Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Noahs ark is a physical impossibility
John
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 71 (39936)
05-13-2003 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by nator
05-13-2003 9:50 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by nator, posted 05-13-2003 9:50 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by nator, posted 05-13-2003 10:46 PM John has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 62 of 71 (40025)
05-13-2003 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by John
05-13-2003 10:04 AM


By Jove, you're right!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by John, posted 05-13-2003 10:04 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by John, posted 05-13-2003 11:51 PM nator has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 71 (40027)
05-13-2003 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by nator
05-13-2003 10:46 PM


See! Creationism ain't so bad.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by nator, posted 05-13-2003 10:46 PM nator has not replied

  
tomwillrep
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 71 (43609)
06-22-2003 10:50 AM


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]

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by John, posted 06-22-2003 12:26 PM tomwillrep has not replied
 Message 70 by crashfrog, posted 06-22-2003 10:53 PM tomwillrep has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 65 of 71 (43612)
06-22-2003 11:09 AM


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


Message 66 of 71 (43614)
06-22-2003 11:14 AM


i wrote it wrong!!!! sorry - i meant TWO of each ONE kind

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 67 of 71 (43618)
06-22-2003 11:42 AM


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


Message 68 of 71 (43619)
06-22-2003 11:48 AM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Coragyps, posted 06-22-2003 11:08 PM tomwillrep has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 71 (43623)
06-22-2003 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by tomwillrep
06-22-2003 10:50 AM


quote:
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.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by tomwillrep, posted 06-22-2003 10:50 AM tomwillrep has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 70 of 71 (43693)
06-22-2003 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by tomwillrep
06-22-2003 10:50 AM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by tomwillrep, posted 06-22-2003 10:50 AM tomwillrep has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 71 of 71 (43694)
06-22-2003 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by tomwillrep
06-22-2003 11:48 AM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by tomwillrep, posted 06-22-2003 11:48 AM tomwillrep has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024