Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   animals on the ark
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 196 (6606)
03-11-2002 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Peter
03-11-2002 10:16 AM


"To see messages I have posted I have to navigate with the function
buttons, and even then my cached version gets loaded instead of
the updated page."
--If it becomes a major problem, that is, you may be getting aggitated at its frequent occurance, you can clear out your temporary internet files. The folder is located in the dirctory: C:/WINDOWS/Temporary Internet Files/
--When you are in the folder you can make the view so that it is a list and order it in order of web site, just delete all the files (don't delete your cookies) that pertain to and it is bound to be deleted and thus force itself to reload the new update.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Peter, posted 03-11-2002 10:16 AM Peter has not replied

  
no2creation
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 196 (6613)
03-11-2002 5:30 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]
[/b]
As schrafinator already pointed out to some extent, that many of these animals NEED excercise. Being lethargic would be detrimental to their health, it also doesn't meen that it would be ok just to leave them, the animals would still require the same level of care. As for your comment on why would anything eat anything else if it had no desire to? It's called instinct!!! Why do they segregate animals in the zoo? [QUOTE][b]
"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. :\ [/QUOTE]
[/b]
Please read message 9 from JP. You'll notice that JP compares feeding these animals to "How do they feed them in the Zoo".
You didn't answer the question: How did 8 people take care of over 15 000 animals (although I think there would have been many more)?
I use the Philadalphia ZOO as an example of how many people are required to take care of wild animals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by TrueCreation, posted 03-11-2002 4:06 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 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 2169 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

  
2MuchTalk
Inactive Junior Member


Message 80 of 196 (6746)
03-13-2002 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by nator
03-11-2002 6:22 PM


Schaf,
Of all the responses I have received so far, yours is the most inteligable. 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.
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. Science proves forms of evolution every second of every day. 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).
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. 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.
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).
Whether evolutionist like it or not, there is also proof of a Large scale flood that disproves instances of millions of years of erosion. Explain a tree that passes through 3-4 strata. Explain a fossil of a fish with half of a smaller fish in its mouth in the process of eating. Slow eater? Stop teaching and arguing as though the Theory of Evolution is fact, and don't say that doesn't happen.
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.
I invite all books and articles that lead to the truth. Any replies are welcome.
Thanks, Schaf for not just arguing for the sake of arguing, but showing intelligence to not take it personal.
2MT
P.S.- I enjoyed the articles and reccommend all creationists read them.
[This message has been edited by 2MuchTalk, 03-13-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by nator, posted 03-11-2002 6:22 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by TrueCreation, posted 03-13-2002 9:43 PM 2MuchTalk has not replied
 Message 85 by nator, posted 03-14-2002 6:52 PM 2MuchTalk has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 196 (6764)
03-13-2002 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by 2MuchTalk
03-13-2002 12:43 PM


"P.S.- I enjoyed the articles and reccommend all creationists read them."
--I as well, and I am glad it is so because Talk.Origins is a frequently occuring reference.
------------------

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

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 196 (6765)
03-13-2002 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by nator
03-11-2002 6:38 PM


"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.
"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. 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?
"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.
"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).
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by nator, posted 03-11-2002 6:38 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by LudvanB, posted 03-14-2002 2:28 AM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 84 by nator, posted 03-14-2002 6:24 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 196 (6783)
03-14-2002 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by TrueCreation
03-13-2002 9:54 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"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.
LUD
ogs dont become letargic for 40 days at a time,let alone 10 months...furthermore,animals not used to sea travel,which includes just about every animal on earth,would become extremely agitated over even short periods of being confined like this. furthermore,i simply dont buy the notion that they would have been young animals....cubs do not travel well for great distances so unless they all lived in the vicinity of Noah's house,this creates an impossible problem too.
"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. 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?
LUD:assuming that Noah did have the room to spare to allow the animals to exercise this would have created a logistical problem as well....how do you allow dangerous animals to get loose to run around without them mauling you?
"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.
LUD:thats not consistant with what we know of animals today...aside from bears,who can go one for long periods of inactivity at a time,most animals require constant exercise and dont possess the ability to slow their metabolism down enough that long periods of being confined in small areas dont become extremely detrimental to their health.
"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).
LUD:yes they could have all been herbivorish...they could all have had pink skin with purple dots...they could all have had the ability to speak and play poker with Noah and the gang. We can say just about anything about FICTIONAL animals in FICTIONAL stories...but for those SERIOUS people who deal with HARD FACTS,we have to ask questions like "is there ANY evidence that all animals were vegetarians 4500 years ago?" if not,then we cant just INVENT traits to make them fit the needs of our FICTIONAL stories...thats not very scientific...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by TrueCreation, posted 03-13-2002 9:54 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 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 2169 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 2169 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"

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 196 (8050)
03-31-2002 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by nator
03-14-2002 6:24 PM


"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)
"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.
"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.
"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.
"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).
"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.
"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.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by nator, posted 03-14-2002 6:24 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by nator, posted 04-01-2002 8:46 AM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 90 by joz, posted 04-01-2002 9:15 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 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

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 196 (8061)
04-01-2002 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by TrueCreation
03-31-2002 7:54 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
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.
Their model was basicaly just a boxlike barge. There is a reason that modern seagoing vessels are not built with flat bottoms, they tend to roll over if the weight distribution isn`t just right...
i.e herds of animals stampeding around getting some exercise would be a really BAD idea....
I`ve told you before TC there are historical examples of large flat bottomed ships of wooden construction, Napoleons troop barges, as any student of the Napoleonic wars can tell you they never made it across to England because if they were to set sail in less than perfect conditions they would capsize and sink (they couldn`t make the attempt under ideal conditions because the royal navy would have really chewed them up)... These troop barges had larger crews than the 8 available on the ark, were crewed by experienced sailors and built by very good shipwrights are you sure you want to claim that a sextacentenial geriatric and his wife, 3 sons and 3 daughters in law could do better????
Theres these interesting things called keels TC boats need them to avoid rolling over, the AIG model doesn`t have one....
Seriously now do you honestly think that AIG are a balanced source of objective knowledge? The name alone should clue you in to the fact that they have an agenda, they are NOT a very credible scource outside of YEC circles.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by TrueCreation, posted 03-31-2002 7:54 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 196 (11218)
06-09-2002 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Quetzal
03-05-2002 4:24 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
QS: You're obviously not keeping up with current creation science research. Since all life was created 6000 years ago in the Cambrian Explosion (scientists got the decimal point wrong, they meant to say six thousand, not six hundred million or so), there is only a requirement to have a total of 13 kinds on the ark. There's been no change in kinds since. After all, a chordate is still a chordate, right? The ark thus doesn't have to be any larger than a houseboat.
[Sorry, couldn't resist.]

uh... no.
A chordate is not just a chordate. Chordata encompasses a huge variety of animals-- sea quirt, fish, amphibians, birds... Really, I hope you are kidding.
take care
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Quetzal, posted 03-05-2002 4:24 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Quetzal, posted 06-10-2002 3:43 AM John 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