible doesn't explain
> every detail of the Flood, we can't *know* what really happened. What I
> will show is some ideas.
> 1)Q. How did all the animals from the ark get to all those isolated
> islands and continents?
> A. There are two possibilities. The first is that there was a
> temporary "Ice Age" after the Flood. Water could have frozen over and land
> bridges could have formed. This could have given animals plenty of time to
> get where they are now. It is also possible that there was a "Pangea"
> after the Flood. The seperation of the continents probably did not occur
> until the days of Peleg (Gen. 10:25 - "...the name of one son was Peleg,
> for in his days the earth was divided).
> And, of course, there's the good old miracle idea. There's a god. If he
> can can create the universe in less than a week, why would he have a
> problem with moving a few animals?
No go. Some animals (eg kaolas) require specific food. Euculyptus tress
don't move on their own. For kaolas to reach Ye Ark, a line of trees
reaching from Australia to Palestine would have had to be established.
Ditto for animals like sloths, only in that case the line would have had to
have reached across the Atlantic Ocean. How big was that Ice Age? And why
didn't the Bible mention that it got a mite chilly? As for the panegea
theory, that simply moves the problem. Now you get to explain why the
continents started to move, how fast they moved, and why they stopped
moving at that rate and slowed down to the rate observed, and why all
evidence is consistent with their never having moved at a rate much above
or below the present rate. And, even with Pangea, you still need a line of
trees from whereever sloths are to Palestine. There's a _reason_ they're
called sloths. Exactly when did they start moving to meet Noah? And why did
they leave their original homes, anyway?
>
> 2)Q. How could all of the animals (including the 3,000,000 insects)
> survive the weather conditions of a global flood?
>
> A. The safety of the people and animals on the ark was a priority of
> God. He made the Flood, after all. He would certainly make sure that none
> of them died. A scientific explanation is unnecessary. Most things in the
> Bible require God, plain and simple. You can't explain the parting of the
> Red Sea as a combination of tides and winds. It was all God's doing.
> (There may be a scientific explanation, but it is unknown to me and, as I
> said, unnecessary)
Yep. Except that most creationists, especially including Karl 'ksjj'
Crawford, insist that there is a _scientific_ reason for Ye Floode and that
us 'secular humanists' are ignoring the evidence. And, most damning, if God
was going to use assorted miracles to keep the animals alive during Ye
Floode, wouldn't it have been simplier to achieve His object (punishing the
humans who were ignoring him) by using _one_ miracle to kill 'em all, or
say every second one? I mean, if you're walking down the road, chatting to
your best bud, and he falls over dead and a voice booms out "REPENT OR DIE,
SINNER! THIS IS YOUR LAST WARNING!" don't you think that you'd get the
point? Simplifies logistics no end.
>
> 3)Q. How long did the predators have to stay on board until the herbivores
> had enough time to reproduce enough offspring to establish a population
> large enough to survive?
>
> A. First of all, there were no predators pre-Flood.
Oh? I suppose the dentition of tigers, barracudas, etc was purely
orenmenatal? How about woodpeckers, with that beak designed only for
punching holes in wood and that tongue designed for spearing insects? Or
frogs, with their tongues, again designed for insect-eating? Or ant-eaters?
What _did_ an anteater eat before Ye Floode? How about spiders? Did fruit
fall into their webs, where they could kill it with their poisonous fangs?
How about snakes in general, and pit vipers in particular? Pit vipers have
a heat sensor on either side of the snout, in the pit that gives them their
name. It is used to help locate warm-blooded prey. Pit vipers also have
long, fold-away posion fangs. The poison is formulated to be effective
against small mammals. Are you saying that pit vipers stalked trees with
their heat-seaking pits and bit them to death, hmm?
No creature ate
> meat. God gave permission of eating meat after the Flood. This does *not*
> mean that everything that could eat meat did. Eating meat would have been
> an aquired taste. After all, if the herbivores and the pre-predators were
> both eating herbs, there would obviously be a shortage of plants and some
> would have to resort to meat-eating. And the fact that there was *seven*
> of every clean animal on board helps. That would have given every clean
> animal (animals suitable to be eaten by man) three pairs to start off with.
> A large population could easily be established quickly.
After Ye Floode there would have been no topsoil; all would have been
washed away by the 40 days rain. The rock and subsoil left would have been
contaminated by salt from the sea. There would have been no fresh ground
water; that too would have been contaminated by salt. How are you going to
grow plants without topsoil and fresh water?
>
> 4)Q. Where did all the large amounts of rainwater go?
>
> A. You can't expect a scientific answer. Don't. The Bible says that
> God made the "...mountains rise and the valleys sink..." This means that
> all of the water was stored in "valleys". Where are these valleys? Every
> time you go to the ocean, you'll know. All of the water was drained into
> the oceans.
Won't wash. If that water drained into the oceans, then you've got a
problem, there simply isn't enough water to flood the earth to that level.
You've been watching too many reruns of 'Waterworld'.
>
> You may not know that before the Flood, there was *never* rain.
In that case, there was no plant life, and everyone died. Next.
No clouds
> were present. There was, however, a large vapor canopy above the earth
> that trapped in the warmth and made the entire earth sub-tropical (Gen 1:2
> says a firmament divided the waters from the waters, meaning that the
> oceans were separated from the vapor canopy by our atmoshpere).
And all that water blocked the sunlight. No sunlight, no plants.
(photosynthesis, you know...) In which case everyone died. Next.
Water came
> from large
> fountain-like geysers which sprayed a lot of mist into the air. The
> collapse of the vapor canopy and the eruption of these fountains (sometimes
> in the form of volcanoes) caused the torrential rain.
This post shows you don't know too much about the following subjects:
Physics in general, and statics and tensile strengths in particular (you
think the Ark would hold together.)
Geology.
Biology.
Metreology.
Have I left any out?
--
"The old order changeth, yeilding place to new,
And God fulfils Himself in many ways"
-- from _Morte D'Arthur_, part of _The Idylls of the King_, Alfred, Lord
Tennyson
David Hultgren
Douglas Weller wrote:
>
> So before the 'flood' carnivores had different teeth?
Not neccesary, according to a even more lunatic fringe of the
creationists (it is hard to differ the two, but never mind)
They say that the teeth were used to gather leaves (I am not making
this up)! For instance they say that T.rex was a hebrivore, that
only eated leaves from trees!
Ofcourse they ignore the fossils of dino do-do found (amongst a
plentitude of other things), but that shouldnt surprise many here..
DH.
Roger Ivie
In article <01bbe1f7$04f8b340$a314f0cd@summit03>, "Kyle Dillon" <spi...@summitsoft.com> writes:
> There is nothing wrong with the ark or Flood. Every question has an
> answer. [[[snip]]]
> And, of course, there's the good old miracle idea. There's a god. If he
> can can create the universe in less than a week, why would he have a
> problem with moving a few animals?
Sure. An WHY WOULD HE NEED AN ARK???? Hmm???
> A. First of all, there were no predators pre-Flood. No creature ate
> meat.
Darn. There go all the meat-eating dinosaurs so neatly sorted by the flood...
--
-------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Roger Ivie | "Since then, it's been my policy to view the
iv...@cc.usu.edu | Internet...as an electronic asylum filled with
http://cc.usu.edu/~ivie/ | babbling loonies" -- Mike Royko
Michael Clark
> In article <57qfkt$1o...@news.gate.net>, dan...@gate.net wrote:
>
> > Karl, I just can't buy your speel. A 120 year old wooden vessel does not
> > increase my confidence in its seaworthiness. Nor can I buy the idea that
> > Noah started collecting animals 120 years before they boarded the ark.
>
> Oh well.
>
> BTW: I read the rest of of your post. I realized that you really don't
> want to learn and I'd be wasting my time with you.
Hey Cool! I stuck a new 10 terra-byte buffer on my new Irony-o-meter and
she held up. Smoke was rollin' out the back and the lights in the house
dimmed for a minute but we've still got LEDs! Maybe now I can safely
wade through some more Karlshit (tm). Aint techology grand?
> --
> see ya,
> karl
> *********************************************
> The Bible says dust. Not evolution.
>
Makouli
Matthew Norton
>Actually, it wasn't just Noah. There was his wife, his three sons: Ham,
>Shem, and Japeth, and their wives. And how did you get exactly, or even
>approximately, 40,000 as the number of animals? The Bible does say *kinds*
>of animals, not species, all he needed was a couple from each family. They
>could easily feed all of the animals.
>
So after the flood was completed, and the mystical dove found the
olive branch (they hit the ground, and tore a hole in their hull), a
relatively depauperate fauna is released into the world, and we have
the a phenomenal event of speciation? Does anyone else think this is
evolution -- the creation of entirely new morphologies, genomes and
life histories in a couple of thousand years is way more radical than
any evolutionist would dare to claim.
>And on another note, I've read that some people on this newsgroup find it
>impossible to take them as infants because they would lose all instincts in
>captivity and not be able to survive. The Bible does a pretty good job of
>explaining this. First of all, carnivores didn't exist before the Flood
>[no creature was allowed to eat meat until after the Flood (Gen. 9:3)(Gen.
>1:29-30 says God provided herbs and fruits that yielded seeds for man, and
>green herbs for beast and bird. No meat was eaten)], and animals were in
>complete obedience under man (Gen. 1:26). So basically, animal instincts
>did not exist until after the Flood.
Oh. I see. How foolish of me to think that Noah couldn't have cared
for all the animals based on behaviour _and_ environmental
requirements. Just out of curiosity, when you picture Noah going on
to, in, or coming out from the Ark, is he singing "Zippity Doo Dah"
with his completely harmonious set of animals companions? Were they
animated too? If so, then we could get rid of the feeding issue, as
all Noah and family would have needed to keep the world's animal fauna
alive would have been some fresh paint to touch up the cracked parts.
"I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV, |Matthew Norton, University of Toronto
and I'll attend to you, if you'll attend to me." |mno...@tuzo.erin.utoronto.ca
-King Apparatus, "Hospital Waiting Room" |Still wading throught the electronic garbage...
Micheal Keane
In article <MPG.d114f891...@news.skypoint.com>,
Michael Clark <mcl...@skypoint.com> wrote:
>> Oh well.
>>
>> BTW: I read the rest of of your post. I realized that you really don't
>> want to learn and I'd be wasting my time with you.
>
>Hey Cool! I stuck a new 10 terra-byte buffer on my new Irony-o-meter and
>she held up. Smoke was rollin' out the back and the lights in the house
>dimmed for a minute but we've still got LEDs! Maybe now I can safely
>wade through some more Karlshit (tm). Aint techology grand?
See, just goes to show that paying the extra money for an
Irony-O-Meter(tm) brand ironymeter is worth every penny. I bet Joe Blow
who saved 50% by buying That Other Brand and not getting the 10 terra-byte
buffer and power redirection unit is hitting himself now that his
ironymeter is a melted piece of slag.
With the success of the 10 terra-byte buffer, the Corporation is planning
on making it standard in the soon to be released Irony-O-Meter: The Next
Generation.
--
Micheal Keane(ae...@u.washington.edu) Join the Church of Last Thursday!
Sending unsolicited email this address implies that you wish to use my
free service to kill you at an unspecified time, place and manner.
I am the sole determiner of what is unsolicited. On-topic replies welcomed.
Rick Gillespie
In article <01bbe1f7$04f8b340$a314f0cd@summit03>,
Kyle Dillon <spi...@summitsoft.com> wrote:
[snip]
>And, of course, there's the good old miracle idea. There's a god. If he
>can can create the universe in less than a week, why would he have a
>problem with moving a few animals?
Then why bother with a flood in the first place? Why didn't Yahweh
simply snap his metaphysical fingers and off all the bad people
at once?
Rick Gillespie
Michael D. Painter
Brandon M. Gorte <bmg...@mtu.edu> wrote in article
<581hjr$9...@geolabserver.geo>...
The flood myth was most likely taken from older such stories. For the last
hundred years or so there has been no real argument about the fact that
two stories from two sources are mixed together in a way foreign to our
culture but probably not to the people of the time.
"Who wrote the bible" by Richard Friedman is an excellent text on the
subject.
A lunar calendar is most unlikely because at the time the stories were
finally formalized more sophisticated calendars were being used. There is
some indication that the ages of the people were shortened to be more
acceptable. Some older stories had people living 25,000 years.
Maxwell Smart's "would you believe...." comes to mind.
peter smith
Kyle Dillon (spi...@summitsoft.com) wrote:
: Tim Walters <twal...@netcom.com> wrote in article
: <twaltersE...@netcom.com>...
: > In article <ksjj-29119...@ppp-abe-415.fast.net>,
: > ksjj <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
: > >Keep in mind that the animal size would also have been greatly
: > >reduced by bringing onboard infants at the start of the flood.
: >
: > I have this wonderful image of thousands of baby birds with their mouths
: > open, begging for food to be dropped in. And thousands of baby mammals
: > begging for milk. You are aware, aren't you, that infants require
: > significantly more care than adults? How did Noah take care of 40,000
: > babies?
: Actually, it wasn't just Noah. There was his wife, his three sons: Ham,
: Shem, and Japeth, and their wives. And how did you get exactly, or even
: approximately, 40,000 as the number of animals? The Bible does say *kinds*
: of animals, not species, all he needed was a couple from each family. They
: could easily feed all of the animals.
: And on another note, I've read that some people on this newsgroup find it
: impossible to take them as infants because they would lose all instincts in
: captivity and not be able to survive. The Bible does a pretty good job of
: explaining this. First of all, carnivores didn't exist before the Flood
: [no creature was allowed to eat meat until after the Flood (Gen. 9:3)(Gen.
: 1:29-30 says God provided herbs and fruits that yielded seeds for man, and
: green herbs for beast and bird. No meat was eaten)], and animals were in
: complete obedience under man (Gen. 1:26). So basically, animal instincts
: did not exist until after the Flood.
: >
This should be reproducible. Has anyone tried to keep all species
or kinds of animals alive on a vegetarian diet (fish, mammal, bacteria)?
It also implies that the surface of the planet was littered with
the bodies of all the animals that died since there would be no
flesh eating animals or bacteria to dispose of them. Imagine the smell!
: > >If that wasn't enough noah could have used some of
: > >the larger ox like animals to turn fans to force the ventillaton.
: >
: > Oh, wait, the large animals weren't infants after all! They were turning
: > fans! Guess Noah couldn't have saved that much space with the large
: > animals. Of course, now they're eating more too...
: I'm not so sure about that. He could have taken oxen as adults and the
: rest as babies. Like they say: ask a stupid question...
: I've heard that the ark may have had a moon-pole (or moon-pull), which is a
Thomas Scharle
In article <5884v6$h...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>, ae...@u.washington.edu (Micheal Keane) writes:
...
|> See, just goes to show that paying the extra money for an
|> Irony-O-Meter(tm) brand ironymeter is worth every penny. I bet Joe Blow
|> who saved 50% by buying That Other Brand and not getting the 10 terra-byte
|> buffer and power redirection unit is hitting himself now that his
|> ironymeter is a melted piece of slag.
|>
|> With the success of the 10 terra-byte buffer, the Corporation is planning
|> on making it standard in the soon to be released Irony-O-Meter: The Next
|> Generation.
I have heard that the TOB brand ironymeter is coming out with the
luna-byte (also spelled "looney") buffer.
--
Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
Tim Walters
Let's see, then He snaps his fingers and the survivors mistakenly
remember that there was a big flood!
--
Tim Walters twal...@netcom.com
Charles Dyer
> Douglas Weller wrote:
> >
> > So before the 'flood' carnivores had different teeth?
>
> Not neccesary, according to a even more lunatic fringe of the
> creationists (it is hard to differ the two, but never mind)
>
> They say that the teeth were used to gather leaves (I am not making
> this up)! For instance they say that T.rex was a hebrivore, that
> only eated leaves from trees!
I heard _that_ one different. Those teeth were _really_ a sieve. You see, T
rex would stick a branch into its mouth, and strain the fruit off of it.
Spit out the wood and leaves.
And if you believe that, I have this excellent deal on beachfront property
in Zimbabwe. Going cheap. Cash only. Small bills. Email me for details.
> Ofcourse they ignore the fossils of dino do-do found (amongst a
> plentitude of other things), but that shouldnt surprise many here..
>
> DH.
--
Brandon M. Gorte
Michael D. Painter (mpai...@maxinet.com) wrote:
: Brandon M. Gorte <bmg...@mtu.edu> wrote in article
: <581hjr$9...@geolabserver.geo>...
: > Looking at it, Karl's "world" can mean a lot of different things.
: >
: > The term "world" is not only used to describe the planet Earth, but also
: > describes our region, immediate area, or people we associate with.
Karl's world is unique.
[Flood stuff cut]
:
: The flood myth was most likely taken from older such stories. For the last
: hundred years or so there has been no real argument about the fact that
: two stories from two sources are mixed together in a way foreign to our
: culture but probably not to the people of the time.
: "Who wrote the bible" by Richard Friedman is an excellent text on the
: subject.
:
: A lunar calendar is most unlikely because at the time the stories were
: finally formalized more sophisticated calendars were being used. There is
: some indication that the ages of the people were shortened to be more
: acceptable. Some older stories had people living 25,000 years.
:
: Maxwell Smart's "would you believe...." comes to mind.
Wow, 25,000 years! The fact that it is pieced together from other
stories only reinforces how absurd the idea of a world-wide flood is.
However, many myths have some sort of truth behind them some way, some
how. So some ancient culture (maybe 10,000-20,000 years ago) experienced
a flood, and it was exagerated over time. The problem is finding out
what really happened, what caused these people to believe the flood
myth, and write it down. A fundie believes it only because it is written
in the Bible. If it was written on a temple wall, they would disreguard
it as a myth, and we wouldn't be having this stupid discussion with them.
As for the creation myth...what were they on, mushrooms or cannibis?
The book sounds good, thanks.
Alan Barclay
In article <5891v1$h...@reader1.reader.news.ozemail.net>,
peter smith <wes...@shell01.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>This should be reproducible. Has anyone tried to keep all species
>or kinds of animals alive on a vegetarian diet (fish, mammal, bacteria)?
Cats cannot live on a vegetarian diet without amino acid suplements.
There is one amino acid which they cannot synthesize from plant amino
acids, but other animals can. Therefore they must eat meat, or have
(modern) amino acid suplements. I imagine that other carnivores may
have similar requirements.
David Jensen
On 4 Dec 1996 22:35:12 GMT, "Kyle Dillon" <spi...@summitsoft.com> wrote:
>There is nothing wrong with the ark or Flood. Every question has an
>answer. First of all, let me say that since the bible doesn't explain
>every detail of the Flood, we can't *know* what really happened. What I
>will show is some ideas.
>1)Q. How did all the animals from the ark get to all those isolated
>islands and continents?
"It's a miracle" is the only answer that will not have biologists
rolling on the floor with laughter. (I like your idea of the tower of
Babel as allegory for continental drift)
>2)Q. How could all of the animals (including the 3,000,000 insects)
>survive the weather conditions of a global flood?
>(There may be a scientific explanation, but it is unknown to me and, as I
>said, unnecessary)
Good answer.
There is no scientific explanation for this.
>3)Q. How long did the predators have to stay on board until the herbivores
>had enough time to reproduce enough offspring to establish a population
>large enough to survive?
>
> A. First of all, there were no predators pre-Flood. No creature ate
>meat. God gave permission of eating meat after the Flood. This does *not*
>mean that everything that could eat meat did. Eating meat would have been
>an aquired taste. After all, if the herbivores and the pre-predators were
>both eating herbs, there would obviously be a shortage of plants and some
>would have to resort to meat-eating. And the fact that there was *seven*
>of every clean animal on board helps. That would have given every clean
>animal (animals suitable to be eaten by man) three pairs to start off with.
> A large population could easily be established quickly.
Given the teeth and digestive system of carnivores, how did they survive
on plants? If your answer is "It's a miracle" I won't pursue it any
more.
>4)Q. Where did all the large amounts of rainwater go?
> A. You can't expect a scientific answer. Don't. The Bible says that
>God made the "...mountains rise and the valleys sink..." This means that
>all of the water was stored in "valleys". Where are these valleys? Every
>time you go to the ocean, you'll know. All of the water was drained into
>the oceans.
And then he made all of the evidence for the flood disappear from the
geological record.
>You may not know that before the Flood, there was *never* rain. No clouds
>were present. There was, however, a large vapor canopy above the earth
>that trapped in the warmth and made the entire earth sub-tropical (Gen 1:2
>says a firmament divided the waters from the waters, meaning that the
>oceans were separated from the vapor canopy by our atmoshpere). Water came
>from large fountain-like geysers which sprayed a lot of mist into the air. The
>collapse of the vapor canopy and the eruption of these fountains (sometimes
>in the form of volcanoes) caused the torrential rain.
You may believe that, but I would check with a biologist to see if life
would survive under those circumstances. My quick memory of botany and
zoology tells me that life would not survive with this. Did God change
the laws of physics during the flood?
===========================================================
The talk.origins faqs are at http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/
Capella
David Jensen wrote:
>
> On 4 Dec 1996 22:35:12 GMT, "Kyle Dillon" <spi...@summitsoft.com> wrote:
>
> >There is nothing wrong with the ark or Flood. Every question has an
> >answer. First of all, let me say that since the bible doesn't explain
> >every detail of the Flood, we can't *know* what really happened. What I
> >will show is some ideas.
> >1)Q. How did all the animals from the ark get to all those isolated
> >islands and continents?
>
> "It's a miracle" is the only answer that will not have biologists
> rolling on the floor with laughter. (I like your idea of the tower of
> Babel as allegory for continental drift)
You think that most biologists will be impressed with "it's a miracle"
for an explanation?
If God wanted to use miracles, why bother with an ark, why not just
blink and make all the "evil things and people" disappear?
Read the bible again, God put solid sky dome (NRSV) in to divide the water
into 2, above and below the solid sky dome. He then put celestial bodies
*in* the solid sky dome. This means the water your talking about is
*above* the celestial bodies (Sun, moon, and stars). The water was meant to
fall down through "sluice gates" in the solid sky dome to form clouds and rain
(windows of heaven GEN 7:11). This is well documented by most scholars of the bible.
This was also the prevailing believe by most cultures at the time this
was written.
If anyone wants a list of these scriptures, write me at Cap...@airmail.net
and I will send them to you.
If they ever found an ark they would have to decide which flood myth it came
from, the Hindus rain-goddess' ark, the Sumerian ark, the Persian's Mithra's
ark, the Armenian's ark, or the Assyrain's Epic of Gilgamesh's Ziusudra's ark.
All of these stories predated the Bible's account (some by more than a thousand
years). The Bible's Yawist account is taken almost word for word in some places
from the Gilgamesh account.
Write me at Cap...@airmail.net and I will be happy to send a side by side
comparison between the Gilgamesh account and the Yawist's (bible) account.
> >Water came
> >from large fountain-like geysers which sprayed a lot of mist into the air. The
> >collapse of the vapor canopy and the eruption of these fountains (sometimes
> >in the form of volcanoes) caused the torrential rain.
>
> You may believe that, but I would check with a biologist to see if life
> would survive under those circumstances. My quick memory of botany and
> zoology tells me that life would not survive with this. Did God change
> the laws of physics during the flood?
>
> ===========================================================
> The talk.origins faqs are at http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/
--
Capella
Dallas, Texas
David Jensen
On Sat, 07 Dec 1996 14:15:05 -0600, Capella <cap...@airmail.net> wrote:
>David Jensen wrote:
>> "It's a miracle" is the only answer that will not have biologists
>> rolling on the floor with laughter. (I like your idea of the tower of
>> Babel as allegory for continental drift)
>You think that most biologists will be impressed with "it's a miracle"
>for an explanation?
Only to the extent that they cannot or will not bother to argue with it.
When confronted with bad science, they have a tendency to try to correct
erroneous statements (though after some of the creationists' ideas, I
assume it will take time to recover from the silliness).
>If God wanted to use miracles, why bother with an ark, why not just
>blink and make all the "evil things and people" disappear?
I don't know. It's not my story.
Dick Lessard
Capella wrote:
>
> David Jensen wrote:
> >
> > On 4 Dec 1996 22:35:12 GMT, "Kyle Dillon" <spi...@summitsoft.com> wrote:
> >
> > >There is nothing wrong with the ark or Flood. Every question has an
> > >answer. First of all, let me say that since the bible doesn't explain
> > >every detail of the Flood, we can't *know* what really happened. What I
> > >will show is some ideas.
> > >3)Q. How long did the predators have to stay on board until the herbivores
> > >had enough time to reproduce enough offspring to establish a population
> > >large enough to survive?
> > >
> > > A. First of all, there were no predators pre-Flood. No creature ate
> > >meat. God gave permission of eating meat after the Flood. This does *not*
> > >mean that everything that could eat meat did. Eating meat would have been
> > >an aquired taste. After all, if the herbivores and the pre-predators were
> > >both eating herbs, there would obviously be a shortage of plants and some
> > >would have to resort to meat-eating. And the fact that there was *seven*
> > >of every clean animal on board helps. That would have given every clean
> > >animal (animals suitable to be eaten by man) three pairs to start off with.
> > > A large population could easily be established quickly.
Ignoring for the moment the absurdity of wolves, hyenas, eagles, etc. as
herbivores, I must say that your claim that meat eating was only
sanctioned by God after the flood is a new one on me. I thought the
standard fundementalist claim was that death entered the world when Adam
and Eve fell from grace, after that nasty business with the talking
snake and the magic fruit trees. Carnivorism usually is said to have
entered the world at that point, and not post-flood.
-- Dick Lessard
Keith littlejo@comm.net
Subject: Re: Ark Problems - why I can't believe...
Newsgroups: talk.o...@dispatch.demon.co.uk
In message <58597u$i...@geolabserver.geo>
bmg...@mtu.edu (Brandon M. Gorte) wrote
Kyle Dillon (spi...@summitsoft.com) wrote:
+[ Bunch of creationist jargon ]
+Q: Where's your evidence?
+A: Evolution is a fact. The Earth is 4.6 billion years old.
+Humans and other simeons (apes) evolved from a common
+ancestor. There is tons of evidence for this (literally).
For some more facts on the Ark, an article Mr . Wyatt's,
Noah's Ark that is authored by Dr. L. Gene Collins, and
David Franklin Fasold has been recently published in the
September 1996, "Journal of Geoscience Education".
The abstract of the article, in part, reads:
"A natural rock structure near Dogubayazit, Turkey, has
been misindentified as Noah's Ark. Microscopic studies
of a supposed iron bracket show that it is derived from
weathered volcanic minerals. Supposed metal-braced
walls are natural concentrations of limonite and magnetite
in steeply inclined sedimentary layers in the limbs of a
doubly plunging syncline . Supposed fossilized
gopherwood bark is crinkled metamorphosed peridotite.."
The feature that Mr. Wyatt claims to be Noah's Ark is
nothing more than a doubly plunging syncline, a common
geological structure. What Mr. Wyatt considers to be the
hull of the ship consists of peridotite, a rock too brittle and
heavy to have been part of a ship. Finally, the boulders
claimed to be the "anchors stones" of Noah's Ark were
examined and found to be composed of a local volcanic
rock, "andesite", not found in Mespotamia (Collins and
Fasold 1996).
I think anybody looking for Noah's Ark should at least
take the time and trouble to take a undergraduate course
in physical geology.
The citation for this article is:
Collins, L. Gene, and David Franklin Fasold (1996) Bogus
"Noah's Ark" from Turkey Exposed as a Common
Geological Structure. Journal of Geoscience Education.
vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 439-444.
Cheers,
Keith Littlejohn
New Orleans, LA
litt...@comm.net
"It is understandable why early investigators falsely
identified it. The unusual boat-shaped structure
would so catch their attention that an eagerness
to be persons who either discovered Noah's Ark or
confirmed its existence would tend to override
caution."
Collins and Fasold (1996), p. 443.
David James Riddell
>Kyle Dillon (spi...@summitsoft.com) wrote:
>: And on another note, I've read that some people on this newsgroup find it
>: impossible to take them as infants because they would lose all instincts in
>: captivity and not be able to survive. The Bible does a pretty good job of
>: explaining this. First of all, carnivores didn't exist before the Flood
>: [no creature was allowed to eat meat until after the Flood (Gen. 9:3)(Gen.
>: 1:29-30 says God provided herbs and fruits that yielded seeds for man, and
>: green herbs for beast and bird. No meat was eaten)], and animals were in
>: complete obedience under man (Gen. 1:26). So basically, animal instincts
>: did not exist until after the Flood.
First up, the bible makes it clear adult animals were taken on board the ark:
"Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate; and a
pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate." (Gen. 7:2).
This makes no sense at all if the animals concerned were infants.
As for Gen. 9:3, this is God talking to Noah about human food; "Every moving
thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green plants, I
give you everything." How do you read that as saying no animal was allowed to
eat meat until after the flood? I thought the creationist position was that
death entered the world with the Fall.
Creationism? The Bible says NO!
David
Michelle Malkin
Dick Lessard <dles...@btg.com> wrote:
>-- Dick Lessard
Plus, how did they manage to feed all those spiders, snakes, gnats, mosquitos,
roaches, bedbugs, earwigs, internal parasites, scorpians? I'd hate to think of the poor
Noah family not only having to feed the internal parasites from their own innards but
suffering from repeated cootie attacks.
Mickey
Muaddib
I learned in my comparative vertebrate anatomy class that herbivores
need a longer gut to give bacteria a longer period of time in which to
break down cellulose. Carnivores have shorter gut lengths since they
primarily digest plasma membranes, which are easier to breakdown. For
an animal like a wolf to switch from being a herbivore to a carnivore
would require the gut length to shorten significantly since present day
wolves only have a gut adapted for breaking down plasma membranes. The
ridiculous story of the ark necessitates evolution for it to even make
sense. Creationists, you lose either way.
P.S. Herbivores like cows regergitate food to help breakdown cellulose.
Rabbits eat their own feces. Wolves would probably have similar
behavior patterns if they were herbivores. A dramatic shift in behavior
pattern during the change from herbivore to carnivore would be difficult
to achieve since most animals do what they do by instinct. Instincts
don't change overnight in most circumstances.
cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
On 4 Dec 1996 22:35:12 GMT, "Kyle Dillon" <spi...@summitsoft.com> wrote:
: A. First of all, there were no predators pre-Flood. No creature ate
: meat. God gave permission of eating meat after the Flood. This does *not*
: mean that everything that could eat meat did. Eating meat would have been
: an aquired taste.
Oh, how I wish I had been there, in those pre-flood days, to witness the
majestic herds of lions and mongooses (mongeese?) grazing peacefully on
the veldt...but I do wonder what odd plant died in the flood that fed
flamingos before they too were forced to feed on flesh.
--
******************************
Me fail English?
That's unpossible!
- Ralph Wiggum
******************************
Donna Coyne
Michelle Malkin (malk...@mindspring.com) wrote:: >> > On 4 Dec 1996 22:35:12 GMT, "Kyle Dillon" <spi...@summitsoft.com> wrote:
: >> > >There is nothing wrong with the ark or Flood. Every question has an
: >> > >answer. First of all, let me say that since the bible doesn't explain
: >> > >every detail of the Flood, we can't *know* what really happened.
[a bunch of stuff snipped]
: Plus, how did they manage to feed all those spiders, snakes, gnats, mosquitos,
: roaches, bedbugs, earwigs, internal parasites, scorpians? I'd hate to think of the poor
: Noah family not only having to feed the internal parasites from their own innards but
: suffering from repeated cootie attacks.
I remember reading (I think it was in Clarence Darrow's refutation
of the Flood myth, but I'm not positive -- I can look it up if anyone
feels they absolutely have to know) that there are over one million
*species* of insects, so did Noah pick a male and a female for each
of the one-million-plus insect species, and if so, how?
I'm sorry, but this cracks me up. Picture Noah, a cranky old guy
with a magnifying glass, up to his hiney in two-million-odd assorted
crawly bugs, trying to figure out their teensy-weensy bug genitalia
so he can match up one male and one female of each species:
"Seven hundred fifty-eight thousand, three hundred twenty-SIX,
seven hundred fifty-eight thousand, three hundred twenty-SEVEN,
seven hundred fifty-eight thousand, three hundred twenty-EIGHT..."
[Phone rings]
"Will somebody get that?"
[Phone goes on ringing]
"DAMMIT TO HELL!!!"
[Noah answers phone, then returns to living room, where bugs are
running around in disorganized manner]
"One...two...three...four... [etc.]"
Capella
Let's not even start on microrganisms! Poor Noah would have needed
a microscope and a *lot* of patience to gather all those little
suckers together (unless of course they "marched" on board by
themselves or hitchhiked on a host organism) as well as Fungi
and other spore bearing things.
--
Capella
Dallas, Texas
Chris Heiny
>> 11. And finally, most of the animals in the Americas would have found ideal
>> environments to thrive in between Ararat and their present locales, yet they
>> left no populations behind and no fossils of themselves behind. There should
>> be bison, raccoons, pumas and prairie dogs all over Europe and Asia. Not to
>> mention kanagaroos and kiwi birds (flightless, but they got 1000 miles off
>> shore to New Zealand). And let's not forget the Llama, an animal perfectly
>> suited to high snowy peaks, but we're supposed to believe that they *left*
>> the Himalayas, crossed plains and deserts and oceans to go half-way around
>> the world to the Andes mountains? Riiiiiiiight.
>
>At one time in america there were millions (maybe billions) of buffalo
>roaming the plains. Today the total population is but a fraction of the
>original.
>If you could leap ahead in time a few million years and do a dig to try
>and discover the buffalo in the americas past, you would find nothing.
>Despite an enourmous amount of buffalo in our countrys history, the
>geology has captured very little in any evidence. We know they were there
>because our recent past has witnessed it. The same may also be true for
>the carrier pigeon.
>Just because remains of a species is not found, does not mean that the
>species in question did not exist in that area.
Remember folks, this is the same bonehead who insists that we ought to
have jillions of intermediates in the fossil record who is now claiming
that the fossil record will not record the migration of animals from
Ararat to their current ranges.
You can't have it both ways, Karl.
--
Christopher Heiny Professor of Bizarre Theories
University of Ediacara Offther-Hocking Chair of Lunar Influences
ch...@eso.mc.xerox.com
"You are lying, Ted!"
Shrieked Mrs Anomalocaris,
"Liar,
liar!
LIAR!
You are a liar, Ted!
You were mating with that _nathorsti_ tramp again,
Weren't you, Ted? Liar!"
And then she threw the platter of trilobites at him.
'Song of Anomalocaris - The Soap Opera'
Season 246, Episode 118a: Edward and Agnes Divorce
Charles Dyer
In article <32A9D0...@airmail.net>, Capella <cap...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
> Read the bible again, God put solid sky dome (NRSV) in to divide the water
> into 2, above and below the solid sky dome. He then put celestial bodies
> *in* the solid sky dome. This means the water your talking about is
> *above* the celestial bodies (Sun, moon, and stars). The water was meant to
> fall down through "sluice gates" in the solid sky dome to form clouds and
rain
> (windows of heaven GEN 7:11). This is well documented by most scholars of
the bible.
> This was also the prevailing believe by most cultures at the time this
> was written.
>
> If anyone wants a list of these scriptures, write me at Cap...@airmail.net
> and I will send them to you.
>
>
> If they ever found an ark they would have to decide which flood myth it came
> from, the Hindus rain-goddess' ark, the Sumerian ark, the Persian's Mithra's
> ark, the Armenian's ark, or the Assyrain's Epic of Gilgamesh's Ziusudra's ark.
>
> All of these stories predated the Bible's account (some by more than a
thousand
> years). The Bible's Yawist account is taken almost word for word in some
places
> from the Gilgamesh account.
>
> Write me at Cap...@airmail.net and I will be happy to send a side by side
> comparison between the Gilgamesh account and the Yawist's (bible) account.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Capella
> Dallas, Texas
Michelle Malkin
And I guess the barnacles stuck to the side of the ark while the
sponges stayed on deck in a container of water and the coral hitched a
ride on the barnacles (or did they get their own container, too?) Jeez,
I forgot about the leeches!
Mickey
Dick Lessard
The other night I saw the beginning of the TV musical, "Mrs. Santa". In
it their was a nice special effect showing Santa's sleigh lifting off
from the North Pole. I remembered when I was a child when, for a brief
time, I almost believed the Santa myth. I do remember quizzing my older
brother earnestly about the logistical problems of getting to every
house in the world in one night.
Later I remembered how silly it seemed, and what an obvious waste of
time it was trying for even a moment to figure out how it might work.
And then it hit me. Isn't arguing with creationists over Noah's Ark a
lot like debating the physics of Santa's sleigh? I'll admit that the
Noah's Ark myth is a little more plausible than Santa's sleigh, but it's
a difference of degree, not a difference in kind. It takes only a few
seconds to see all the flaws in the Santa myth. It may take the average
adult several minutes to come up with four or five (from the dozen or
more available) good reasons why the Noah's Ark myth is similarly
impossible.
-- Dick Lessard
Jeffrey Shallit
In article <32ACEF...@btg.com>, Dick Lessard <dles...@btg.com> wrote:
>
>And then it hit me. Isn't arguing with creationists over Noah's Ark a
>lot like debating the physics of Santa's sleigh?
Yes, I think you're right.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't argue. For example, Richard Milton is
a UK author who has written a couple of truly execrable books about science
and biology. His books are filled with errors of fact and reasoning.
Any educated person *should* be able to recognize his work as pseudoscience.
But
"Does Milton merit a serious response? We have concluded he
does. To our (mild) surprise we have found that many intelligent
readers who lack training in science have found his, and similar
arguments by others, convincing."
[Levison and Seidemann, "Richard Milton -- A Non-Religious
Creationist Ally", J. Geoscience Education 44 (1996),
428-438.]
My point is that it is possible to be educated and still accept Milton's
nonsense. Similarly, it is possible to be educated and still accept the
Noah's Ark story as fact. However, these nonsensical beliefs cannot
withstand rational argument.
>-- Dick Lessard
Jeffrey Shallit, Computer Science, University of Waterloo,
Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1 Canada sha...@graceland.uwaterloo.ca
URL = http://math.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/
cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Mats Andtbacka (mand...@news.abo.fi) wrote:
: cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca, in <58h9gg$fh6$1...@news.sas.ab.ca>:
: >Oh, how I wish I had been there, in those pre-flood days, to witness the
: >majestic herds of lions and mongooses (mongeese?)
: polygoose. RTJargon File.
No shit?
(Don't tug too hard, I don't want to lose a leg.)
Daniel Howell
In article <32ABDD...@creighton.edu>,
The standard answer to this is that God can fix it so the could eat
whatever they anted.
A much moredifficult point is that if God designed animals to require
death, and yet death only entered the world after Adam sinned, then
this strongly implies God knew *in advance* that Adam would sin, which
would remove Adam's element of free will, and thus his responsibility
for any 'sin' (and would also seem to imply God is being highly
unfair...).
Actually there is a theological way round this, which allows God to have
designed animals for a world with death in it, and then let death into the
world when Adam sinned, and yet didn't play Adam unfair.
Bonus marks to any of our creationists who can post this 'solution'
*to the above set of criteria*. [1]
Daniel
dd...@aber.ac.uk
http://www.aber.ac.uk/~ddh95
[1] ie. saying 'this is theologically wrong' doesn't cut it. *given* the
three assumptions mentioned, how can they be reconciled...
chr...@lplizard.com
ch...@xerox.com (Chris Heiny) writes:
>
> In article <ksjj-29119...@ppp-abe-415.fast.net>,
> ksjj <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
> >At one time in america there were millions (maybe billions) of buffalo
> >roaming the plains. Today the total population is but a fraction of the
> >original.
> >If you could leap ahead in time a few million years and do a dig to try
> >and discover the buffalo in the americas past, you would find nothing.
Why?
What of the 10K year-old bison skull I have in my living room?
If thy're common enough to sell in shopping malls, I'd guess there'll
be enough of them around in a million years to find a few decent
specimens. Whoops, I guess my skull is actually no more than 6000
years old and was deposited in the flood. Think I can get a refund?
--
Chris Green
David L Evens
Alan Barclay (gor...@elaine.drink.com) wrote:
: In article <5891v1$h...@reader1.reader.news.ozemail.net>,
Cats are also unable to convert carotene into vitamin A (a feature common
to all herbivores and most omnivores). The symptoms of vitamin A
deficiency are very similar to those of taurine deficiency.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron, | "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,| But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion, +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down! | "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Landis D. Ragon
Dick Lessard <dles...@btg.com> wrote:
>The other night I saw the beginning of the TV musical, "Mrs. Santa". In
>it their was a nice special effect showing Santa's sleigh lifting off
>from the North Pole. I remembered when I was a child when, for a brief
>time, I almost believed the Santa myth. I do remember quizzing my older
^^^^^^^^^^!!!!
Myth? Santa Myth? NoNONONONONONONONONONONONONO
Heretic! Unbeliever! Stone Him!!!!
<g>
David L Evens
cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
: Mats Andtbacka (mand...@news.abo.fi) wrote:
: : cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca, in <58h9gg$fh6$1...@news.sas.ab.ca>:
: : >Oh, how I wish I had been there, in those pre-flood days, to witness the
: : >majestic herds of lions and mongooses (mongeese?)
: : polygoose. RTJargon File.
: No shit?
: (Don't tug too hard, I don't want to lose a leg.)
Newbie.
Jargon File is a VERY old piece of Internet humour. It's so old that it
is refered to numerous times in such texts as _The Devil's DP Dictionary_.
Darklady
Michelle Malkin <malk...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<58iigj$o...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>...
> Jeez, I forgot about the leeches!
It's ok...the leeches have spent the past 2000 years making sure we
don't forget them again. Why, they even have a major holiday coming up
this month.
--- Darklady
(waiting...nope...no thunderclap or lightening bolt)
www.xmag.com
Michael D. Painter
Muaddib <ska...@creighton.edu> wrote in article
<32ABDD...@creighton.edu>...
> I learned in my comparative vertebrate anatomy class that herbivores
> need a longer gut to give bacteria a longer period of time in which to
> break down cellulose. Carnivores have shorter gut lengths since they
> primarily digest plasma membranes, which are easier to breakdown. For
> an animal like a wolf to switch from being a herbivore to a carnivore
> would require the gut length to shorten significantly since present day
> wolves only have a gut adapted for breaking down plasma membranes. The
> ridiculous story of the ark necessitates evolution for it to even make
> sense. Creationists, you lose either way.
>
> P.S. Herbivores like cows regergitate food to help breakdown cellulose.
> Rabbits eat their own feces. Wolves would probably have similar
> behavior patterns if they were herbivores. A dramatic shift in behavior
> pattern during the change from herbivore to carnivore would be difficult
> to achieve since most animals do what they do by instinct. Instincts
> don't change overnight in most circumstances.
One of the last thing an Eskimo does before leaving camp is allow the dogs
to eat the human feces.
So all the carnivores ate shit for a year or so and that's how they
survived.
Think how big and fat they would be if they could feast on what karl feeds
us here!
Muaddib
Michael D. Painter wrote:
>
> One of the last thing an Eskimo does before leaving camp is allow the dogs
> to eat the human feces.
> So all the carnivores ate shit for a year or so and that's how they
> survived.
> Think how big and fat they would be if they could feast on what karl feeds
> us here!
I like your style Mikey! Eat up everyone!! ;)
/-----------------\
| Karl's Poop |
| Bad for mind |
| and Soul! |
\-----------------/
Chow time!
the ROYster-Meister
On Tue, 10 Dec 1996, Dick Lessard wrote:
> The other night I saw the beginning of the TV musical, "Mrs. Santa". In
> it their was a nice special effect showing Santa's sleigh lifting off
> from the North Pole. I remembered when I was a child when, for a brief
> time, I almost believed the Santa myth. I do remember quizzing my older
> brother earnestly about the logistical problems of getting to every
> house in the world in one night.
>
> Later I remembered how silly it seemed, and what an obvious waste of
> time it was trying for even a moment to figure out how it might work.
>
> And then it hit me. Isn't arguing with creationists over Noah's Ark a
> lot like debating the physics of Santa's sleigh? I'll admit that the
> Noah's Ark myth is a little more plausible than Santa's sleigh, but it's
> a difference of degree, not a difference in kind. It takes only a few
> seconds to see all the flaws in the Santa myth. It may take the average
> adult several minutes to come up with four or five (from the dozen or
> more available) good reasons why the Noah's Ark myth is similarly
> impossible.
>
>
So, name some.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- the ROYster-meister + wil...@Peak.org --
one of God's >peculiar< people
"But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, God's peculiar people."
-- the Apostle Peter (KJV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry
This is a terrible topic but senile people and people with alhiemers often
eat their own shit. Terrible!
Jerry
howard hershey
sediment, don't yoiu think?
>
>
>
>
>--
>Chris Green
howard hershey
Dick Lessard <dles...@btg.com> wrote:
>The other night I saw the beginning of the TV musical, "Mrs. Santa". In
>it their was a nice special effect showing Santa's sleigh lifting off
>from the North Pole. I remembered when I was a child when, for a brief
>time, I almost believed the Santa myth. I do remember quizzing my older
>brother earnestly about the logistical problems of getting to every
>house in the world in one night.
>
>Later I remembered how silly it seemed, and what an obvious waste of
>time it was trying for even a moment to figure out how it might work.
>
>And then it hit me. Isn't arguing with creationists over Noah's Ark a
>lot like debating the physics of Santa's sleigh? I'll admit that the
>Noah's Ark myth is a little more plausible than Santa's sleigh,
This is highly debatable. It seems easier to me to lift a single sleigh
into the air, move it around the globe, and pick up and deposit toys
at selected sites than to flood the entire globe, stock an ark, and have
it survive and then re-establish the world's ecosystems. Of course,
I couldn't do all of the Santa stuff in one night, either. Both myths
are equally likely to be literally true.
>but it's
>a difference of degree, not a difference in kind. It takes only a few
>seconds to see all the flaws in the Santa myth. It may take the average
>adult several minutes to come up with four or five (from the dozen or
>more available) good reasons why the Noah's Ark myth is similarly
>impossible.
>
>-- Dick Lessard
Mark Isaak
In article <58h9gg$fh6$1...@news.sas.ab.ca> cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () writes:
>... mongooses (mongeese?)
polygoose.
--
Mark Isaak "Have you seen this side? Look also
is...@aurora.com at the other." - Marcus Aurelius
Michelle Malkin
In <01bbe708$3509a600$146d8bcd@jhvh> "Darklady"
Do you mean Big Business leeching away all our money for holiday gifts?
Maybe I'm slower than ussual today, but I don't get it. Will I clap
myself on the forehead and yelp, "How did I miss THAT one?" when you
explain?
Mickey
Martyne
the ROYster-Meister wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Dec 1996, Dick Lessard wrote:
>
> > The other night I saw the beginning of the TV musical, "Mrs. Santa". In
> > it their was a nice special effect showing Santa's sleigh lifting off
> > from the North Pole. I remembered when I was a child when, for a brief
> > time, I almost believed the Santa myth.
he claims to use magic reindeer and sleigh.
>
> "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, God's peculiar people."
>
peculiar? I knew someone would find the explanation someday.
--
Barn's burnt down-now I can see the moon. Masahide