Fresh Problem with the Ark

Then supply an detailed alternative explanation. You will have to account for the nature of coral growth.(as an aside, it is necessary for you to understand that most people here don't have any trouble with you believing whatever you want. Most of us strongly support freedom of religion and separation of church and state to allow you that freedom. However, we do object to those who want to force their religious views into the classrooms. For this reason, miracles from God disqualify you. You may believe them but they do not belong in a classroom. If you think you have a scientific explanation for the evidence, good! Supply it. As soon as you are stuck and invoke a miracle you are no longer discussing science. Back to your church.)

When you ask someone to explain the flood(act of God), without using "GOD."
It is the same thing as asking one to explain computers(act of men), without using "men."
AND THAT IS ABSURD!


-----------------------
Then supply an detailed alternative explanation. You will have to account for the nature of coral growth.
-----------------------
Once I re-review my facts on Coral, I will supply an explanation, later.This message has been edited by TruthisLaw, 07-15-2004 07:48 PM

No, that is science.If you want to bring God in then any of us can also bring in the All Powerfull Invisible Pink Unicorn that, as everyone knows, can perform miracles.If you want to bring in magic then everyone else gets to use magic.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

-------------------
No, that is science.
If you want to bring God in then any of us can also bring in the All Powerfull Invisible Pink Unicorn that, as everyone knows, can perform miracles.
If you want to bring in magic then everyone else gets to use magic.
-------------------
Science is the Study of God Created Universe. I don't want to get off-subject, so I'll leave it at that.

Hi, TiL! It was pointed out that That's only a fraction of your problem. Once again, I'm going to drag out El Capitan, the tallest peak in Texas. It has 1600 vertical feet of fossil corals/calcareous sponges, mostly preserved in growth positions - rooted atop each other. To fit this into 4000 years, you need coral to 1) grow at 3+ inches per year while 2) the water level rises to stay a few to a couple of hundred feet above the growth surface the whole time . Then, 3) the water has to recede to about 6000 feet below the base of the reef without 4) the Indians that lived nearby noticing that they had been living under a half-mile of seawater.
Like Ned said - details?(edit 'cause I can't type for nuthin')This message has been edited by Coragyps, 07-15-2004 08:01 PM

Since you have made up your own definition you might want to propose a new topic to defend it. But thank you for watching out for a wander off topic.

Simply untrue. While coral growth rates are indeed slightly variable, there's no conceivable situation that would cause them to grow at rates thousands of times what they normally do. And certainly the conditions post-flood would not be condusive to that growth rate, or in fact, any growth rate whatsoever. No, it is a fictional story. It's untrue. It didn't happen. It's a myth.We know this because it's contradicted by all avaliable evidence. To go from fresh-water adaptation to salt-water adaptation? That's definately macro-evolutionary, if such a classification can even be said to exist. That's not a small change. That's a major change to the organism's organs, circulatory systems, and cellular chemistry. It all has to be in the water at one time, T. Where else is it coming from? This is simply a spurious objection that betrays how little thought you've actually put into your flood model.We know that all the dirt was in the water at once, according to your model, because all fossils are the result of the flood. If all the fossils are settling out of the water at once, we know the dirt they're in must be, too. Fresh water to 3.6% salt isn't a "slow change in salinity." That's a catastrophic change in salinity that would mean the extinction of almost every fish species, as well as the majority of marine invertabrates, like coral.4400 years isn't enough time to expect that rapid a macroevolutionary change to occur.

sounds like them creationists have wackier ideas of what evolution is capable of than those evolutionists i keep hearing about.

you're right. it is absurd.it's absurd exactly because anyone can go down a computer factory, and meet the people who make them. it's hardly a miracle, and men can be shown to exist pretty reasonably. computers are still made through natural processes, just by some "intelligent designer."god.... is a little tricker to prove. it's a little harder to go down to the flood factory, and talk to the deity responsible.a computer actually is a creation, yes. if you want to believe nature is, well that's fine too, actually. the problem is when you expect nature to operate outside of the laws created for it. naturalism is a property of god's creation. it's absurd to say he'd mess with that, just to throw everybody off.

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}}}

Drinking water is an obvious issue. I'm trying to work out where the 640 days comes from (RAZD opening post http://EvC Forum: Fresh Problem with the Ark)How did RAZD calculate this figure? - I'm still stuck on about half this but Hebrew is not one of my strengths. Wait...I do remember some Hebrew... Halleluyah ! Cheers

It was provided to me on another site.Feel free to calculate what you think the number should be. It is more than 40 by a significant margin, as that is only the period where it rained.welcome to the fray, and enjoy.

---

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

Another big problem with Noah's Ark is the very fact that the animal's would be crapping everywhere making a huge mess. furthermore, How would Noah have estimated the right ammount of food for all the animals to last that entire pleasure cruise?How would he have been able to have clean water for all the animals and his family?Answers: He could simply have cleaned all the poo off the ship using a mop, then slide it all overboard. For the ammount of food needed, Noah only had to determine the average daily rations per "kind" of animal before the trip.And in order to purify the water, Noah could have built a fire on the deck using the dung chips from livestock to boil water with. (I don't even know if that would work, but it sounds cool).

dung needs to be dry to burn, and I don't think the "cruise" may have had enough drying time for them to reach that stage.the major problem I see is that the boat is adrift in it's own pool of cess. how many animals are carrying enteric diseases that affect other animals. escherichia coli is common, so much so that it is used as a marker for any pollution of waters (does not survive long outside the gut).

---

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

"Another big problem with Noah's Ark is the very fact that the animal's would be crapping everywhere making a huge mess. furthermore, How would Noah have estimated the right ammount of food for all the animals to last that entire pleasure cruise?"Noah wasn't some dim-witted boat builder, he would have figuered out ways to easily get rid of crap, such as specialized bird cages that drop the stuff outside the ship. Plus if some of the animals hibernated, which is very possible, the chore of cleaning up there mess would be very easy. Rabbits acually eat their own pellets, so that takes care of some of their food. Noah also could have brought on worms to get rid of some of it. Worms are also a good souce of food (short term). Many meat eaters can revert to eating plants, just like they used to, God may have made the meat-eaters into herbivores for the duration of the trip. Any more questions, cause I'm on a roll!