Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Post Volume: Total: 918,047 Year: 5,304/9,624 Month: 329/323 Week: 173/160 Day: 9/38 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Noah's Ark volume calculation
homunculus
Member (Idle past 5541 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-21-2009


Message 202 of 347 (495431)
01-22-2009 3:58 PM


ah ahh!
the bible doesn't say that Noah, living hundreds of years old, brought every species on the ark with him. the bible says that Noah, living hundreds of years old, brought two animals of every 'KIND' on the ark with him. and as to the 'cubit', a cubit is length between elbow to fingertip. the bible says, "there were giants in the earth in those days" and there has been hundreds of giant bones found to reinforce this. so, their cubit was much larger than ours.

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by kuresu, posted 01-22-2009 4:47 PM homunculus has replied
 Message 213 by Coyote, posted 01-22-2009 8:20 PM homunculus has replied
 Message 225 by bluescat48, posted 01-23-2009 8:16 AM homunculus has not replied

homunculus
Member (Idle past 5541 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-21-2009


Message 203 of 347 (495432)
01-22-2009 4:02 PM


kinds
a 'kind' is an older term, like used in the bible, and probably one that has survived, even in science, until the term 'species' came about and moved to replace 'kinds'. about that time, i imagine, the studies of biology, physical science and, quite a bit later, genetics began to surface as predominant fields of interests in science. science has outdated different terminologies, like 'kinds', and began to replace them with more fluidic and "impressive" words to describe the subject matter, like 'species'. both terms describe the same concepts of appreciations of subject matter concerning animals and animal groups, but sadly miscategorizes critical constructs of organization in identified groups. where 'speciation' focuses on and distinguishes between small physical similarities in animals, including the anomaly of DNA, and categorizes them according to such similarities. 'kinds' employs a more applicable categorization of animals and/or groups. 'kinds' is the categorization of animals based on limited factors of "bringing forth" or the production of offspring. meaning, animals that can produce offspring are of the same kind. obviously this is suggesting that two animals that can, naturally, produce offspring can vary in shape, size, color and likely share a common ancestor, one of the same kind as said animals. 'kinds' focuses on limiting factors and shuts out the possibility of common ancestry outside of common genetic production. evolution primarily suggests that every "living" or otherwise organic thing shares a common ancestor. in evolution, any scientific term to suggest the contrary must immediately be replaced and dismissed.

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by kuresu, posted 01-22-2009 4:40 PM homunculus has replied

homunculus
Member (Idle past 5541 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-21-2009


Message 208 of 347 (495440)
01-22-2009 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by kuresu
01-22-2009 4:40 PM


Re: kinds
you forgot the limiting factors. species may employ genetic descension, but it doesn't only employ genetic descension. one 'kind' can affiliate hundreds to thousands of species. I'll list 10 popular 'kinds'.
dog, cat, deer, lizard, chicken, elephant, scavenger bird (crow), majestic bird (eagle), horse, giraffe.
each probably employing hundreds of species and each probably employed into larger families with hundreds of species. and they're only shared common ancestors are something of their same kind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by kuresu, posted 01-22-2009 4:40 PM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Percy, posted 01-22-2009 5:08 PM homunculus has replied

homunculus
Member (Idle past 5541 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-21-2009


Message 210 of 347 (495444)
01-22-2009 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by kuresu
01-22-2009 4:47 PM


Re: ah ahh!
im sorry, i thought this thread was "NOAH'S ARK VOLUME CALCULATION" drawn from the bible. so, using the bible i drew the assertion that THEY WERE BIGGER than we are today. and finally, "scientists" don't dictate how we build inclusive standpoints that is pulled from a immeasurable or invariable reference, like the bible. thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by kuresu, posted 01-22-2009 4:47 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by kuresu, posted 01-22-2009 5:32 PM homunculus has replied

homunculus
Member (Idle past 5541 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-21-2009


Message 214 of 347 (495470)
01-22-2009 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Percy
01-22-2009 5:08 PM


Re: kinds
thank you for the trivial pursuit. I'm not Websters dictionary, but i will say that 'kinds' again is both of what i said in conjecture and comparison. my definition(s) don't conflict, they conjoin. they are set in limitations to mating, as i have said, and the results of variable mating, lineage. it may be true that lions and house cats cannot mate. but neither can great Danes and chihuahuas. or chickens and turkeys. not to mention donkeys and "ligers" which are sterile. i will also take note that 'kinds' are safely tucked away in the natural mating process, not manipulations of science. I will, reluctantly, admit that i did not invent the word 'kinds', nor is it used in evolutionary science. the point of my assertion was that the invention of the word 'species' sets up the rules for evolutionary biology and has assimilated conventional biology and there's nothing wrong with that, except that evolution is theoretical and unproven. no, i don't mean adaptation when i say evolution. i separate evolution from other terminologies so's to not confuse people.
I am new to these links, but it helps.
Created kind - Wikipedia
Kinds Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
note: Websters does not recognize "baraminology" lol, apparently, neither does spell check.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Percy, posted 01-22-2009 5:08 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Percy, posted 01-23-2009 7:34 AM homunculus has not replied

homunculus
Member (Idle past 5541 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-21-2009


Message 216 of 347 (495473)
01-22-2009 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by kuresu
01-22-2009 5:32 PM


Re: ah ahh!
notice i said the bible was invariable. this thread, again, is called "Noah's ark volume calculation". you are suggesting we examine it's happenings without using the bible as a reference, without measuring it with biblical considerations or presupposing it even existed. of course you would be suggesting to examine it without even consideration for the flood. so, you are basically saying, no assertions are credible except those that distort and discredit it. alright, good job buddy. seems pretty monotonous and pointless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by kuresu, posted 01-22-2009 5:32 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by kuresu, posted 01-23-2009 1:25 AM homunculus has not replied

homunculus
Member (Idle past 5541 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-21-2009


Message 217 of 347 (495475)
01-22-2009 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Coyote
01-22-2009 8:20 PM


Re: Giant bones
your almost as bad as kuresu. no creation "science" for creation material, that's great. first, i would like to bring to your attention the Smithsonian, national geographic and a fistful of other geographical and historical "authorities" are corrupt to their toes, like many other acclaimed "authorities". not only do they play an extreme bias for evolution, like most evolutionists, but they do an incredible, high budget job of covering up the discovery of giant human skeletons (found primarily in the middle east/northern Africa) in an attempt to disprove the bible, once, I believe the information was readily available.
of course, the legend, DR. Kent hovind's material
http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php
random photos, i think most, if not all were discredited by "authorities". (you see the idea is to discredit them all, the belief in god is intolerable, that we cannot deal with, evolution is the only alternative). also note, i don't endorse any of these links, I'm saying I believe in giants and I believe truth is there.
Have any large / giant human skeletons / bones been found?
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/...s_sumeranu/anu11_02.jpg
http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/...s/9104_ke%20giant%202.jpg
http://i159.photobucket.com/...1/freedom_042/giantcouple.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgsAUgCZPBo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1P42j9Xltyg&feature=related

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Coyote, posted 01-22-2009 8:20 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Coyote, posted 01-22-2009 11:09 PM homunculus has not replied
 Message 226 by Huntard, posted 01-23-2009 10:06 AM homunculus has replied

homunculus
Member (Idle past 5541 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-21-2009


Message 218 of 347 (495477)
01-22-2009 10:24 PM


blah!
the big picture to this entire argument is that creation and evolution are theories. whether you say they are considerations for examinations in science, unproven and subjective validity, or that they unite facts and gives provision for phenomenon. like the origin of life, or the origin of the universe. creation is supplemented by the bible and practical application to the rule of design. evolution is fueled by the disdain and contempt for god and Christians/the church/godly things, and assimilation of theorem into facts.

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Coyote, posted 01-22-2009 11:20 PM homunculus has not replied
 Message 222 by AdminNosy, posted 01-23-2009 2:04 AM homunculus has not replied

homunculus
Member (Idle past 5541 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-21-2009


Message 231 of 347 (495699)
01-24-2009 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Huntard
01-23-2009 10:06 AM


Re: Giant bones
just another stab at the "giants" profile. obviously, will be discredited by evolutionists, as the suggestion of giants plays against the criterion theory.
http://www.geocities.com/saqatchr/page46.html
Giant Humans and Dinosaurs
As to the "authoritative" corruption.
Smithsonian cover up;
Humanoid Giants Existed! Smithsonian Coverup;Not just Theory---Lot's of Evidence!
As well as the lies from national geographic; but I've lost train of thought. The point is, this elements exist and there are people that know about it. With such considerations, examining biblical accounts are subjective to the examinees interests.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Huntard, posted 01-23-2009 10:06 AM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Coyote, posted 01-24-2009 1:21 AM homunculus has replied
 Message 235 by Percy, posted 01-24-2009 7:07 AM homunculus has replied

homunculus
Member (Idle past 5541 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-21-2009


Message 239 of 347 (495868)
01-24-2009 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Coyote
01-24-2009 1:21 AM


Re: Giant bones
No.
See we have "Giants" even today, people being 7'" and on up.
So its a very practical thing to have said people years ago may have been 'giants'. You don't like the idea because it employs creationist idea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Coyote, posted 01-24-2009 1:21 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by bluescat48, posted 01-24-2009 6:00 PM homunculus has not replied

homunculus
Member (Idle past 5541 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-21-2009


Message 240 of 347 (495869)
01-24-2009 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Percy
01-24-2009 7:07 AM


Re: Giant bones
Yes, I saw that and yet I continued to post my links anyway.
Why?
because since the idea that really big/tall people may have existed years ago is so alienable to you, you ask for "evidence", since I have no bones in my home I post links to photos to illustrate that possibility. I happen to believe that some of these photos may be credible. And of course, you failed to give the same guideline speech to everyone else that posted links before me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Percy, posted 01-24-2009 7:07 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Percy, posted 01-25-2009 7:53 AM homunculus 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