Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 158 (8147 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-21-2014 6:21 AM
67 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 66 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MikeManea
Upcoming Birthdays: purpledawn
Post Volume:
Total: 738,162 Year: 24,003/28,606 Month: 1,304/1,786 Week: 166/423 Day: 3/73 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
5678Next
Author Topic:   Creationist experiment to prove the possibility of Noah's ark
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 1179 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


(1)
Message 46 of 115 (549364)
03-06-2010 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Manifest
03-06-2010 10:47 AM


Maybe They…
Maybe they had food replicators.

Maybe they had Robots.

Maybe they had trained monkeys.

Maybe when they said "people" they only meant landed, Hebrew males over the age of 25.

Maybe they had a story to tell.

Psst, 8000 animals wouldn't take care of the beetles.


You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Manifest, posted 03-06-2010 10:47 AM Manifest has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Manifest, posted 03-06-2010 1:26 PM lyx2no has responded
 Message 56 by ZenMonkey, posted 03-07-2010 2:22 AM lyx2no has acknowledged this reply

  
Mr Jack
Member
Posts: 3480
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 47 of 115 (549365)
03-06-2010 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Manifest
03-06-2010 10:47 AM


This leaves about 36 seconds to throw the hay or whichever food they were eating - maybe they separated the animals in rows according to what they eat - and scoop excrements doesn't seem like a hard thing to do.

Have you ever, in a single day in your life, looked after an animal?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Manifest, posted 03-06-2010 10:47 AM Manifest has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4747
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 48 of 115 (549371)
03-06-2010 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Manifest
03-06-2010 10:47 AM


The flood story is a myth
Wolves, dogs, jackals, coyotes are the same kind of animal so you don't need to bring one of every species merely a puppy dog male and female.

Just to respond to one point, which alone suffices to blow the flood story out of the water.

Genetics and archaeology, along with radiocarbon dating, show that wolves, dogs, jackals, coyotes developed into separate species earlier than 4,350 years ago, the purported date of the flood.

Are you now going to claim that all of those fields are wrong?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Manifest, posted 03-06-2010 10:47 AM Manifest has not yet responded

  
Manifest
Junior Member (Idle past 1597 days)
Posts: 4
Joined: 03-02-2010


Message 49 of 115 (549375)
03-06-2010 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by lyx2no
03-06-2010 11:39 AM


Re: Maybe They…
quote:
Maybe they had food replicators.

Maybe they had Robots.

Maybe they had trained monkeys.

Maybe when they said "people" they only meant landed, Hebrew males over the age of 25.

Maybe they had a story to tell.



robots and food replicators and monkeys huh? I can tell you don't care to look at this seriously. Stocked up food for a year aboard a giant ship to feed young animals is hard how exactly? The boat was about 25,000 square feet.

quote:

Psst, 8000 animals wouldn't take care of the beetles.


You haven't even read the genesis account. No insects were brought onboard.
Gen 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.
Gen 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

Insects have no nostrils. Pay attention also that the verses are referring to kinds and not speciation which is a modern human classification system.

quote:

Have you ever, in a single day in your life, looked after an animal?


Yes. Animals take care of each other in the wild all they need to be provided with here is the food which again they could have just put it all there for them from the start. Excrements probably was most of what they spent their time picking up and this wouldn't take very long at all seeing as how most of these animals again are very small due to their age.

quote:

Genetics and archaeology, along with radiocarbon dating, show that wolves, dogs, jackals, coyotes developed into separate species earlier than 4,350 years ago, the purported date of the flood.

Are you now going to claim that all of those fields are wrong?



Fields say nothing of their own. Some can claim genetic diversity which we observe today cannot have varied so much in 4,400 years but this isn't what we really observe. Fish going into dark caves lose their eyes over a few generations because they don't need them. When they get out of the cave the opposite happen. A certain island has deer which have grown smaller over a few generation because of the small amount of food on the island. Years of selective breeding have produced the chihuahua.

As far as archaeology is concerned in tying this with knowing the age of these different animals having diverged before the flood you would have to tie it in to carbon dating to figure this out which is really what this boils down to. The problem is is if the flood occurred your carbon dating of these fossils wouldn't be reliable due to being heavily affected in this disaster.

Edited by Manifest, : species to speciation


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by lyx2no, posted 03-06-2010 11:39 AM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by lyx2no, posted 03-06-2010 2:26 PM Manifest has responded
 Message 51 by Apothecus, posted 03-06-2010 2:46 PM Manifest has not yet responded
 Message 52 by Coyote, posted 03-06-2010 3:31 PM Manifest has not yet responded
 Message 53 by JonF, posted 03-06-2010 7:28 PM Manifest has not yet responded
 Message 54 by Blue Jay, posted 03-06-2010 8:06 PM Manifest has not yet responded
 Message 57 by Mr Jack, posted 03-07-2010 6:08 AM Manifest has not yet responded
 Message 90 by Theodoric, posted 03-14-2010 3:40 PM Manifest has not yet responded

    
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 1179 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 50 of 115 (549381)
03-06-2010 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Manifest
03-06-2010 1:26 PM


Re: Maybe They…
I can tell you don't care to look at this seriously.

I wasn't playing make pretend any more then you were. Or is it because I know I'm playing make pretend that makes me less serious. If you want to make this a serious discusion maybe you should stop making things up like:

The problem is is if the flood occurred your carbon dating of these fossils wouldn't be reliable due to being heavily affected in this disaster.

Why would a flood affect carbon dating?

AbE: Just to add, fossils can't be carbon dated. Carbon dating is only useful to 50k years or so. 14C starts out as a very minor component. Reduce that amount by nearly three orders of magnitude and background noise tends to overwhelm the signal. And 50K years isn't long enough to fossilize stuff. So if we're looking at fossils of wolves and jackals we're also so far beyond 4,350 years we don't need to worry about their relationship to the flood.

Edited by lyx2no, : So I get you first.

Edited by lyx2no, : Spellink.


You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Manifest, posted 03-06-2010 1:26 PM Manifest has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Manifest, posted 03-08-2010 11:51 AM lyx2no has responded

  
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 288 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 51 of 115 (549383)
03-06-2010 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Manifest
03-06-2010 1:26 PM


Re: Maybe They…
Hey Manifest.

Excrements probably was most of what they spent their time picking up and this wouldn't take very long at all seeing as how most of these animals again are very small due to their age.

Where does it say in the bible that animals were brought at a young age? Did you make this up?

Insects have no nostrils

I know I shouldn't buy into this argument, but if 'kinds' doesn't include insects, then why do we see the varieties we have today? Floating vegetation mats? Hope there are enough "floating mats" to cater to all the various environmental requirements of every 'kind' of insect we see in nature.

It's deep and getting deeper, I can see...


"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964
This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Manifest, posted 03-06-2010 1:26 PM Manifest has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4747
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 52 of 115 (549387)
03-06-2010 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Manifest
03-06-2010 1:26 PM


Re: Maybe They…
Some can claim genetic diversity which we observe today cannot have varied so much in 4,400 years but this isn't what we really observe. Fish going into dark caves lose their eyes over a few generations because they don't need them. When they get out of the cave the opposite happen. A certain island has deer which have grown smaller over a few generation because of the small amount of food on the island. Years of selective breeding have produced the chihuahua.

Your response does not address the genetic diversity which we see in those four critters which clearly occurred over a much longer span than 4,350 years, in fact going back millions of years. You are presenting "what ifs" while the history of those critters is well-established by science.

As far as archaeology is concerned in tying this with knowing the age of these different animals having diverged before the flood you would have to tie it in to carbon dating to figure this out which is really what this boils down to. The problem is is if the flood occurred your carbon dating of these fossils wouldn't be reliable due to being heavily affected in this disaster.

Have you ever really studied radiocarbon dating, or are you just going from what the creationist website tell you? If it is the latter, here are some links which will provide a much more accurate overview of the field. When you have looked at a few of these you might know enough to begin to discuss the issue. At that point I'll be happy to try and answer some of your questions.


ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth Creationists

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.

This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.


Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)

How does the radiocarbon dating method work? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)

How precise is radiocarbon dating?

Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions?

Has radiocarbon dating been invalidated by unreasonable results?

Tree Ring and C14 Dating

Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.

Radiocarbon -- full text of issues, 1959-2003.


Add: As this is getting off topic, please respond on one of the several threads we have dedicated to either radiocarbon or radiometric dating.

Edited by Coyote, : No reason given.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Manifest, posted 03-06-2010 1:26 PM Manifest has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 2830
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 53 of 115 (549401)
03-06-2010 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Manifest
03-06-2010 1:26 PM


Re: Maybe They…
Stocked up food for a year aboard a giant ship to feed young animals is hard how exactly?

Most young animals eat more than adults. Growing, ya know.

Many young animals do not learn how to handle themselves without training from adults of their species.

Some animals eat only live animals.

Many animals require special food.

Preventing food spoilage is extremely difficult.

There's lots more.

The boat was about 25,000 square feet

The few "calculations" that have been presented by Woodmorappe and his ilk are laughable. Let's see your numbers.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Manifest, posted 03-06-2010 1:26 PM Manifest has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 65 days)
Posts: 2615
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 54 of 115 (549404)
03-06-2010 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Manifest
03-06-2010 1:26 PM


Re: Maybe They…
Hi, Manifest.

Welcome to EvC!

-----

Manifest writes:

You haven't even read the genesis account. No insects were brought onboard.

Gen 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.
Gen 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

Insects have no nostrils.

You read that too fast. Read it again.

"Nostrils" was not a qualification of things brought onto the Ark; it was a description of the things that died in the Flood.

There is nothing here that says insects were not on the Ark.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Manifest, posted 03-06-2010 1:26 PM Manifest has not yet responded

  
AnswersInGenitals
Member (Idle past 1390 days)
Posts: 484
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 55 of 115 (549415)
03-07-2010 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
08-02-2008 2:42 AM


Proof is in the mind of the believer.
This challenge reminds me of two programs that I am pretty sure were on the discovery channel and are fairly indicative of the quality of science and rationality of much of the programming on that network.

In the first, a team wanted to test the viability of a giant bow that is found in DaVinci's notebooks described in much detail. They apparently had substantial funding from some unnamed benefactor and also had some unexplained inviolable deadline. The show was mostly about the travails of ordering the wood beams of the exactly right sort and fabricating the huge bow to DaVinci's specifications. This, of course, had to be accomplished in some remote area of Italy. When some key components of the bow didn't arrive on time, they severely modified the design to accommodate the materials they had. After many missteps, they finally completed the bow and celebrated their great success - a bit prematurely. When they tested the bow for the first time, drawing the bow string (actually, an inch thick cable) with much drama and tension in the faces of the onlookers...back, back, back...snap! The whole contraption broke apart.

Their profoundly metaphysical conclusion from this experiment: Because their bow, not built to DaVinci's specifications, did not work, they had shown that a bow that was built to those specifications would probably work!!!

The second show involved a test of whether the Greek soldiers secreted in the bowels of the Trojan horse (doesn't that elicit a wonderfully illicit image?) could really wait out the hours in their dark, cramped confine until it was time to exit the horse and destroy the city. Their first challenge was to build the horse since there is no record of what it might have looked like. In fact, most scholars of that period seriously doubt that there ever was such a plan or contraption - that it was a later elaboration of the story (remember that Homer wrote his account 400 years after the story). But they built the horse (in Turkey, of course, near the site of ancient Illium). Once built, they placed about a dozen men inside with a low light camera and a microphone so we could follow their response, with the intent of leaving them inside for about 16 hours.

Except these were not hardened Greek soldiers. They were just some local Turkish guys they found hanging around the construction site. After an hour or two, the "soldiers" complained about the still air and fumes in the under-ventilated interior. After four hours they complained of getting cramps from being jammed inside the horse. After six hours they started fighting amongst themselves and all discipline broke down. Finally, the exercise had to be stopped well short of the intended time.

Their conclusion: they had scientifically demonstrated that the Trojan horse story could have been true!

The point is that if some creationists were to take you up on your challenge and build an ark and try to stock it with two or 14 animals of every kind and try to maintain these animals for 300 days, they would scientifically prove the the ark story is not only possible, but is highly probable. Even if only one tenth of the animals actually fit in the ark, or if the carnivores ate all the herbivores, or if the elephants smashed the sides of the ark causing it to sink, or if most the animals and all the humans died of asphyxiation from the fetid gases from all the dung, or even if the ark just collapsed when the door was slammed shut, they would have proven the accuracy of the genesis account.

The human mind is an omnivore. It is quite capable of digesting the delicate logic of rational arguments. It is equally able to dine on raw, unadulterated bullshit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 08-02-2008 2:42 AM Taz has acknowledged this reply

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 974 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 56 of 115 (549416)
03-07-2010 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by lyx2no
03-06-2010 11:39 AM


Re: Maybe They…
lyx2no writes:

Maybe they had food replicators.

Maybe they had Robots.

Maybe they had trained monkeys.

Maybe when they said "people" they only meant landed, Hebrew males over the age of 25.

I find the trained monkey hypothesis to be the most convincing. I like monkeys.


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by lyx2no, posted 03-06-2010 11:39 AM lyx2no has acknowledged this reply

  
Mr Jack
Member
Posts: 3480
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 57 of 115 (549419)
03-07-2010 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Manifest
03-06-2010 1:26 PM


Re: Maybe They…
Yes. Animals take care of each other in the wild all they need to be provided with here is the food which again they could have just put it all there for them from the start.

Ha ha ha! What rot.

Firstly, an animal in the wild can care for itself, yeah. Although most of them die. Keeping an animal in a very confined space in a boat is a very different matter.

As for just putting the food there... 1. many animals will overeat given the opportunity; doubly so when confined. 2. most animal food rots over time. 3. most animals don't have instinct preventing them from spoiling their food.

Excrements probably was most of what they spent their time picking up and this wouldn't take very long at all seeing as how most of these animals again are very small due to their age.

Even a small animal takes more than 36 seconds of care each day.

And all this takes your completely extra-biblical assertion that they were young animals and your scientifically ludicrous assertion that you could re-populate all animal life from just 8000 breeding pairs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Manifest, posted 03-06-2010 1:26 PM Manifest has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member
Posts: 5050
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 58 of 115 (549437)
03-07-2010 3:24 PM


Post #49 almost gave me an aneurysm.
  
Manifest
Junior Member (Idle past 1597 days)
Posts: 4
Joined: 03-02-2010


Message 59 of 115 (549500)
03-08-2010 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by lyx2no
03-06-2010 2:26 PM


Re: Maybe They…
quote:
Why would a flood affect carbon dating?

quote:
Just to add, fossils can't be carbon dated. Carbon dating is only useful to 50k years or so. 14C starts out as a very minor component. Reduce that amount by nearly three orders of magnitude and background noise tends to overwhelm the signal. And 50K years isn't long enough to fossilize stuff. So if we're looking at fossils of wolves and jackals we're also so far beyond 4,350 years we don't need to worry about their relationship to the flood.

Fossils can be carbon dated and they are only assumed to be older by the theory of evolution which you have chosen to put your faith in. Your claim that 50k years not being long enough to fossilize a dead animal is unscientific. Suffice to say - since admittedly you're not serious about any of this - that when a fish lies in water and is dead and is rotting the first thing that happens is the ligament attaching the head rots away and the head drops off. Eventually it puffs up and all the scales fall off and then it deteriorates and in a very short period of time that fish is gone. So we wouldn't have fossilisation of these creatures today they would just disappear and dissipate and the bacteria and the scavengers and what have you they would come and that thing is gone. But we do indeed have fish fossilized and many of them are perfect which means they must have been buried instantaneously. Some of them don't have heads that means they floated in the water for a few days (not a long time) and then were buried. You can go look in the bottom of the sea you won't find piles of scales that could fossilize they just don't exist. So this is catastrophism. Sometimes you have perfect fossils of fish which are eating another fish even.

http://siriusknotts.files.wordpress.com/.../vacation-010.jpg

[while writing this the window I'm typing this in turned grey so I'll have to retype every single thing I typed after this point. I'll just try to summarize it]

quote:
Where does it say in the bible that animals were brought at a young age? Did you make this up?

Where in the bible does it say that animals were brought which at an old age? Why would Noah bring older ones which are bigger, eat more, defecate more and are less innocent towards other animals.

quote:
I know I shouldn't buy into this argument, but if 'kinds' doesn't include insects, then why do we see the varieties we have today? Floating vegetation mats?

I already provided the quotes.

Gen 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.

Also you may want to look at this verse which mentions every living thing of all flesh.
Gen 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

(Gen 7:17) 40 --the number of days it rained
(Gen 7:24) 110 --the number of days "the waters prevailed on the earth"

so two of every insects had to live on floating vegetation mats, trees and carcasses for 110 days in the entire world. Woop dee doo.

quote:
Hope there are enough "floating mats" to cater to all the various environmental requirements of every 'kind' of insect we see in nature.

I see no reason why any of them wouldn't, do you? The question is not about whether or not they had a quality time, it's merely about whether or not they were able to survive for 110 days.

quote:

Your response does not address the genetic diversity which we see in those four critters which clearly occurred over a much longer span than 4,350 years, in fact going back millions of years. You are presenting "what ifs" while the history of those critters is well-established by science.


Need I remind you that the flood wiped out the earth? So the diversity would have come from the ones which were on board after the flood. I have provided examples which show rapid adaptation so to say drastic adaptation cannot occur rapidly is absurd. Remember the example of dogs being selectively bread to create the chihuahua. This didn't take long at all.

quote:
Have you ever really studied radiocarbon dating, or are you just going from what the creationist website tell you?

proceed to post from religioustolerance.org

I don't go by the name of the website. An article could be posted on the church of satan if it's content is true the hosting site has no bearing on it. I find the irony of your question considering what you've posted interesting however. Nothing unusual.

quote:
If it is the latter, here are some links which will provide a much more accurate overview of the field. When you have looked at a few of these you might know enough to begin to discuss the issue. At that point I'll be happy to try and answer some of your questions.

thank you but again the questions are based upon the false assumptions that it makes. Concidering the flood all pre-flood dates especially couldn't be reliable.
1- A constant rate of decay is assumed
a) The constancy of cosmic ray bombardment might be questioned. The current high rate of entry might be a consequence of a disturbed post-flood environment that altered the carbon-14 to carbon-12 ratio. Pre-flood dates would thus have to be discarded.
b) An increase in the magnetic field of the earth would have shielded the earth from cosmic rays. Some scientists argue that the magnetic field of the earth has declined over time.
c) Atmospheric carbon forms just 0.0005% of the current carbon reservoir-99.66% of the earth's carbon exists in limestone, 0.31% in oil and gas, and 0.02% in coal. carbon-14 comes from nitrogen and is independent of the carbon-12 reservoir. If even a small percentage of the limestone deposits were still in the form of living marine organisms at the time of the flood, then the small amount of carbon-14 would have mixed with a much larger carbon-12 reservoir, thus resulting in a drastically reduced ratio. Specimens would then look much older than they actually are.
d) Even if the rate of decay is constant, without knowledge of the exact ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in the initial sample, the dating technique is subject to question.
2- It's assumed that the clock was set to zero when the study material was formed. This requires that only the parent isotope be initially present or that the amount of daughter isotope present at the beginning is known so that it can be subtracted.
3- It is assumed that we are dealing with a closed system-no loss of either parent or daughter elements has occurred since the study material formed.

quote:
Add: As this is getting off topic, please respond on one of the several threads we have dedicated to either radiocarbon or radiometric dating.

Indeed but I did not breach the topic of carbon dating, you did. And if this is brought up to argue against the position I hold I have the right to answer.

quote:
Most young animals eat more than adults. Growing, ya know.

By and large no. As soon as an animal start eating regular food which it will eat for the rest of its life it doesn't consume more than an adult would.

quote:
Many young animals do not learn how to handle themselves without training from adults of their species.

I don't agree, they handle themselves instinctively. They wouldn't need anyways as the point of the trip was to keep them alive not for them to have a quality of time aboard the boat.

quote:
Some animals eat only live animals.

Many animals require special food.



Many carnivores, including lions and tigers, can readily manage on a vegetarian diet, and this may have happened on the Ark. Dogs are considered carnivores, but dogs in some countries actually survive on a primarily vegetarian diet.

If it was unavoidably necessary for some of the Ark’s tenants to have meat in their diet, this could have been readily accomplished using salted meat, reconstituted dried meat, or fresh meat from fodder animals carried aboard for this purpose. Tortoises are a good example of a fodder animal. Tortoises can survive up to a year and a half in captivity without water or food. In olden days, the famous Galápagos tortoise nearly went extinct due in part to its popularity as a fodder food. Thousands were taken aboard sailing ships to be kept as a source of fresh meat.

[pasted from http://creation.com/...ing-an-accusation-of-closet-scientism]

quote:
Preventing food spoilage is extremely difficult.

It took over 100 years for Noah to prepare the Ark and the things in the Ark, so I would say that's enough time to prepare.

quote:
There's lots more.

You could easily go on websites from those who have answered all of these questions. This is akin to people who bring up alleged bible contradictions not having gone over and looked up to see if those had been answered by biblical scholars or bible commentaries a million times already.

quote:
You read that too fast. Read it again.

"Nostrils" was not a qualification of things brought onto the Ark; it was a description of the things that died in the Flood.

There is nothing here that says insects were not on the Ark.



Gen 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
Gen 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.

Flesh

Reading the subsequent verse with this in mind: Insects do not breathe through nostrils
Gen 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

quote:
Ha ha ha! What rot.

Firstly, an animal in the wild can care for itself, yeah.



................????

quote:
Although most of them die. Keeping an animal in a very confined space in a boat is a very different matter.


No most of them do not die, their instincts keep them alive quite well. The fact that they were young on board means they didn't have to worry about predators either. Are you saying young animals which are given food daily living around others will die within a year?

quote:
As for just putting the food there... 1. many animals will overeat given the opportunity; doubly so when confined. 2. most animal food rots over time. 3. most animals don't have instinct preventing them from spoiling their food.

1. Hasn't been my experience, but so what?
2. Food were most likely in the form of hay, dried fruit, salted meat, dried meat, and dried fish and perhaps fodder food like tortoises like earlier mentioned.
3. If you're so inclined as to wonder about the animals which you think would absolutely spoil their food need I remind you there are 8 humans on board.

quote:
Even a small animal takes more than 36 seconds of care each day.

Again, animals take care of themselves without a problem. Furthermore it's not about a luxury voyage aboard a cruise ship, we're talking survival for a year.

quote:
And all this takes your completely extra-biblical assertion that they were young animals and your scientifically ludicrous assertion that you could re-populate all animal life from just 8000 breeding pairs.

it takes it...?

In any case, the reasoning that they must have been young is a logical one. The bible doesn't mention their age, so why do you assume they were old? Wouldn't they take much more space then? I see no reason for this. I am much younger than Noah and I can figure so much out. As far as repopulating all animal life that's an issue how? The more there is food the more animals will breed generally. When you have a scarcity of food the animals stop breeding or move. So having so few animals over 4000 years is a challenge how? Need I remind you this is an exponential rate of replication. I'm sure you're aware of the rabbits being brought over to Australia in 1859.

From Wikipedia: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia]
In Australia, rabbits are a serious mammalian pests and are an invasive species. Annually, European rabbits cause millions of dollars of damage to crops.

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that any kind of animal today couldn't have replicated so much in over 4300 years to account for the population we have nowadays. If you disagree I'd like to hear an example.

quote:
Post #49 almost gave me an aneurysm.

So I take it you have no answer for any of it?

Edited by Manifest, : forgot to answer a man who almost had an aneurysm


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by lyx2no, posted 03-06-2010 2:26 PM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Peepul, posted 03-08-2010 1:12 PM Manifest has responded
 Message 61 by ZenMonkey, posted 03-08-2010 2:12 PM Manifest has not yet responded
 Message 64 by lyx2no, posted 03-08-2010 6:49 PM Manifest has not yet responded
 Message 66 by JonF, posted 03-08-2010 7:46 PM Manifest has not yet responded
 Message 70 by Mr Jack, posted 03-09-2010 6:45 AM Manifest has not yet responded

    
Peepul
Member (Idle past 1481 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 60 of 115 (549513)
03-08-2010 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Manifest
03-08-2010 11:51 AM


Re: Maybe They…
quote:
1- A constant rate of decay is assumed
a) The constancy of cosmic ray bombardment might be questioned. The current high rate of entry might be a consequence of a disturbed post-flood environment that altered the carbon-14 to carbon-12 ratio. Pre-flood dates would thus have to be discarded.
b) An increase in the magnetic field of the earth would have shielded the earth from cosmic rays. Some scientists argue that the magnetic field of the earth has declined over time.
c) Atmospheric carbon forms just 0.0005% of the current carbon reservoir-99.66% of the earth's carbon exists in limestone, 0.31% in oil and gas, and 0.02% in coal. carbon-14 comes from nitrogen and is independent of the carbon-12 reservoir. If even a small percentage of the limestone deposits were still in the form of living marine organisms at the time of the flood, then the small amount of carbon-14 would have mixed with a much larger carbon-12 reservoir, thus resulting in a drastically reduced ratio. Specimens would then look much older than they actually are.
d) Even if the rate of decay is constant, without knowledge of the exact ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in the initial sample, the dating technique is subject to question.
2- It's assumed that the clock was set to zero when the study material was formed. This requires that only the parent isotope be initially present or that the amount of daughter isotope present at the beginning is known so that it can be subtracted.
3- It is assumed that we are dealing with a closed system-no loss of either parent or daughter elements has occurred since the study material formed.

Nice cut and paste!

http://amazingdiscoveries.org/...lict-RadiometricDating.html

This is written by Professor Walter J. Veith, PhD. Is his PhD in a relevant field? I placed my bet before checking. What a surprise - he's a zoologist!

I'll allow the experts to debunk your content in detail (if they want to). But you need to consider why, if a zoologist can think of these questions, the experts in the field have not considered them and resolved them? You are forced to consider scientists incompetent or dishonest because of your fixed belief system. They are neither of course. The problem is your fixed belief system.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Manifest, posted 03-08-2010 11:51 AM Manifest has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Manifest, posted 03-08-2010 6:30 PM Peepul has responded

    
Prev123
4
5678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014