Fresh Problem with the Ark

ahahahaaaa, touch. Looks like there was no water on board. Or vent holes. oooo. Too rigid? No room for common sense? Hmmm. Seems I've heard similar comments before ... just not from the creationist side. Btw -- how do you define "common sense" (as my experience has been that it is not 'common' at all)? And how do you know whether or not this happens? That's not evolution it is transformation. Pathetic. Shall we talk about creationism hoaxes that keep being used even after being exposed? Science does not use hoaxes; it exposes them, and moves on without any need to refer to them. Remember the coelacanth (http://www.dinofish.com/)? Missing for 65 million years from the fossil record ... it would qualify as a missing link except that no link is required, it is just that the fossils are missing. What this proves is that species can exist without fossil records.As to transitional species, it is a matter of missing fossils, and the original source may be very small and localized before spreading into larger habitats, and as for demonstrating the feasibility of "punctuated equilibrium" feel free to read on comment on Differential Dispersal Of Introduced Species (Re: Aspect of Punctuated Equilibrium) which demonstrates several species starting from a small localized initial population and spreading across the nation within 50 years or so, an instant compared to the {geological \ fossil record} time span: if fossils from such a species were only found in the expanded range it would appear suddenly in the fossil record.I also find it humorous that creationists focus on the missing links (1) as if it was a problem to evolution (a "too rigid with this no room for common sense stuff" nitpick?) (2) as if it somehow explained the appearance of fossils in {geological \ fossil record} time span that had never existed before and (3) there are some transitional fossils that clearly demonstrate that evolution happens. Try Foraminifera transitions (click for full article) "Common sense" would allow that similar transitions exist in other species even if the fossil record is incomplete. Do you? What's his favorite food, color, song?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

What, you mean there are errors of omission? That's a heck of a "complete" guide to truths. hmmm .... see "errors of omission" above ... if things are omitted, then how do you know anything is a contradiction, especially when the same book seems to waffle on a lot of issues. To presume to judge that something will "make Him a liar" is to presume to know what his truth is. In other words you do not use the term the way it is defined and try to muddy the issue with false implications if not outright misrepresentations. Evolution never talks about transformation of an individual organism. hmmm... only one ... which one to use? How about Paluxy dino\human tracks? Known hoax, even noted as such by some creationist sites, but still being cited by others. Want more? Which is no evidence that it does not happen, the possibility has not been refuted ... or even challenged. What I see is how any species can spread whenever the opportunity exists. This does not explain how animals like koalas would get to Australia and only Australia, nor does it show rapid speciation that some believers also think occurred after the flood in fast-forward mode while denying "evolution over ... great ages" ... a little contradictory if not outright hypocritical. Problem here is that there is no fossil record that would match that scenario. World wide sudden appearance of species that have been unchanged since then. See koalas above. Sarcastic denial and ignorance, what a combination. What part about "An intact fossil record with no missing links" don't you understand? Just because you don't see all the transitions in a small picture with only 10 specimens chosen to summarize the transition of thousands of shell shapes over a 6.5 million year period (a period as longs as all of the known hominid lineage at this time) you think it is done with mirrors? Again, what part about "An intact fossil record with no missing links" don't you understand? One lineage with no missing links that demonstrates substantial change over a 6.5 million period is all that is needed to show that it happens. Once that has been demonstrated you no longer get to question similar changes in other lineages where some records are missing, all you get to question what the lineage is and where it leads. This gets to the question of alternative explanations for the same evidence, a concept that is totally lacking from the creationist side. Quite possible. In my opinion anyone who does think they know a god on any kind personal level is engaging in some egotistical arrogant self-delusion ... that there is just to much for any one person to know even a part thereof: heck no one person can even wrap their mind around the full complete complexity of the universe from subatomic particle probability flux to black hole gravity waves with all the input of all the other sciences along the way. Of course I also think that the best way to get to know god is to try to understand his "entire oeuvre" directly, rather than through some translation.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

And why are two each of the asexual organisms needed?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Now we get an interpretation of what "all flesh" means ... one that excludes anything that does not reproduce sexually? Or does Noah have to change them (Cosby voice "You know I don't work that way ... ")"low lifes" ... being judgmental? Of course the spacecraft concept is totally out of the window, literally speaking of course.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Try a whole universe ... that is an encyclopedia Can you "blaspheme" something that is not a religious dogma? Perhaps what you blaspheme is the work of god.Intentionally misusing words is not communication. It is malicious, it is lying. It is wrong. The supposed "human" footprints are too big to fit any known human ancestor and there are other tracks that transition from those very same shapes into ones with the three toed footprints typical of dinosaurs. These other tracks are from the same area, the same geological strata, the same time frame, the same kind of dinosaur as those claimed to be human. The transition shows a change in {posture \ stance} of the "perp" (not a change in shape of the foot) that completely accounts for the supposedly 'human' tracks touted by creationists.Additionally there is no evidence of any human existence below the iridium layer that covers the world at the strata level that is associated with 65 million years ago, and which the paluxy are below (older than). There is no evidence of any human existence in the area of these tracks until the fairly recent (geologically) influx of the native Indian ancestors, an event measured in thousands of years rather than millions.I use the word hoax because the concept that they are human footprints has been disproved and yet that there are creationist sites that refer to it as fact, or at best claim it is not conclusive, rather just admit that it is not true. Intentionally continuing to misrepresent facts to dupe gullible people is textbook fraud, deception, lies and ... yes, a hoax. Again, we are talking after the flood, when there was no further rending of the earth, and a slow moving, diet restricted creature is supposedly able to migrate vast distances while leaving no evidence of any existence anywhere else but Australia -- on the far side of the earth from the holy land where the ark was supposed to land.Several other flood scenarios? Remember, literal is literal and not fantasy. If you need to create fantasies in your mind to make your literal interpretation work, it is no longer a literal interpretation but a fantasy. This rules out continents flying around the globe and magic carpets (or spaceships, or undocumented nieces and nephews with curious tastes) to transport animals to the far reaches of the earth. So many fantasies, so little reality. They are transitional because they show gradual change in shape over millions of years. And not in just one species but many. What links them to millions of years is the layers they are found in, sediment at the bottom of the oceans and other known methods of dating such fossils. The truth is what it is regardless of whether you believe it or not. The truth does not change. ... and btw, what alternative is there to the truth? Ah yes, the full fledge retreat into willful ignorance, and not just as an escape from the debate but presented as a holy goal to justify it. Interpreted too, so add a touch of fantasy here as well (no surprise eh?). Become as a child ... is that an empty slate akin to what Buddhists call nirvana? Becoming one with the being that is non-being? Or is that become as a child ... before learning anything about religion, life, the universe and everything? Or is a child to god like a year is as a thousand years so one can interpret it to mean anything one wants to? Or does it just mean to ignore stuff you don't like to hear (the way children like to do).enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

No, I am pointing out that whatever movement of the earth may have been involved with the flood scenario that it was over by the time the waters receded. To claim different is inconsistent with a literal reading. Prove it. Without proof this is just a statement of opinion. What does "kind" mean? (and has that interpretation changed in the last 150 years?) Is goliath a known human ancestor? Where is the evidence for his existence and for his relationship to humans? What evidence do you have for his "actual" size?Still does not refute the fact that the other tracks are (1) clearly dinosaur and (2) clearly the same as the supposedly human tracks used by the creationist hoax mongers.What other theory provides a better answer? What are the predictions and tests that said theory has passed? Funny how some people refuse to accept the facts as if denial were some scientific process that invalidated any result.The facts of evolution are truths that cannot be denied except by those too stupid, ignorant, malicious, or insane (or deceived) to understand it. The theories that combine those facts into coherent rational systems have yet to be challenged by any other system that comes close to explaining the process and fitting the facts. That is the reality. Because this is just another pure arkathon fantasy that has no relation to either the bible or to science. As I keep pointing out, whenever you use a fantasy to try to prove a literal interpretation you are turning the interpretation into a fantasy, which is not just illegitimate science it is illegitimate faith. No, because the layers are related to the geological age that the sediments were formed. This gets back to Neds Thread on {Fossil Sorting in the Great Flood Part 2} (http://EvC Forum: Fossil Sorting in the Great Flood Part 2 -->EvC Forum: Fossil Sorting in the Great Flood Part 2) and the relation of layers to actual ages. The layers are dated by several methods, more than enough to satisfy scientists who understand the processes. If you want to discuss validity of age dating methods there is a thread for that purpose at {Age Correlations and an Old Earth} (http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth -->EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth). Again, this is just your opinion, and a rather fanciful one at that. The point really is that you do not really know what is really meant by this passage and choose to interpret it to satisfy your current need for an excuse to be willfully ignorant of the facts and reality around you.Enjoy.

You are beginning to get the picture.Throne of god carries little "low-lifes" animals but not the most favored organism? Wouldn't that put the little ones higher than those of us not quite angels?Not all asexual organisms are single cell, there are several multicell species known to reproduce asexually.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

you can take this discussion to the {Ideas of Reality} topic.
EvC Forum: Ideas of Reality

that you think you do shows a high degree of self delusion.
you too might like to take this to {Ideas of Reality} topic at
EvC Forum: Ideas of Reality

this applies to the ark how?

hi monarch, and welsome to the forumplease read the original post on a topic thhread and try to keep the posts in that general field. Threads are limited to 300 or so posts so any off topic take away from possible valuable posts by others.the original concept was how fresh water was provided to all the organisms on the ark, given that (1) the rain only lasted 40 days while the "voyage" lasted over a year, (2) no mention of storage of water is given and even stored water goes bad after a few months, (3) the water the ark floated in would have been fouled by effluent from the ark, stirred up sediments and the salt content consistent with the current oceans.enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

grasping at straws again, straws that contradict a literal bible and science again?perhaps you can show where any one of these other "vehicle" were used to transport any organisms? then a section where any one of them were used during the flood? then a specific one addressing how many need not be carried on the ark because god had other means set aside for them? perhaps more than one ark? isn't that also a contradiction?still waiting to see why over 3/4's of the earths organisms survived because they lived in the seas when the angry god of your myth was going to destroy all life, then relented to spare noah and his crew and the animals sent to him to take on board. how much does it take to qualify as a sea creature? sea turtle females only come ashore to lay eggs so do the males qualify as sea creatures and the females not? do they get taken on the ark as a pair? they eat jelly fish, and noah had to take food for each creature -- how many jelly fish does he take? how does he keep them alive?sea otters also live mostly on the sea but come to land more frequently. certainly they are air breathing mammals with legs and paws for running on land. do they get on the ark or are they sea creatures? they live on fish and shell-fish, so how would they be fed and how would that food be kept until feeding time?what about intertidal organisms that are in the sea at high tide but on land at low tide? are they sea creatures? how was their food, etc.where do you draw the line: these in the ark, these in the sea? when there is a spectrum of life that goes from living entirely within the sea to living entirely out of the sea?a real inconsistency, imho.enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

doesn't have much to do with the ark and fresh water issues thereon that I can see... how about a new topic for this discussion?

please start a new topic if you want to discuss this instead of taking up the remaining posts on this topic.ARK
FRESH WATER SUPPLY
RELATED THOUGHTSthanks

this would, of course, be based on a quote direct from the bible stating such, and not some bizarre interpretationplease provide same.anything else is just science fiction used for an argument and does constitute a literal bible argument.{sorry for the long delay to answer -- I have been away for 3 weeks}

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}