Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 154 (8104 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-31-2014 9:30 AM
212 online now:
Capt Stormfield, Coyote, Diomedes, edge, Epee, nwr, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (8 members, 204 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Epee
Post Volume:
Total: 733,604 Year: 19,445/28,606 Month: 2,716/2,305 Week: 358/563 Day: 14/108 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
1516
...
20Next
Author Topic:   Does The Flood Add up?
ringo
Member
Posts: 9346
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 196 of 298 (326921)
06-27-2006 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by lfen
06-27-2006 5:16 PM


Re: Dung beatles need Elephant Dung!
Lfen writes:

what did they feed the anteaters and all?

The two anteaters ate the two ants and promptly starved to death - which is why there are no anteaters or ants alive today. :D

More complications: a lot of living things have a lifespan shorter than the one-year flood, so they must have reproduced. There would have been a whole lotta reproduction goin' on - unless Noah laid in a supply of mouse condoms and elephant condoms, etc.

What with the on-board extinctions and population explosions, it's pretty hard to estimate the post-flood contents of the ark.


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by lfen, posted 06-27-2006 5:16 PM lfen has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by jar, posted 06-27-2006 8:03 PM ringo has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 24595
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 197 of 298 (326938)
06-27-2006 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by ringo
06-27-2006 6:13 PM


Re: Dung beatles need Elephant Dung!
What with the on-board extinctions and population explosions, it's pretty hard to estimate the post-flood contents of the ark.

Not really. The Ark and the whole flood myth were pretty much full of it. ;)

Piles and piles of it.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by ringo, posted 06-27-2006 6:13 PM ringo has not yet responded

deerbreh
Member (Idle past 1011 days)
Posts: 855
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 198 of 298 (326986)
06-27-2006 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by lfen
06-27-2006 5:16 PM


Re: Dung beatles need Elephant Dung!
I mean what did they feed the anteaters and all?

Lots of carpenter ants working on that gopher wood I imagine. Not to mention termites. Noah likely made a special exception to his no screwing rule for the anteaters so that there would be enough anteaters to keep up with the demand.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by lfen, posted 06-27-2006 5:16 PM lfen has not yet responded

Gullwind
Inactive Member


Message 199 of 298 (327002)
06-27-2006 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Crue Knight
06-26-2006 9:07 PM


How could they have done any fishing? They only had two worms!

Ba-dum-dum.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Crue Knight, posted 06-26-2006 9:07 PM Crue Knight has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Crue Knight, posted 06-28-2006 2:28 AM Gullwind has not yet responded

Crue Knight
Inactive Member


Message 200 of 298 (327040)
06-28-2006 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Gullwind
06-27-2006 10:56 PM


So how could they have brought any meat?
[joke]Maybe they used their appendixes! They had eight of em![/joke]
This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Gullwind, posted 06-27-2006 10:56 PM Gullwind has not yet responded

Jon
Member
Posts: 3952
From: Minnesota, U.S.A.
Joined: 12-29-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 201 of 298 (327378)
06-29-2006 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Crue Knight
06-07-2006 8:44 PM


Misunderstanding of the Mayan Calendar
Archaeologists who study the ancient civilization of Maya puzzle about the date 3114 B.C., because the Mayan calendar started in 3114 B.C.

No, that's not really how it works. The Mayan year that we call 3114 B.C. is, to the Maya, the year zero. Their calendar was operating years before that. From the book Lost Languages by Andrew Robinson:

quote:
The Maya chose to correlate their zero on the 'long count' with the date 4 Ahau 8 Cumku in the 'calendar round'... [which] correlates with 13 August 3114 B.C in our Gregorian calendar.
...
Mayanists give this date as 0.0.0.0.0-which is the beginning of the current 'great cycle' of time, due to end on 23 December AD 2012.

Now, you may have found an arbitrary coincidence, but I'm not even ready to give you that. Based on what others have pointed out, your chronology of the Bible is off to begin with.

It truly is mysterious why the Mayan picked that date, but it is no-bit mysterious as to why you picked it ;).

Also, if this date is so important, why is it only seen in one ancient culture? Literalists will always try to find correlations between their story and reality, always completely ignoring any contradictions. It seems to me that this is exactly what you are doing, though poorly.

Jon


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Crue Knight, posted 06-07-2006 8:44 PM Crue Knight has not yet responded

Jon
Member
Posts: 3952
From: Minnesota, U.S.A.
Joined: 12-29-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 202 of 298 (327379)
06-29-2006 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Crue Knight
06-26-2006 9:07 PM


Ah yes... God can do it all
If God can do this, and God can do that, and then God does this, that, and the other thing over there, then why does God bother having Noah build an ark; why does He make him take all the animals on?

If God was all-knowing, He would certainly know that with His UNLIMITED power, all He would have to do is kill 'em all off, and start over from scratch. Unless, He had already forgotten what He had made.

God did it arguments don't logically hold up, and certainly not in a science forum.

Of course, you can try the old "God works in mysterious ways" thing too, but I don't know how well that will fly either... :rolleyes:

Jon


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Crue Knight, posted 06-26-2006 9:07 PM Crue Knight has not yet responded

MUTTY6969
Member (Idle past 2572 days)
Posts: 65
From: ARIZONA
Joined: 05-20-2006


Message 203 of 298 (327672)
06-30-2006 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Faith
06-26-2006 3:09 PM


Re: What's the density of hay (or how big/heavy is a bale)?
Some very good questions in this thread…but why haven’t the yec’s come out to answer.

I only see faith dipping her toe in on one vague response but avoiding all the other good questions.

Plenty of biblical literists on this forum and the ones like iano and faith who post the most choose to ignore the 10 or 15 good questions that one would think are quit easy to answer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Faith, posted 06-26-2006 3:09 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Jon, posted 07-02-2006 12:55 AM MUTTY6969 has responded
 Message 213 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 3:49 AM MUTTY6969 has not yet responded

  
Jon
Member
Posts: 3952
From: Minnesota, U.S.A.
Joined: 12-29-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 204 of 298 (328177)
07-02-2006 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by MUTTY6969
06-30-2006 3:52 AM


Re: What's the density of hay (or how big/heavy is a bale)?
Plenty of biblical literists on this forum and the ones like iano and faith who post the most choose to ignore the 10 or 15 good questions that one would think are quit easy to answer.

That's really nothing new. Rarely on these forums do the good questions get answered. Some of the best posts made (and directed at Creationists) get no imput from them.

Jon


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by MUTTY6969, posted 06-30-2006 3:52 AM MUTTY6969 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by MUTTY6969, posted 07-02-2006 2:20 AM Jon has not yet responded

MUTTY6969
Member (Idle past 2572 days)
Posts: 65
From: ARIZONA
Joined: 05-20-2006


Message 205 of 298 (328182)
07-02-2006 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Jon
07-02-2006 12:55 AM


Re: What's the density of hay (or how big/heavy is a bale)?
What a shame…anyway

I was wondering if one of these fine, never evading the question, fundamentalist would answer this? If there is only kind, not species, on the ark as they say, lets be generous and say 10,000 kind, and the earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old, would we not have noticed the huge jump in species we see today?

I mean there are approximately 1.5 million species on our planet right now, so what explanation is their for such a huge jump in speciation in such a short period of time?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Jon, posted 07-02-2006 12:55 AM Jon has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by DrJones*, posted 07-02-2006 2:59 AM MUTTY6969 has responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1549
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.5


Message 206 of 298 (328186)
07-02-2006 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by MUTTY6969
07-02-2006 2:20 AM


Re: What's the density of hay (or how big/heavy is a bale)?
so what explanation is their for such a huge jump in speciation in such a short period of time?

Not a creationist but I'll give you their likely answer.

1. The original prototype "kinds" had all sorts of genetic variation built into them, which allowed them to have so many different species.

2. These original kinds very quickly "micro-evoloved" into the differnet species. I have seen no answer as to what caused this fast "micro-evolution".


Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor
This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by MUTTY6969, posted 07-02-2006 2:20 AM MUTTY6969 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by MUTTY6969, posted 07-02-2006 3:10 AM DrJones* has not yet responded
 Message 212 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 3:47 AM DrJones* has not yet responded

MUTTY6969
Member (Idle past 2572 days)
Posts: 65
From: ARIZONA
Joined: 05-20-2006


Message 207 of 298 (328188)
07-02-2006 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by DrJones*
07-02-2006 2:59 AM


Re: What's the density of hay (or how big/heavy is a bale)?
If that isn’t fitting a square peg into a round hole…so one could envision that happening but not the standard model of evolution.

There has to be some mental instability with that sort of logic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by DrJones*, posted 07-02-2006 2:59 AM DrJones* has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Jon, posted 07-02-2006 5:14 AM MUTTY6969 has not yet responded

  
Jon
Member
Posts: 3952
From: Minnesota, U.S.A.
Joined: 12-29-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 208 of 298 (328194)
07-02-2006 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by MUTTY6969
07-02-2006 3:10 AM


Re: What's the density of hay (or how big/heavy is a bale)?
There has to be some mental instability with that sort of logic.

That well sums up the whole argument, yes.

I've heard of this one many times too--a sort of "hyper evolution" as I've heard it been called. It really is an admision to "evolution", though just not of the scientific kind.

Oh, yes, and this question you've just asked is very much the kind not likely to be touched by the Creationists. We will just have to sit around and guess at what their explanation is (if they even have one).

They say we don't understand their logic, and when we ask for an explanation, they go plain cold on us. I just don't get it myself.

Jon


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by MUTTY6969, posted 07-02-2006 3:10 AM MUTTY6969 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by johnfolton, posted 07-02-2006 11:51 AM Jon has responded
 Message 210 by ringo, posted 07-02-2006 12:03 PM Jon has not yet responded

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1973 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 209 of 298 (328262)
07-02-2006 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by Jon
07-02-2006 5:14 AM


Re: What's the density of grains ?
Re: What's the density of hay (or how big/heavy is a bale)?

Hay is not very dense even if baled, biblically its the seeds that
are stored (graineries).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Jon, posted 07-02-2006 5:14 AM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Jon, posted 07-03-2006 3:01 AM johnfolton has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 9346
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 210 of 298 (328267)
07-02-2006 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Jon
07-02-2006 5:14 AM


Invictus writes:

It really is an admision to "evolution", though just not of the scientific kind.

What gets me is the change, from no pre-flood evolution to post-flood hyper-evolution to no evolution again today.

I can see the hyper-evolution petering out as the "genetic potential" is used up - but how (and why) did it start? Did God flip the switch? If it took a miracle, why all the pretense of a "scientific" scenario at all?

(And to hold all that "genetic potential", the pre-flood animals must have had DNA strands a mile long. :D )


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Jon, posted 07-02-2006 5:14 AM Jon has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
1213
14
1516
...
20Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014