Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   animals on the ark
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 15 of 196 (6230)
03-07-2002 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by John Paul
03-06-2002 5:44 PM


quote:
Ever see how cows, pigs and horses are fed? How are herbivores fed in a zoo? Could be pretty much the same way.
(BTW, pigs aren't herbivores. They are omnivores and have digestive systems very similar to ours)
OK, here is something I have intimate knowledge of; feeding horses.
Let's assume that there were only two horses on the Ark.
Let us also assume that they were of average size and were relatively easy keepers.
Let us ignore the fact that keeping a horse standing still in a small stall for a year would be quite dangerous to it's health, as they need to move around to keep their guts working properly.
Let us also ignore the muscle atrophy and depression and boredome which would also have detrimental effects.
Let us also assume that we would not feed these horses grain, because anyone who feeds horses knows that confining a horse and feeding it lots of grain (high-powered) food is a prescription for life-threatening health problems (colic) and excitability and unruliness. Letting the horse roam on several acres (at least) of land and feeding it hay and grass (low-powered) food generally results in a much more sane, tractable, placid horse.
Now that we have determined that Noah would need to take on a lot of hay to feed these horses, let's see if we can figure out how much these two horses would need.
Well, if we are talking about a sedentary horse, and just wanting to get it to survive, not necessarily keeping it in good weight, I estimate, very conservatively, that you could get away with feeding the horses 15 pounds of hay a day, each. A bale of hay is something like 30 pounds.
This means that Noah, just to feed two horses and no other herbivores on the Ark, would need nearly 11,000 pounds of hay for 365 days.
Of course, this doesn't even account for the fresh water that would have to be stowed on board, as nobody could drink sea water and they couldn't collect enough rain in 40 days and 40 nights to last them the other 325 days.
Horses drink about 6-10 gallons of water a day, so this makes the two horses' minimum fresh water requirements for the year at 4,380 gallons.
OK, so perhaps you want to explain all of these logistical problems away with miracles and "Godidit", which is fine if you want to believe that, but then we have left science and reason in favor of faith and the supernatural. Therefore, I have no compelling reason to believe in this story on rational grounds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by John Paul, posted 03-06-2002 5:44 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by John Paul, posted 03-09-2002 9:13 AM nator has replied
 Message 70 by 2MuchTalk, posted 03-11-2002 12:56 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 16 of 196 (6231)
03-07-2002 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by John Paul
03-06-2002 5:44 PM


quote:
Are you telling me that when farm land gets flooded it’s years until anything grows there?
When it is flooded for an entire year? Yes.
If it wasn't completely torn up, then how could all the fossils have been buried in multiple layers? We don't see a flood debris layer, with everything which died or which was uprooted in the flood in a single layer, so vast quantities of silt and soil meters and meters thick must have been churned around to bury everything so deep. It would take years and years for anything to grow after that kind of disturbance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by John Paul, posted 03-06-2002 5:44 PM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-07-2002 11:32 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 24 of 196 (6380)
03-09-2002 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by TrueCreation
03-09-2002 1:12 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[B]schrafinator:
"When it is flooded for an entire year? Yes."
--This greatly depends on composition.[/QUOTE]
Really? How so?
quote:
"If it wasn't completely torn up, then how could all the fossils have been buried in multiple layers? We don't see a flood debris layer, with everything which died or which was uprooted in the flood in a single layer, so vast quantities of silt and soil meters and meters thick must have been churned around to bury everything so deep. It would take years and years for anything to grow after that kind of disturbance."
--There was no 'flood debris layer', almost the whole column is flood originated.
OK, you missed my point.
No, there isn't a flood debris layer, even though this is exactly what every other flood ever recorded and observed has ever done to the debris. Do you think that if you repeat, "almost the whole column is flood originated" enough times that someone will believe you without evidence?
So how can anything grow on land which has been mixed and churned so much that animals were buried way down under meters and meters of mixed together soil, subsoil, rock, silt, etc? There is a reason it's called topsoil, TC. Plants pretty much only grow in topsoil, but layer would have been obliterated and mixed completely with everything else.
...that is, IF all the fossils were buried in one event.
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-09-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by TrueCreation, posted 03-09-2002 1:12 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by John Paul, posted 03-09-2002 9:01 AM nator has replied
 Message 37 by TrueCreation, posted 03-09-2002 12:05 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 25 of 196 (6384)
03-09-2002 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by TrueCreation
03-09-2002 1:12 AM


So, John Paul & TC, what do you have to say about my calculations for the hay and water requirements for just two horses for a year on the Ark?
You know, I should also mention that the space needed to store all of that hay would be much greater than the space needed today, because there were no automatic balers back then. Hay was kept loose, rather than compressed in a bale. That's why you see those old barns which have enormous, 3-story tall hay lofts every once in a while. The lofts were so large because all of the hay was stored loose.
So, how about it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by TrueCreation, posted 03-09-2002 1:12 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by TrueCreation, posted 03-09-2002 12:12 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 52 of 196 (6462)
03-10-2002 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by John Paul
03-09-2002 9:01 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
Schrafinator:
So how can anything grow on land which has been mixed and churned so much that animals were buried way down under meters and meters of mixed together soil, subsoil, rock, silt, etc? There is a reason it's called topsoil, TC. Plants pretty much only grow in topsoil, but layer would have been obliterated and mixed completely with everything else.
John Paul:
Actually the sedmiments would have been hydrolically(sp?) sorted. That has been observed, tested, repeated and verified.

Please provide the authors and Journal in which this evidence has been published and peer-reviewed. I would love to see it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by John Paul, posted 03-09-2002 9:01 AM John Paul has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 53 of 196 (6463)
03-10-2002 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by John Paul
03-09-2002 9:13 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
As pointed out in my first post there was plenty of room in the Ark to take the animals out for a walk if necessary.
The food was started at 2,500 tons and the water at 4,070 tons. On page 19 of the book Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study it breaks it down.
settled barn-dried hay- 21,800 cubic meters
lightly-compressed hay pellet- 7,060 cubic meters
doubly-compressed hay- 5,410 cubic meters
pellted horse food and pellted cattle food- 3,030 cubic meters
dried fruits- 2,930 cubic meters.
fresh meat- 6,633 cubic meters
dried meat(not compressed)- 3,980 cubic meters
dried meat (compressed)- 1,923 cubic meters
dried fish- 12,800 cubic meters
Are any of your numbers for feeding horses anywhere in literature? The book I mention is fully referenced, that is why I ask. Did you take into consideration that the horses could have been ponies?

OK.
Let me get this straight.
You are really wanting me to believe that Noah had PELLETED HAY AND HORSE FEED? You have got to be completely crazy if you are asking me to believe such a thing. Oh, and what the heck is "doubly-compressed hay", and how did Noah compress it?
Did they drive down to the feed store in their Ford pickup to buy it in 100 pound bags, or did they have the feed store deliver it to the Ark biulding site on their delivery flatbed? Do you think they would have chosen a 9% protein or a 12% protein? Do you think they went for the Purina, or did they choose Omolene, or another brand?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!
My numbers for feeding horses comes from years of experiece doing so as a professional and an amateur, and also from my college courses entitled "Equine Nutrition", and "Stable Management".
I also can give you the reference, "Equine Nutrition: A Practical Guide", by Harold Hintz, which was one of my textbooks for Equine Nutrition. Hintz is an Equine Nutritionist at Cornell and was the main author and researcher behind developing the latest version of the NRC "Nutritional Requirements for Horses".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by John Paul, posted 03-09-2002 9:13 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by John Paul, posted 03-10-2002 4:31 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 63 of 196 (6552)
03-11-2002 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by John Paul
03-10-2002 4:31 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Paul:
[b] John Paul:
And you have to be crazy if you believe life arose from non-life via purely natural processes.[/QUOTE]
ROTFLMAO!
Nice try at changing the subject, but do try to stay focused, JP!
We are talking about the feasibility of just two horses being adequately fed and watered for a year while onboard an Ark, not Abiogenesis.
LOL!
quote:
The book I mentioned is fully referenced. Before you scoff at it perhaps it would be a good idea to read it.
I would LOVE to read the book, actually, but I have, as yet, not found it in any used book stores. I don't pay full price for such books, on principle.
If you have the book, which you obviously do because you quoted from it, perhaps you could provide some relevant references concerning herbivore feeding for me?
In particular, I would very much like to know what Bible-age technology was used to compress hay and produce pelleted horse feed.
(giggle)
quote:
Waste managemnet, manpower studies, floor space allotments, feeding challenges, basic living conditions, the recovery of the earth's biosphere etc., are all covered.
Oh, I'm sure they are.
quote:
If you are not going to read the book that's OK. Just don't go around saying that these issues haven't been addressed.
Maybe you could find the part in the book which tells us where Noah got the pelleted feed from? Surely they 'address' that technological breakthrough!
quote:
That would be a lie.
Ohhhh, now you're playing tough!
ROTFLMAO!!
[/b][/QUOTE]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by John Paul, posted 03-10-2002 4:31 PM John Paul has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 64 of 196 (6556)
03-11-2002 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Punisher
03-11-2002 7:36 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Punisher:
[b]It is doubtful whether the humans had to clean the cages every morning. Possibly they had sloped floors or slatted cages,[/QUOTE]
Sloped floors, unless they were only very slightly sloped, would be likely to make horses lame if they stood on them long enough. Also, slats make it more likely hat a hoof will get caught.
quote:
where the manure could fall away from the animals and be flushed away (plenty of water around)
Lots of salt water would be pretty bad for the horse's skin, and probably other animals', too.
quote:
or destroyed by vermicomposting which would also provide earthworms as a food source.
I don't think that earthworms can live in composting fresh manure because the decomposition raises the temperature too high. At least, parasites are killed in 'hot' manure, which is why you either want to compost it or spread it out in the sun.
quote:
Very deep bedding can sometimes last for a year without needing a change.
Sometimes...
quote:
Absorbent material (e.g. sawdust, softwood wood shavings and especially peat moss) would reduce the moisture content and hence the odor.
Please tell me where the peat bogs were located in the Middle East.
Also, tell me where the forests of trees and sawmills were which produced the humdreds and hundreds of pounds of shavings and sawdust needed to bed the stalls.
From Creation Ex Nihilo 19(2):16-19,
March-May 1997 [/b][/QUOTE]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Punisher, posted 03-11-2002 7:36 AM Punisher has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 78 of 196 (6618)
03-11-2002 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by 2MuchTalk
03-11-2002 12:56 PM


quote:
Originally posted by 2MuchTalk:
[b]I tire of constant "master theological geological biologists" arguing things for which cannot be proven through scientific fact either way. Who was around before the flood that can bring material evidence of the world then?[/QUOTE]
There is no evidence of any worldwide flood occurring at all, and we have records of civilizations which were around before and at the time of the flood which do not mention a flood.
quote:
Who, on a human basis, sat on God's shoulder while the universe was made. Or who watched the big bang as it lightened up the nothingness?
Natural events leave evidence of their happening. It is through inference that most science is done. If you will only accept that which we can see with our own eyes, then you must reject the existence of, mmm, let's see....gravity and electrons for two examples. Nobody has ever directly observed either one; we have only inferred their existence by observing their effects.
quote:
Here are the facts. I'm sure neither quicksink nor J.P. have all the valid facts to argue...I mean debate the flood. You are both arguing from, at least partial, ignorance. There is no proof, that can be remade, to prove either.
Actually, there isn't any evidence at all for a worldwide flood, and since JP and other Creationists say that it happened, and that science supports this assertion, it is incumbent upon them to provide the evidence that it did.
quote:
Quick has just as much faith in his beliefs as J.P., but neither are proof of the flood.
You are erroniously equating religious "faith" with the kind of "faith" which is gained through experience and evidence.
I have "faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow, but is this a religious "faith", or one based upon my experience of the sun having always risen every day of my life?
These two kinds of faith are very different and you know it.
quote:
As for me, I am a Christian who believes in Creationism. Can I prove it scientifically? No. Can I prove all came from a single author by the way everything is connected around me, organic and inorganic? I believe so.
OK, this is contradictory. I sure do look forward to this "proof" that you say you can provide for God, though.
quote:
Do I tire of evolutionists acting like they have proof of their beliefs and ridiculing mine. Absolutely! Faith, by its own definition, cannot be proved. These theories are based on faith. Who can argue that?!
Anyone barely familiar with science can argue it quite easily, actually.
Science is not faith-based, it is evidence-based.
quote:
My faith says we were created by God, with His Spirit indwelling, for a specific purpose. I choose not to believe I am some jumble of molecules without purpose, aimless in a lonely universe. How do I scientifically prove that? As easily as an atheistic evolutionist (not all evolutionists are atheists, I know) can prove the opposite is true. It is faith being argued here, not facts because none of us have them.
If the methods of science don't describe the natural world effectively then how did we get men to the Moon and back?
Look, all of the stuff you say about a "lonely" universe and you not wanting to feel like "a jumble of molecules" is irrelevant to the validity of the ToE. That evolution happens is a fact, and your uncomfortable feelings about it doesn't change that.
quote:
Quicksink. When you prove, with scientific data, your theory is absolute, I'll stop and listen and decide.
Nothing in science is absolute, otherwise we wouldn't ever be able to improve our theories in the light of new evidence. Judging by the common misconceptions about science you have stated in this message, I suggest you do a bit of study of the subject before you form opinions about it.
[QUOTE]J.P. Do not get pulled into the arguments this creates. God is not on trial. He doesn't need our fights. I choose to argue immediately after I see Scientific proof of evolution. You would be wise to do the same.
God bless both your lives and endeavors. 2MT. [/b]
I only have a problem with Creationism when it tries to pass itself off as science (i.e. so-called Creation "science")
There is a great deal of scientific evidence in support of evolution, actually.
Proof, however, is not something that science can ever provide. Proofs are something that mathematicians produce, not scienctists.
I suggest reading some basic information on what science is and isn't. Please also read the essay on "scientific" creationists reached by an internal link in the essay:
http://www.skepdic.com/science.html
Here are a couple of good introductions to Evolution and Evolutionary Biology:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/evolution/evolution-for-beginners.html
The following is a good collection of information essential to understanding the ToE:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by 2MuchTalk, posted 03-11-2002 12:56 PM 2MuchTalk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by 2MuchTalk, posted 03-13-2002 12:43 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 79 of 196 (6621)
03-11-2002 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by TrueCreation
03-11-2002 4:06 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b]"So how did Noahs family keep all these animals alive? How did they keep them from eating each other? There must have been more then just Noahs family on-board to feed and take care of all these animals. "
--Take into account lethargy, a large quantity of the present animals on-board would become drastically lethargic, decreasing metabolism and activity, thus the need for care. And why would anything eat anything else if it had not desire to.[/QUOTE]
Why would they become lethargic, exactly?
In particular, I am thinking of animals that usually expend a great deal of energy covering large ranges. Even today, you find a lot of obsessive-compulsive repetitious movements in animals that are confined in zoos.
I know from personal experience that keeping a horse in a stall for more than a few days results in a very agitated, fractious horse.
[QUOTE]"The Philadelphia ZOO employs about 400 people FULL TIME, and there are about 1800 animals housed at this ZOO. I can guarantee you that more then 2% (8 people out of 400) are employed full time to feed and take care of these 1800 animals. How did Noah and his small family keep these animals alive?"
--And people complain to me on compairing apples and oranges. :\
[/b]
Why is the comparison not valid? Large group of animals in confinement + people to care for them = similar problem. If anything, an Ark is a much tougher problem because an Ark is not an ideal way to house animals, particularly prey and predator species together.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by TrueCreation, posted 03-11-2002 4:06 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by TrueCreation, posted 03-13-2002 9:54 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 84 of 196 (6836)
03-14-2002 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by TrueCreation
03-13-2002 9:54 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b]"Why would they become lethargic, exactly?"
--Because of the fact that they would be in such a boat, not that they would be 'squashed' but wouldn't have the kind of space to be running around all of the time though they would get their breaks per se. It would be rather dark all the time because of meteoric dust and volcanic plumes, the sound of rain on the Ark and the ocean would calm them and become lethargic, basically what most dogs do when you have a storm.
Did you know that horses sometimes panic and tear up their stalls in violent storms?
How do you know that meteoric dust was in the air and the same for folcanic plumes, and wouldn't all that dust be washed out of the air pretty quickly by 40 days of heavy rains?
Horses and other prey/herd animals which are more "nervous" actually don't usually get lethargic in scary situations. They panic and try to run away. You know, because they have prey-animal instincts.
quote:
"In particular, I am thinking of animals that usually expend a great deal of energy covering large ranges. Even today, you find a lot of obsessive-compulsive repetitious movements in animals that are confined in zoos."
--Yes, they obviously would not have survived if they had to stay in their cages for the whole year long time, they could have been taken out in large pares and walk around the boat and all that. Make no mistake, Noah would have had is hands full though it wouldn't have been a major problem.
"Could have, would have, would not"
All speculation and wishful thinking.
Tell me, is there a mode/ replica Ark upon which the trials with real animals were conducted?
quote:
Also, for more depth, what is it that makes it so that animals must expend energy, is there a bildup of acids in muscles, do they eat away at themselves on the molecular level or something of that nature?
Metabolism and genetic selection for being able to cover a lot of range. A sloth would have no problem on the Ark, but a horse or an elephant or a bear would, because their whole being, including their mental processes and emotions, has evolved to be most comfortable making a living in a particular way. Change that drastically, and you create stress. Create stress, and you get behavior and health problems.
It's the same reason most humans can't sit at a computer for 8 hours a day and also expect to be in prime physical condition. We have to create artificial exercise and "work" for our muscles in order to stay healthy, because we evolved to lead a very physical, nomadic life. [/QUOTE]
"I know from personal experience that keeping a horse in a stall for more than a few days results in a very agitated, fractious horse."
--See above, they would have had their times of walking around or even running if they were in an open enough space, they would have become lethargic though and less activity and care would be needed than normal.
Um, you haven't been around horses much, I take it? They couldn't run around in an ark. I'm just saying that right now.
[QUOTE]"Why is the comparison not valid? Large group of animals in confinement + people to care for them = similar problem. If anything, an Ark is a much tougher problem because an Ark is not an ideal way to house animals, particularly prey and predator species together."
--Assuming there was a predator/prey factor, could they not have been herbivor(ish).
[/b][/QUOTE]
This is an absurd argument and I cannot believe that you want anyone to take it seriously.
You say you are scientific, but you become willing to accept the most outlandish, silly explanations for things when you need to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by TrueCreation, posted 03-13-2002 9:54 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by TrueCreation, posted 03-31-2002 7:54 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 85 of 196 (6837)
03-14-2002 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by 2MuchTalk
03-13-2002 12:43 PM


quote:
Originally posted by 2MuchTalk:
[b]Schaf,
Of all the responses I have received so far, yours is the most inteligable.[/QUOTE]
Thank you kindly.
quote:
Your are right on several points, first of all, that I am a new scholar in most scientific theories and forms. I do not know everything, nor do I claim to know even 10%. Life is a learning in progress from the cradle to the grave.
Agreed, wholeheartedly. We are all ignorant of something, and everyone was a beginner at something before they were knowledgeable.
quote:
My point in my first letter was not to put science, God, nor anything else on trial. It was to show the "Great Debate" will never end.
I disagree. The debate will end when religion/Biblical Literalists stop trying to get their religion taught as real science in public schools. Like I have said many times, I don't care what people believe.
quote:
Science proves forms of evolution every second of every day.
Small correction; change "proves" to "finds confirming evidence to support."
quote:
Only a closed-minded fool would disagree. Though not a genius, I am not a fool. My discussion was more in the realm of origin. Neither creation nor evolution can prove the origin of all things. Life cannot be reproduced from either origin (as I believe must be done in proving scientific fact).
Actually, you are not talking about the Theory of Evolution if you are talking about the origin of life. The ToE deals with how life changed once it got here; it does not attempt to explain how life got here in the first place. You are talking about the various Abiogenesis/Panspermia type theories.
quote:
That is the part I referred to as faith, not fact. I DO tire of people treating me like I am a fool for my faith in creationism when they have no more proof about origin than I.
Abiogenesis is a much less richly-supported scientific theory than the ToE, but there have been some promising results which are scientifically valid to show that some basic building blocks of life could have been produced naturally.
It is not based upon faith, because no scientific theories are based upon faith.
quote:
I DO tire of being labeled a fool for believing something so ridiculous as a God that formed me out of the dirt, when to believe an explosion somewhere caused all the things around me to form sounds just as ridiculous. The argument will never be accomplished.
OK, now we have moved away from Abiogenesis to the Big Bang, if I am following you properly.
Well, your faith that God made you is purely faith, while the Big Bang has a great deal of scientific evidence to support it.
See the difference? One is purely belief with no evidenciary basis, and the other is based only upon evidence found in nature.
quote:
As for proof there is a God, I fall back into philosophy. A philosopher said that just as a picture cannot control its environment, nor what will happen where, it depends on a power outside of itself (the artist), so also, we cannot control our environment, nor what will happen where, so there must be a higher power (the artist).
Well, I was expecting scientific proof for God, not philosphy. I could just as easily use philosophy and logic to argue that there is no God, but neither is positive physical evidence.
quote:
Whether evolutionist like it or not, there is also proof of a Large scale flood that disproves instances of millions of years of erosion.
Please provide references to the peer-reviewed Geologic literature which supports this assertion.
quote:
Explain a tree that passes through 3-4 strata.
Reference, please.
quote:
Explain a fossil of a fish with half of a smaller fish in its mouth in the process of eating. Slow eater?
Reference, please.
Stop teaching and arguing as though the Theory of Evolution is fact, and don't say that doesn't happen.[/QUOTE]
The ToE is fact, just as the Atomic Theory of Matter is fact, the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System is fact, and the Germ Theory of Disease is fact.
The evidence for the fact of evolution is very, very abundant.
Here are some links to help you:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
quote:
Lastly, Schaf and whoever else reads this. Origin of existence does not always have to be a religious matter. Although I am a Creationist Christian, I know many Theistic Evolutionists that I love and respect.One does not go to Heaven and the other to Hell. We can believe both ways. Evolution/Creationism is not a "salvational" issue.
Glad you feel that way.
quote:
I invite all books and articles that lead to the truth. Any replies are welcome.
Reading your way through TalkOrigins is the best place on the web to get a very good layman's level version of current scientific theory dealing with the ToE and Creationism.
quote:
Thanks, Schaf for not just arguing for the sake of arguing, but showing intelligence to not take it personal.
You are most welcome, and let's continue your enjoyable discussions.
2MT
P.S.- I enjoyed the articles and reccommend all creationists read them.
[This message has been edited by 2MuchTalk, 03-13-2002]
[/b][/QUOTE]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by 2MuchTalk, posted 03-13-2002 12:43 PM 2MuchTalk has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 86 of 196 (8038)
03-31-2002 8:32 AM


Just giving this thread a bump-up.
I think that toomuchtalk is gone, or an infrequent poster, but would any other Creationist like to join in to the Noah's Ark discussion here? I pose some good challenges for you to answer.
Also, TC, I would love a reply if you get a chance, thanks.
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 89 of 196 (8060)
04-01-2002 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by TrueCreation
03-31-2002 7:54 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b]"Could have, would have, would not"
All speculation and wishful thinking."
--This is hardly wishful thinking. If this is the case, then this is the most you will get out of any theory or explination on any sort of model for the past. If I might quote myself from a previous post on this reasoning:
quote:
--What 'could have happend' is the most your ever going to get from an inference on the past, it is what Evolution is entirely based on, along with gradualistic geologic time, its a 'could have happend' explination. Now whether this explination can explain all evidence, and is plausable, is something that is worthy of discussion. If you can challenge whether it can explain such phenomena or its plausability, have at it.
(Edited out the name it was directed towards)
Well, you are wrong.
Biology is based upon evidence, although the language is tentative because it is science.
Where is the evidence of how all the animals "could have, would have" acted when they were on the Ark for a year? You have no evidenciary basis for making any of these claims, but you make them anyway because you NEED to in order for your explanation to fit together with the Bible.
quote:
"Tell me, is there a mode/ replica Ark upon which the trials with real animals were conducted?"
--No, not that I know of, I have seen references such as AiG and the like which have done these sorts of tests, I can recall hearing that the hull could withstand waves/tsunamis 30metres high, I don't think that animals even if they all shifted toward one side would cause such an effect for the massive boat (remember, the size of this ark is about as large as the modern cruise ship.
If the tests haven't been done, you have no basis for your claims of how the animals "could have" been cared for or behaved.
quote:
"Metabolism and genetic selection for being able to cover a lot of range. A sloth would have no problem on the Ark, but a horse or an elephant or a bear would, because their whole being, including their mental processes and emotions, has evolved to be most comfortable making a living in a particular way. Change that drastically, and you create stress. Create stress, and you get behavior and health problems."
--Hm.. Not 'exactly' what I was looking for, though I see that you seem to claim that it has to do with its evolutionary development, I have my doubts that speciation would produce such an effect. Lets continue, however.
Who cares about speciation. Let's assume that every single "kind" of animal on the Ark was specially created. It is still stressful for horses to stand in a stall for a year.
quote:
"It's the same reason most humans can't sit at a computer for 8 hours a day and also expect to be in prime physical condition. We have to create artificial exercise and "work" for our muscles in order to stay healthy, because we evolved to lead a very physical, nomadic life."
--I've had the 'pleasure' (omg) to sit at my comp for 12 hours and it wasn't too much of a problem, I wouldn't brag but I am in quite good shape. I lift weights and eat well, this is something obviously dependent on the ark, and of course, animals would not just be sitting in the ark weeks or even many days on end.
You are wandering off from the point. The population of humans which lead sedentary lives tend to not be in prime physical condition. The population of humans which lead physically-active lives tend to be in better physical condition. We didn't evolve to lead sedentary lives.
quote:
"Um, you haven't been around horses much, I take it? They couldn't run around in an ark. I'm just saying that right now."
--Yes I have been around horses, for many weeks last summer for quite a bit of time. I have seen them run in a short space (a barn no bigger than two of my homes in length, possibly 70x50ft) This obviously is not what you would be looking for to allow a horse to speed frantically around the boat without throwing itself overboard. There is no problem with a horse running around the top floor of the ark (imagine a cruise ship).
Why? Why is there no problem? The floor is MOVING. The floor is WOOD and it is WET. There is no traction and wet wood is very slippery. The horses have never been in the middle of an ocean before and there is a good chance that they would be terrified.
quote:
"This is an absurd argument and I cannot believe that you want anyone to take it seriously."
--I take the Origin of life seriously, I dont' know why you could not take anything else any less.
Nonresponsive and avoidant.
It is an absurd notion that carnivores were once herbivores.
[QUOTE]"You say you are scientific, but you become willing to accept the most outlandish, silly explanations for things when you need to."
--Far from it schrafinator.
[/b][/QUOTE]
Then provide evidence that you arrived at the notion that ALL CARNIVORES were actually herbivores WITHOUT referring to the Bible and ONLY use natural evidence.
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-01-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by TrueCreation, posted 03-31-2002 7:54 PM TrueCreation 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