|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Noahs ark is a physical impossibility | |||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
But Schraf,
You take a chimpanzee, give it longer legs, shave it, squash its muzzle, play with its voice box a bit and you have a human. Viola! ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
By Jove, you're right!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
See! Creationism ain't so bad.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
tomwillrep Inactive Member |
i havent read this thread fully as it was too long - but noahs ark is not an impossibility-
the bible states that noah took one of each "kind" onto the ark. as many animals (domestic dogs for example) are bred from wolves, it was only wolves needed. thats a lot less animals. many other animals that are very similar and that come from an original animal were therefore not needed. "The Bible slants the truth towards the people who wrote it, just like all similar cultural epics. "in relation to this quote-evolution slants to those people who are always trying to disprove creation the bible provides answers before any question was asked-it is evolutionists who are trying to disprove the bible's words, everytime an evolutionary theory is proved to be wrong it is called a "mistake" or the workings of some unreliable scientist or the workings were false and thrown out the door without it being made public notice. [This message has been edited by tomwillrep, 06-22-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4989 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Hi tom
You say
the bible states that noah took one of each "kind" onto the ark. What is a 'kind'? If he only took 'one', what did that 'one' breed with? This contradicts the Priestly source in Genesis 6:19 'you shall bring two to the ark... It also explcitly contradicts the Yahwhist source in Genesis 7:2 'of all the clean beasts take yourself seven pairs...' The rest of your argument supports evolution, even if God did start with these 'kinds', whatever a 'kind' is. Also, to get all the wondereful range of canines on the planet from one original canine couple in around 4400 years, is something that no evolutionist would even dream about. What mechanism do you suggest is behind this rapid generation of species, or do you also put it down to God's magic wand? Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
tomwillrep Inactive Member |
i wrote it wrong!!!! sorry - i meant TWO of each ONE kind
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4989 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Thats ok, no probs,
This still contradicts the Yawhist Flood narrative at Genesis 7:2 Any explantion? Also, how any 'kinds' do you think there would be on the Ark ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
tomwillrep Inactive Member |
the point i put across, i did not make clear, was an idea i had heard from someone in a discussion on the topic of this post - my view is that noah took lots of animals in
but the view i put across above is i think, a mix of natural selection-type and creationist views - there were the orginal types of animals (wolves, horses etc) which meant that there were not so many needed - these eventually became the deiffernet types after the flood (types meaning here wolves, domestic dogs, etc) one point i will put across as mine is that the animals could easily have been on te ark and not eaten eachother and not produced large amounts of waste - the temperature would have been very hot in the region, and when animals are kept still and in very hot temperatures they sleep most of the time, therefore eating less and creating less waste.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: The point you bring up is not the only problem with the ark. Another problem is that it just wouldn't hold together. But perhaps you should read the thread, much of this has been covered. Now, as for kinds... Lets look at everyone's favorite cruise ship, the HMS Titanic. Roughly calculated, the Titanic contained about 9 million cubic feet. The ark was about 1.5 million cubit feet. Now bearing in mind that the Titanic is 6 times the size of the ark, lets look at its capacity and supply manifest. The Titanic held 3500 people, double loaded. I imagine you could cram twice that on board. Now, for supplies... I've eliminated non-food items like cigars and alcohol.
Item: Amount: Fresh Meat ............ 75,000 Lbs (32.50 Tons) Fresh Fish ............ 11,000 Lbs ( 5.50 Tons) Salt & dried fish ..... 4,000 Lbs ( 2.00 Tons) Bacon and Ham ......... 7,500 Lbs ( 3.25 Tons) Poultry and game ...... 25,000 Lbs (12.50 Tons) Fresh Eggs ............ 40,000 Ct. Sausages .............. 4,500 Lbs ( 1.25 Tons) Potatoes .............. 40 Tons Onions ................ 3,500 Lbs ( 1.75 Tons) Tomatoes .............. 3,500 Lbs ( 1.75 Tons) Fresh Asparagus ....... 800 Bundles Fresh Green Peas ...... 2,500 Lbs (1.25 Tons) Lettuce ............... 7,000 Heads Sweetbreads ........... 1,000 Loaves Ice Cream ............. 1,750 Lbs ( 0.75 Tons) Coffee ................ 2,200 Lbs ( 1.02 Tons) Tea ................... 800 Lbs ( 0.08 Tons) Rice, dried beans, etc 10,000 Lbs ( 5.00 Tons) Sugar ................. 10,000 Lbs ( 5.00 Tons) Flour ................. 250 barrels Cereals ............... 10,000 Lbs ( 5.00 Tons) Apples ................ 36,000 Ct Oranges ............... 36,000 Ct Lemons ................ 16,000 Ct Grapes ................ 1,000 Lbs ( 0.50 Tons) Grapefruit ............ 13,000 Ct. Jams and Marmalade .... 1,120 Lbs ( 0.562 Tons) Fresh Milk ............ 1,500 Gal Fresh Cream ........... 1,200 Qts Condensed Milk ........ 600 Gal Fresh Butter .......... 6,000 Lbs ( 3.00 Tons) Fresh water ........... 14,000 gallons per day
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.20thcenturyliners.com/wsl_titanic.htm These were the supplies needed for one transatlantic crossing, not for a full year at sea PLUS survival until the first crops-- an if-ie project at best after the land was soaked in salt-- matured. So we need to multiply this figure by at least 15. Then we have to consider that this manifest is only for 3500 people. A common estimate I have seen is that the world's species can be reduced to 17,000 kinds. Thus we need to multiply the manifest by nearly 5. This is to fit on a wooden ship of 1.5 million cubit feet along with two of 17000 different animals. It really makes no sense. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
as many animals (domestic dogs for example) are bred from wolves, it was only wolves needed. thats a lot less animals. Hrm, interesting - so, if all modern canine species are decended from a wolf-like proto-canine, post-flood; and all fossils are the result of flood activity and sedimentation; then why do we find fossils of species that your model says wouldn't have existed until after the flood?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
the temperature would have been very hot in the region, and when animals are kept still and in very hot temperatures they sleep most of the time, therefore eating less and creating less waste.
Many die an awful lot under that sort of conditions, too. How many of a pair of animals need to die to assure their extinction?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024