|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Noah's Ark volume calculation | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Hi Overmind,
You've now offered two conflicting definitions of "kind". First there was this from your Message 203:
The Overmind in Message 203 writes: 'kinds' is the categorization of animals based on limited factors of "bringing forth" or the production of offspring. meaning, animals that can produce offspring are of the same kind. As Kuresu noted, this is the same as the definition of a sexually reproducing species. Then you offered this definition of kind in your Message 208:
The Overmind in Message 208 writes: one 'kind' can affiliate hundreds to thousands of species. I'll list 10 popular 'kinds'.dog, cat, deer, lizard, chicken, elephant, scavenger bird (crow), majestic bird (eagle), horse, giraffe. So let's look at the cat kind. Can housecats breed with lions? Of course not. So you've just contradicted your first definition where you described animals of the same kind as being able to produce offspring (presumably fertile offspring, but you weren't specific). So which definition are you going to go with? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2512 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
o, using the bible i drew the assertion that THEY WERE BIGGER than we are today. Which you must support. Where is the support for your contention that cubits were actually larger than what we know they used?
and finally, "scientists" don't dictate how we build inclusive standpoints that is pulled from a immeasurable or invariable reference, like the bible. thanks.
To me this suggests that you want us to take noah's ark seriously, but you don't want us to examine it. I'm sorry, if you want the claims of the bible to be considered actual history, it will have to be put to the same rigors as any historical claim. If you want the claims of the bible to be considered actual science, those claims will be put to the same rigors as any scientific claim. Science and history don't rely upon assertion, but support. You can assert all day long that cubits are larger than we think they are, you can assert that the bones of giants have been found, you can assert that there really is such as thing as kinds, but until you support it with evidence and references, you have done nothing. And once you have done that, you will find that you are really quite wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2105 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
the bible says, "there were giants in the earth in those days" and there has been hundreds of giant bones found to reinforce this. so, their cubit was much larger than ours. This is on topic, as it speaks directly to the size of the (fictional) ark:
Show me the bones! I've been studying human bones for decades, all through my Ph.D. work and since. I consult to local coroners when bones are found. I'm not exactly a novice when it comes to people parts. Show me the bones of these (fictional) giants supporting the "much larger" cubit. Good references will be sufficient. (But please, no creation "science" references--those folks lie when it comes to science. They can't help it.) Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
homunculus Member (Idle past 5434 days) Posts: 86 Joined: |
thank you for the trivial pursuit. I'm not Websters dictionary, but i will say that 'kinds' again is both of what i said in conjecture and comparison. my definition(s) don't conflict, they conjoin. they are set in limitations to mating, as i have said, and the results of variable mating, lineage. it may be true that lions and house cats cannot mate. but neither can great Danes and chihuahuas. or chickens and turkeys. not to mention donkeys and "ligers" which are sterile. i will also take note that 'kinds' are safely tucked away in the natural mating process, not manipulations of science. I will, reluctantly, admit that i did not invent the word 'kinds', nor is it used in evolutionary science. the point of my assertion was that the invention of the word 'species' sets up the rules for evolutionary biology and has assimilated conventional biology and there's nothing wrong with that, except that evolution is theoretical and unproven. no, i don't mean adaptation when i say evolution. i separate evolution from other terminologies so's to not confuse people.
I am new to these links, but it helps. Created kind - Wikipedia Kinds Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster note: Websters does not recognize "baraminology" lol, apparently, neither does spell check.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
prophet Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 54 From: Florida Joined: |
I was actually referring to the amplifying transistor. The question was; why it(the transistor) will amplify, when the only difference between them are; 3 individual diodes are connected to function as a transistor (doesn't work - no amplification) or one transistor is made containing 3 diodes - (works - amplification). Which this topic was a bit off, but used to demonstrate a "scientific miracle." (Or at least it used to be considered a miracle or puzzling)
Anyway getting back to topic... I noticed no content giving validity to the average animal's size being that of a sheep. (Is sheep the plural of shape?) Having one "sheep" just don't sound right! I also noticed no debate presented to the size of the animal due to it's age. Though, I did see these references, did I miss something or were these answers/problems simply overlooked?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
homunculus Member (Idle past 5434 days) Posts: 86 Joined: |
notice i said the bible was invariable. this thread, again, is called "Noah's ark volume calculation". you are suggesting we examine it's happenings without using the bible as a reference, without measuring it with biblical considerations or presupposing it even existed. of course you would be suggesting to examine it without even consideration for the flood. so, you are basically saying, no assertions are credible except those that distort and discredit it. alright, good job buddy. seems pretty monotonous and pointless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
homunculus Member (Idle past 5434 days) Posts: 86 Joined: |
your almost as bad as kuresu. no creation "science" for creation material, that's great. first, i would like to bring to your attention the Smithsonian, national geographic and a fistful of other geographical and historical "authorities" are corrupt to their toes, like many other acclaimed "authorities". not only do they play an extreme bias for evolution, like most evolutionists, but they do an incredible, high budget job of covering up the discovery of giant human skeletons (found primarily in the middle east/northern Africa) in an attempt to disprove the bible, once, I believe the information was readily available.
of course, the legend, DR. Kent hovind's material http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php random photos, i think most, if not all were discredited by "authorities". (you see the idea is to discredit them all, the belief in god is intolerable, that we cannot deal with, evolution is the only alternative). also note, i don't endorse any of these links, I'm saying I believe in giants and I believe truth is there. Have any large / giant human skeletons / bones been found? http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/...s_sumeranu/anu11_02.jpg http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/...s/9104_ke%20giant%202.jpg http://i159.photobucket.com/...1/freedom_042/giantcouple.jpg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgsAUgCZPBo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1P42j9Xltyg&feature=related
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
homunculus Member (Idle past 5434 days) Posts: 86 Joined: |
the big picture to this entire argument is that creation and evolution are theories. whether you say they are considerations for examinations in science, unproven and subjective validity, or that they unite facts and gives provision for phenomenon. like the origin of life, or the origin of the universe. creation is supplemented by the bible and practical application to the rule of design. evolution is fueled by the disdain and contempt for god and Christians/the church/godly things, and assimilation of theorem into facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2105 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
If you have any evidence post it.
And don't just post naked links; that's against forum rules. And I suspect that any link with Drdino in the url is absolute anti-science nonsense. But go ahead and post the "evidence" and we'll take a look. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2105 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
the big picture to this entire argument is that creation and evolution are theories. No, they are not. A theory in science has a specific definition. It does not mean a guess or something just made up on the spot. Research the definitions of "theory" lest you seem a fool or a religious apologist.
whether you say they are considerations for examinations in science, unproven and subjective validity, or that they unite facts and gives provision for phenomenon. ??????????
like the origin of life, or the origin of the universe. creation is supplemented by the bible and practical application to the rule of design. Correct. That is the opposite of science. (You are posting religious apologetics in the Science Forum; see tagline.)
evolution is fueled by the disdain and contempt for god and Christians/the church/godly things... Nonsense. Catholics are the single largest religious denomination and they have no problem with science and the theory of evolution. It is only fundamentalists, including Muslims, who do.
...and assimilation of theorem into facts. ???????? Facts lead to hypotheses, then theories. A theorem is something else entirely. You're not doing too well. You seem to be witnessing, more than discussing science. Perhaps you should be in a different part of this website? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2512 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
you are suggesting we examine it's happenings without using the bible as a reference, without measuring it with biblical considerations or presupposing it even existed Ah, not at all. We are using the bible as the basis for the ark story. We use the size given by the bible to come up with the volume (supplied to us by creationist websites, no less). Since you all insist on using kinds, but have not defined it in any real manner (that is, the definition seems to shift from species all the way to family, depending on the organism, such that dogs are one kind, but all spiders are one kind, whereas dogs are one species and spiders are thousands of species spread across multiple genera). As a compromise, we went with the number of genera within the animal kingdom (reasoning that insects and fish weren't taken on board, although the bible does say everything not on the ark died, and that genus is essentially the midpoint within the multiple kind definitions). So we have 14,500 "kinds" on the ark. Two of each kind, and the ark has 29,000 organisms. Perhaps you have a different number for the kinds of organisms alive today? If so, great, we'll factor that in. The rest of the updated opening post is simply dealing with the logistics--the average size of animals, per creationist websites I believe, since the bible does not deal with the logistics (other than who to bring, and that they must be fed). Turns out, using the bible as our foundation, there is no way you can fit 29,000 individual organisms (14,500 genera, or for you, "kinds") with food for one year on the ark. Now tell me, where was I(rather, we) not biblical?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window. For other formating tips see Posting Tips If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formated with the "peek" button next to it. Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Hi Homonculus,
Lions and housecats have different numbers of chromosomes, so interfertility is very unlikely. You can breed housecats with other types of cats that are more closely related (the Bengal housecat is 1/16 Asian leopard cat, the Savannah housecat is 1/8 Serval), but even using artificial insemination you can't breed housecats with lions. So if your criteria for a kind is interfertility, then lions and housecats are not the same kind, and both would have required representation on the ark. There's a secondary problem that's not the topic of this thread, but if the ark carried only broad classifications of animals by some definition we'll call "kind" then hyper-evolution after the flood would have been necessary to produce all the species. Oh, and hyper-migration, too. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
If you'd like an answer to your question about why three diodes don't function as a transistor then ask it in the [forum=-14]. Include a diagram of how you think the diodes should be wired up, because I don't know why you think you need a third diode since a transistor is schematically just two diodes back to back.
More generally about what you perceive as the miraculous nature of science, Arthur C. Clarke once wrote, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." It therefore follows that any sufficiently profound ignorance will make almost any science seem miraculous. About average animal size, I believe you're correct that that issue has not been explored in this thread. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4189 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Even if there were giants, the cubit used would have been Noah's and there is no indication that Noah was a giant.
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024