Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
31 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (2 members, 29 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,139 Year: 22,175/19,786 Month: 738/1,834 Week: 238/500 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist experiment to prove the possibility of Noah's ark
Manifest
Junior Member (Idle past 3475 days)
Posts: 4
Joined: 03-02-2010


Message 45 of 115 (549361)
03-06-2010 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Admin
08-02-2008 5:29 AM


quote:
This *would* absolutely make a great reality show. One can imagine during the loading of the ark Shem saying to Noah, "The wolves are refusing to eat the hay we provided and ate the sheep again, we have to find more bloody sheep."

Implying Noah - being around 600 years old - wasn't wise enough to bring young ones on the ark.

One would have to count the kinds of animals out there which are clean and unclean. The kinds being essentially the ones which could originally breed. Wolves, dogs, jackals, coyotes are the same kind of animal so you don't need to bring one of every species merely a puppy dog male and female. We could try to figure this out in this thread. Some think it would be between 1000 to 8000 - which considering the size of the boat - being around 25,000 square feet as far as I know - is nothing.

In fact I think in China they built an exact replica size wise of the boat so this shouldn't be hard to do.
http://www.clipsyndicate.com/...full_size_noah_s_ark_replica

Having this many people on the boat to take care of so few animals simply feeding them and taking the excrement is nothing big to believe in. Less feeding less excrement. Being eight aboard the boat to separate tasks.

Take the biggest number being 8000 animals. Divide it by 8 for the number of people. 1000 animals to feed a day (if you feed them daily instead of leaving them food to eat when they are hungry this is assuming a 10 hour workday which is 600 minutes. This leaves about 36 seconds to throw the hay or whichever food they were eating - maybe they separated the animals in rows according to what they eat - and scoop excrements doesn't seem like a hard thing to do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Admin, posted 08-02-2008 5:29 AM Admin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by lyx2no, posted 03-06-2010 11:39 AM Manifest has responded
 Message 47 by Dr Jack, posted 03-06-2010 11:49 AM Manifest has not yet responded
 Message 48 by Coyote, posted 03-06-2010 12:58 PM Manifest has not yet responded
 Message 72 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 03-10-2010 10:38 AM Manifest has not yet responded
 Message 76 by hooah212002, posted 03-10-2010 7:24 PM Manifest has not yet responded

  
Manifest
Junior Member (Idle past 3475 days)
Posts: 4
Joined: 03-02-2010


Message 49 of 115 (549375)
03-06-2010 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by lyx2no
03-06-2010 11:39 AM


Re: Maybe They…
quote:
Maybe they had food replicators.

Maybe they had Robots.

Maybe they had trained monkeys.

Maybe when they said "people" they only meant landed, Hebrew males over the age of 25.

Maybe they had a story to tell.



robots and food replicators and monkeys huh? I can tell you don't care to look at this seriously. Stocked up food for a year aboard a giant ship to feed young animals is hard how exactly? The boat was about 25,000 square feet.

quote:

Psst, 8000 animals wouldn't take care of the beetles.


You haven't even read the genesis account. No insects were brought onboard.
Gen 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.
Gen 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

Insects have no nostrils. Pay attention also that the verses are referring to kinds and not speciation which is a modern human classification system.

quote:

Have you ever, in a single day in your life, looked after an animal?


Yes. Animals take care of each other in the wild all they need to be provided with here is the food which again they could have just put it all there for them from the start. Excrements probably was most of what they spent their time picking up and this wouldn't take very long at all seeing as how most of these animals again are very small due to their age.

quote:

Genetics and archaeology, along with radiocarbon dating, show that wolves, dogs, jackals, coyotes developed into separate species earlier than 4,350 years ago, the purported date of the flood.

Are you now going to claim that all of those fields are wrong?



Fields say nothing of their own. Some can claim genetic diversity which we observe today cannot have varied so much in 4,400 years but this isn't what we really observe. Fish going into dark caves lose their eyes over a few generations because they don't need them. When they get out of the cave the opposite happen. A certain island has deer which have grown smaller over a few generation because of the small amount of food on the island. Years of selective breeding have produced the chihuahua.

As far as archaeology is concerned in tying this with knowing the age of these different animals having diverged before the flood you would have to tie it in to carbon dating to figure this out which is really what this boils down to. The problem is is if the flood occurred your carbon dating of these fossils wouldn't be reliable due to being heavily affected in this disaster.

Edited by Manifest, : species to speciation


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by lyx2no, posted 03-06-2010 11:39 AM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by lyx2no, posted 03-06-2010 2:26 PM Manifest has responded
 Message 51 by Apothecus, posted 03-06-2010 2:46 PM Manifest has not yet responded
 Message 52 by Coyote, posted 03-06-2010 3:31 PM Manifest has not yet responded
 Message 53 by JonF, posted 03-06-2010 7:28 PM Manifest has not yet responded
 Message 54 by Blue Jay, posted 03-06-2010 8:06 PM Manifest has not yet responded
 Message 57 by Dr Jack, posted 03-07-2010 6:08 AM Manifest has not yet responded
 Message 90 by Theodoric, posted 03-14-2010 3:40 PM Manifest has not yet responded

  
Manifest
Junior Member (Idle past 3475 days)
Posts: 4
Joined: 03-02-2010


Message 59 of 115 (549500)
03-08-2010 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by lyx2no
03-06-2010 2:26 PM


Re: Maybe They…
quote:
Why would a flood affect carbon dating?

quote:
Just to add, fossils can't be carbon dated. Carbon dating is only useful to 50k years or so. 14C starts out as a very minor component. Reduce that amount by nearly three orders of magnitude and background noise tends to overwhelm the signal. And 50K years isn't long enough to fossilize stuff. So if we're looking at fossils of wolves and jackals we're also so far beyond 4,350 years we don't need to worry about their relationship to the flood.

Fossils can be carbon dated and they are only assumed to be older by the theory of evolution which you have chosen to put your faith in. Your claim that 50k years not being long enough to fossilize a dead animal is unscientific. Suffice to say - since admittedly you're not serious about any of this - that when a fish lies in water and is dead and is rotting the first thing that happens is the ligament attaching the head rots away and the head drops off. Eventually it puffs up and all the scales fall off and then it deteriorates and in a very short period of time that fish is gone. So we wouldn't have fossilisation of these creatures today they would just disappear and dissipate and the bacteria and the scavengers and what have you they would come and that thing is gone. But we do indeed have fish fossilized and many of them are perfect which means they must have been buried instantaneously. Some of them don't have heads that means they floated in the water for a few days (not a long time) and then were buried. You can go look in the bottom of the sea you won't find piles of scales that could fossilize they just don't exist. So this is catastrophism. Sometimes you have perfect fossils of fish which are eating another fish even.

http://siriusknotts.files.wordpress.com/.../vacation-010.jpg

[while writing this the window I'm typing this in turned grey so I'll have to retype every single thing I typed after this point. I'll just try to summarize it]

quote:
Where does it say in the bible that animals were brought at a young age? Did you make this up?

Where in the bible does it say that animals were brought which at an old age? Why would Noah bring older ones which are bigger, eat more, defecate more and are less innocent towards other animals.

quote:
I know I shouldn't buy into this argument, but if 'kinds' doesn't include insects, then why do we see the varieties we have today? Floating vegetation mats?

I already provided the quotes.

Gen 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.

Also you may want to look at this verse which mentions every living thing of all flesh.
Gen 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

(Gen 7:17) 40 --the number of days it rained
(Gen 7:24) 110 --the number of days "the waters prevailed on the earth"

so two of every insects had to live on floating vegetation mats, trees and carcasses for 110 days in the entire world. Woop dee doo.

quote:
Hope there are enough "floating mats" to cater to all the various environmental requirements of every 'kind' of insect we see in nature.

I see no reason why any of them wouldn't, do you? The question is not about whether or not they had a quality time, it's merely about whether or not they were able to survive for 110 days.

quote:

Your response does not address the genetic diversity which we see in those four critters which clearly occurred over a much longer span than 4,350 years, in fact going back millions of years. You are presenting "what ifs" while the history of those critters is well-established by science.


Need I remind you that the flood wiped out the earth? So the diversity would have come from the ones which were on board after the flood. I have provided examples which show rapid adaptation so to say drastic adaptation cannot occur rapidly is absurd. Remember the example of dogs being selectively bread to create the chihuahua. This didn't take long at all.

quote:
Have you ever really studied radiocarbon dating, or are you just going from what the creationist website tell you?

proceed to post from religioustolerance.org

I don't go by the name of the website. An article could be posted on the church of satan if it's content is true the hosting site has no bearing on it. I find the irony of your question considering what you've posted interesting however. Nothing unusual.

quote:
If it is the latter, here are some links which will provide a much more accurate overview of the field. When you have looked at a few of these you might know enough to begin to discuss the issue. At that point I'll be happy to try and answer some of your questions.

thank you but again the questions are based upon the false assumptions that it makes. Concidering the flood all pre-flood dates especially couldn't be reliable.
1- A constant rate of decay is assumed
a) The constancy of cosmic ray bombardment might be questioned. The current high rate of entry might be a consequence of a disturbed post-flood environment that altered the carbon-14 to carbon-12 ratio. Pre-flood dates would thus have to be discarded.
b) An increase in the magnetic field of the earth would have shielded the earth from cosmic rays. Some scientists argue that the magnetic field of the earth has declined over time.
c) Atmospheric carbon forms just 0.0005% of the current carbon reservoir-99.66% of the earth's carbon exists in limestone, 0.31% in oil and gas, and 0.02% in coal. carbon-14 comes from nitrogen and is independent of the carbon-12 reservoir. If even a small percentage of the limestone deposits were still in the form of living marine organisms at the time of the flood, then the small amount of carbon-14 would have mixed with a much larger carbon-12 reservoir, thus resulting in a drastically reduced ratio. Specimens would then look much older than they actually are.
d) Even if the rate of decay is constant, without knowledge of the exact ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in the initial sample, the dating technique is subject to question.
2- It's assumed that the clock was set to zero when the study material was formed. This requires that only the parent isotope be initially present or that the amount of daughter isotope present at the beginning is known so that it can be subtracted.
3- It is assumed that we are dealing with a closed system-no loss of either parent or daughter elements has occurred since the study material formed.

quote:
Add: As this is getting off topic, please respond on one of the several threads we have dedicated to either radiocarbon or radiometric dating.

Indeed but I did not breach the topic of carbon dating, you did. And if this is brought up to argue against the position I hold I have the right to answer.

quote:
Most young animals eat more than adults. Growing, ya know.

By and large no. As soon as an animal start eating regular food which it will eat for the rest of its life it doesn't consume more than an adult would.

quote:
Many young animals do not learn how to handle themselves without training from adults of their species.

I don't agree, they handle themselves instinctively. They wouldn't need anyways as the point of the trip was to keep them alive not for them to have a quality of time aboard the boat.

quote:
Some animals eat only live animals.

Many animals require special food.



Many carnivores, including lions and tigers, can readily manage on a vegetarian diet, and this may have happened on the Ark. Dogs are considered carnivores, but dogs in some countries actually survive on a primarily vegetarian diet.

If it was unavoidably necessary for some of the Ark’s tenants to have meat in their diet, this could have been readily accomplished using salted meat, reconstituted dried meat, or fresh meat from fodder animals carried aboard for this purpose. Tortoises are a good example of a fodder animal. Tortoises can survive up to a year and a half in captivity without water or food. In olden days, the famous Galápagos tortoise nearly went extinct due in part to its popularity as a fodder food. Thousands were taken aboard sailing ships to be kept as a source of fresh meat.

[pasted from http://creation.com/...ing-an-accusation-of-closet-scientism]

quote:
Preventing food spoilage is extremely difficult.

It took over 100 years for Noah to prepare the Ark and the things in the Ark, so I would say that's enough time to prepare.

quote:
There's lots more.

You could easily go on websites from those who have answered all of these questions. This is akin to people who bring up alleged bible contradictions not having gone over and looked up to see if those had been answered by biblical scholars or bible commentaries a million times already.

quote:
You read that too fast. Read it again.

"Nostrils" was not a qualification of things brought onto the Ark; it was a description of the things that died in the Flood.

There is nothing here that says insects were not on the Ark.



Gen 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
Gen 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.

Flesh

Reading the subsequent verse with this in mind: Insects do not breathe through nostrils
Gen 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

quote:
Ha ha ha! What rot.

Firstly, an animal in the wild can care for itself, yeah.



................????

quote:
Although most of them die. Keeping an animal in a very confined space in a boat is a very different matter.


No most of them do not die, their instincts keep them alive quite well. The fact that they were young on board means they didn't have to worry about predators either. Are you saying young animals which are given food daily living around others will die within a year?

quote:
As for just putting the food there... 1. many animals will overeat given the opportunity; doubly so when confined. 2. most animal food rots over time. 3. most animals don't have instinct preventing them from spoiling their food.

1. Hasn't been my experience, but so what?
2. Food were most likely in the form of hay, dried fruit, salted meat, dried meat, and dried fish and perhaps fodder food like tortoises like earlier mentioned.
3. If you're so inclined as to wonder about the animals which you think would absolutely spoil their food need I remind you there are 8 humans on board.

quote:
Even a small animal takes more than 36 seconds of care each day.

Again, animals take care of themselves without a problem. Furthermore it's not about a luxury voyage aboard a cruise ship, we're talking survival for a year.

quote:
And all this takes your completely extra-biblical assertion that they were young animals and your scientifically ludicrous assertion that you could re-populate all animal life from just 8000 breeding pairs.

it takes it...?

In any case, the reasoning that they must have been young is a logical one. The bible doesn't mention their age, so why do you assume they were old? Wouldn't they take much more space then? I see no reason for this. I am much younger than Noah and I can figure so much out. As far as repopulating all animal life that's an issue how? The more there is food the more animals will breed generally. When you have a scarcity of food the animals stop breeding or move. So having so few animals over 4000 years is a challenge how? Need I remind you this is an exponential rate of replication. I'm sure you're aware of the rabbits being brought over to Australia in 1859.

From Wikipedia: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia]
In Australia, rabbits are a serious mammalian pests and are an invasive species. Annually, European rabbits cause millions of dollars of damage to crops.

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that any kind of animal today couldn't have replicated so much in over 4300 years to account for the population we have nowadays. If you disagree I'd like to hear an example.

quote:
Post #49 almost gave me an aneurysm.

So I take it you have no answer for any of it?

Edited by Manifest, : forgot to answer a man who almost had an aneurysm


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by lyx2no, posted 03-06-2010 2:26 PM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Peepul, posted 03-08-2010 1:12 PM Manifest has responded
 Message 61 by ZenMonkey, posted 03-08-2010 2:12 PM Manifest has not yet responded
 Message 64 by lyx2no, posted 03-08-2010 6:49 PM Manifest has not yet responded
 Message 66 by JonF, posted 03-08-2010 7:46 PM Manifest has not yet responded
 Message 70 by Dr Jack, posted 03-09-2010 6:45 AM Manifest has not yet responded

  
Manifest
Junior Member (Idle past 3475 days)
Posts: 4
Joined: 03-02-2010


Message 63 of 115 (549553)
03-08-2010 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Peepul
03-08-2010 1:12 PM


Re: Maybe They…
quote:
Nice cut and paste!

http://amazingdiscoveries.org/...lict-RadiometricDating.html



Implying this means anything

quote:
This is written by Professor Walter J. Veith, PhD. Is his PhD in a relevant field? I placed my bet before checking. What a surprise - he's a zoologist!


implying this means anything. What if a 4 years old girl put forward these false assumptions what difference does it make? Does it make it less valid? Do those assumptions belong to him?

quote:

I'll allow the experts to debunk your content in detail (if they want to). But you need to consider why, if a zoologist can think of these questions, the experts in the field have not considered them and resolved them?

This is the difference. I try not to put much faith in elitism. If you have nothing to provide as for the substance I've raised why did you bother answering?

quote:
You are forced to consider scientists incompetent or dishonest because of your fixed belief system.

Isn't that ironic considering you're relegated answering this to others?

quote:
They are neither of course.

You wouldn't know, you've admittedly said you will leave it to others to answer me. The "experts"

quote:
The problem is your fixed belief system.

Seething arrogance and irony as well considering the erstwhile lecture you gave me about believing in what others say you've relegated this answer to others.

quote:

ZenMonkey; Straggler


Seems some have slipped into cognitive dissonance. Are these the experts you're referring to Peepul.

Edited by Manifest, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Peepul, posted 03-08-2010 1:12 PM Peepul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Coragyps, posted 03-08-2010 8:44 PM Manifest has not yet responded
 Message 68 by ZenMonkey, posted 03-08-2010 8:45 PM Manifest has not yet responded
 Message 69 by DrJones*, posted 03-08-2010 8:57 PM Manifest has not yet responded
 Message 71 by Peepul, posted 03-09-2010 6:48 AM Manifest has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019