Noah's Ark found?

[Rincewind]

Thanks guys,

I think it may be the bananas I get from the Librarian.

Hey Simon - It's not 'just as valid' - puhlease! It's the truth!

 

[Radrook]

Interesting, because there is no such information on the page you linked to. Maybe you should try again.

My time is limited and going back to the same site unnecessarily is time-wasting. So hopefully your not attempting to frustrate.


Noah's Ark suggested ventlation problem solution:
http://www.worldwideflood.com/ark/ventilation/ventilation.htm

 

[Complexity]

Noah's Ark suggested ventlation problem solution:
http://www.worldwideflood.com/ark/ventilation/ventilation.htm

Utter twaddle.

Can you imagine what it must be like to have to believe stuff like this in order to prop up your (equally ridiculous) core beliefs?

And it isn't sufficient to believe this stuff yourself, you have to try to persuade other people of the truth of what you believe so that your own doubts can be hidden away a bit better.

What a recipe for psychosis!

 

[Radrook]

I would assume it's someone who accepts the theory of evolution by random mutation and natural selection and promotes it. At least that's how I would define it. As to Radrook's definition, you'll have to get a response from him.

Good show!

 

[Vortigern99]

http://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark

This LONG article completely demolishes all the "arguments" put forward by believers in Noah's ark.

Does it ever! The linked article, by Robert Moore for the NCSE, is a magnificent resource for deflating any of the many absurd, unscientific contentions from the creationist/arkist crowd. From its some 40 pages, I've selected a passage almost at random which points out such unconsidered absurdities:

The needs of the animals.
As if the rough construction of the ship weren't headache enough, the internal organization had to be honed to perfection. With space at a premium every cubit had to be utilized to the maximum; there was no room for oversized cages and wasted space. The various requirements of the myriads of animals had to be taken into account in the design of their quarters, especially considering the length of the voyage. The problems are legion: feeding and watering troughs need to be the correct height for easy access but not on the floor where they will get filthy; the cages for horned animals must have bars spaced properly to prevent their horns from getting stuck, while rhinos require round "bomas" for the same reason; a heavy leather body sling is "indispensable" for transporting giraffes; primates require tamper-proof locks on their doors; perches must be the correct diameter for each particular bird's foot (Hirst; Vincent). Even the flooring is important, for, if it is too hard, hooves may be injured, if too soft, they may grow too quickly and permanently damage ankles (Klos); rats will suffer decubitus (ulcers) with improper floors (Orlans), and ungulates must have a cleated surface or they will slip and fall (Fowler). These and countless other technical problems all had to be resolved before the first termite crawled aboard, but there were no wildlife management experts available for consultation. Even today the transport requirements of many species are not fully known, and it would be physically impossible to design a single carrier to meet them all. Apparently, when God first told Noah to build an ark, he supplied a complete set of blueprints and engineering details, constituting the most intricate and precise revelation ever vouchsafed to humankind.

​

 

[Rincewind]

Hi Radrook,

I've read the article you send - thanks - but I can't see what the point is.

OK - it might be a workable mechanism, but that's really neither here nor there, surely.

I've also read the NCSE article - as mentioned, it's a comprehensive, highly professional demolition of the idea that the ark could ever have existed.

So if you want us to consider the ark as a possibility, I think you'll need something much more powerful.

 

[Garrette]

My time is limited and going back to the same site unnecessarily is time-wasting. So hopefully your not attempting to frustrate.

If ever there were a more poorly disguised yet still obvious admission of defeat I have never seen it.

Noah's Ark suggested ventlation problem solution:
http://www.worldwideflood.com/ark/ventilation/ventilation.htm

I for one will not bother to read any more links by Radrook since it is apparent that (a) he doesn't read them himself and (b) he ignores the responses of those who do.

Radrook is a hollow shell of bluster.

 

[Radrook]

.

Not to mention passenger pigeons, who won't breed unless they're in large flocks.

And the problem that each pair would need to survive to a successful breeding after being released--despite the fact that their predators were being released nearby. What did the carnivore eat until the prey worked up to the point of having excess offspring?

I read the link that was provided in answer to this, and it still doesn't answer the other question that's always puzzled me (besides how Noah made the grand tour to pick up all the animals from kangaroos to polar bears)--what about the bacteria?

How did he transport smallpox and syphilis and cholera all the obscure germs that need specific hosts among various species?

I just don't see how anyone can put more than a minute's thought into the story and still believe it.

Let's consider your objections within the context of what is believed to have happened.


Your assumptions are based on the premise that post flood climate was identical to the pre flood one. That is not believed to be the case. The change in climate along with geographical isolation would have induced adaptation and eventual speciation creating the great varieties seen today. If true, there would have been no need to deal with animals such as penguins who need very low temperatures.


The behavioral or instinctive peculiarities also would have changed. The original biblical kinds might not have had the habits you describe. That too could have developed in response to geography isolation, mutation, and subsequent adaptation leading to speciation. It all hinges on what the knids mentioned in Genesis were really like as opposed to the species that developed from them later.


BTW
I often wonder the same. How can anyone give more than a moment's thought to believing he has a fish in his ancestral LINE.

 

[Radrook]

If ever there were a more poorly disguised yet still obvious admission of defeat I have never seen it.

Another one! Refusing to offer a counterargument smacks of defeat.

I for one will not bother to read any more links by Radrook since it is apparent that (a) he doesn't read them himself and (b) he ignores the responses of those who do.

Radrook is a hollow shell of bluster.

Good. And I won't bother cluttering my screen with your useless, lazy- minded comments


BTW
I prefer to be spoken to not about--especially in my presence. So if you wanna gossip-I suggest you take it to private message.

 

[I Ratant]

...
BTW
I often wonder the same. How can anyone give more than a moments thought to believing he has a fish in his ancestral LINE.

.
We all do.
So what.
Had to start somewhere.
One can go even further back than fishes to worms and slime molds.
So what.
Most of us aren't fish, or worms, or slime molds.
Takes time to build a homo sap.
With many a false start and abrupt termination along the way.
Doesn't make a monkey my uncle..
Your family tree may be different.

 

[SOdhner]

The change in climate along with geographical isolation would have induced adaptation and eventual speciation creating the great varieties seen today. If true, there would have been no need to deal with animals such as penguins who need very low temperatures.

You are talking about INCREDIBLY rapid and varied evolution. This kind of thing is something we would be able to actually observe happening in every creature from one generation to the next due to the speed. Why don't we see that now?

If you have to explain it away as a miracle, then why this part? Once you start involving miracles just to cope with the scientific problems, how do you choose what part of the story to apply them to? And once you add them in, why bother trying to defend any part of it as scientifically possible at all?

 

[Michael Redman]

My time is limited and going back to the same site unnecessarily is time-wasting. So hopefully your not attempting to frustrate.


Noah's Ark suggested ventlation problem solution:
http://www.worldwideflood.com/ark/ventilation/ventilation.htm

OK, that's different. On that page, there are a bunch of potential ways that air could be moved through the ship. However, there is no analysis, at all, of what rate of turnover would be required, nor any analysis of what rate of turnover would be supplied by any of these options. So, there really isn't anything to refute. Yes, you could vent the ship, but whether you could vent it fast enough to keep all the animals alive isn't even addressed.

The only place he comes close is the moon pool reference, which he admits is highly unlikely to have been used. Still, even if it were, the assumption that the sailor's comments prove there would have been sufficient airflow for the ark is pure speculation. And in my opinion, not very well considered speculation.

 

[Radrook]

Hi Radrook,

I've read the article you send - thanks - but I can't see what the point is.

OK - it might be a workable mechanism, but that's really neither here nor there, surely.

I've also read the NCSE article - as mentioned, it's a comprehensive, highly professional demolition of the idea that the ark could ever have existed.

So if you want us to consider the ark as a possibility, I think you'll need something much more powerful.

An wanting at all. I was merely trying to get feedback on the expalanations and suggestions proposed on those sites.

 

[Simon39759]

.
I often wonder the same. How can anyone give more than a moment's thought to believing he has a fish in his ancestral LINE.

Well, the flood myth ask us to make a whole lot of assumptions that are, at best, absolutely not supported such as drastic change in climates in a incredibly short spawn of time, to just take your latest post.

Evolution, on the other one, is driven by observations and facts.
As for the specific example of the fish, it actually makes a lot of sense and explain the location of the thymus, for example, and its embryonic development or the location of the adrenal glands.
And that's not even starting with the fossil record or the molecular evidences.

Once again, as people as commented before, open a good biology textbook, attend college classes, learn about the subject. Half a dozen generation of very smart people have devoted their careers to study this vast subject, listen to what they have learned, it's really quite fascinating.
You are depriving yourself of an endless source of learning and wonders for the sake of your dogma, and it's really tragically sad...

 

[Radrook]

OK, that's different. On that page, there are a bunch of potential ways that air could be moved through the ship. However, there is no analysis, at all, of what rate of turnover would be required, nor any analysis of what rate of turnover would be supplied by any of these options. So, there really isn't anything to refute. Yes, you could vent the ship, but whether you could vent it fast enough to keep all the animals alive isn't even addressed.

The only place he comes close is the moon pool reference, which he admits is highly unlikely to have been used. Still, even if it were, the assumption that the sailor's comments prove there would have been sufficient airflow for the ark is pure speculation. And in my opinion, not very well considered speculation.

Good response! The writer should not have offered those options unless willing to include the factors he addmitedly left out.

 

[Radrook]

Well, the flood myth ask us to make a whole lot of assumptions that are, at best, absolutely not supported such as drastic change in climates in a incredibly short spawn of time, to just take your latest post.

Evolution, on the other one, is driven by observations and facts.
As for the specific example of the fish, it actually makes a lot of sense and explain the location of the thymus, for example, and its embryonic development or the location of the adrenal glands. And that's not even starting with the fossil record or the molecular evidences.

Once again, as people as commented before, open a good biology textbook, attend college classes, learn about the subject. Half a dozen generation of very smart people have devoted their careers to study this vast subject, listen to what they have learned, it's really quite fascinating.
You are depriving yourself of an endless source of learning and wonders for the sake of your dogma, and it's really tragically sad...

AGAIN!

Sir! I took biology classes in college and read biology textbooks sall the time. They are poart of my personal library. So your typical assumption that people who don't accept your fish ancestor as true is totally unfounded. Actually it constitutes fallacious reasoning. Hasty conclusion based on insufficient evidence motivated by prejudice.

BTW
I don't like to be wrongfully accused or falsly described or categorized by people who are more than likely less educated than me and don't even know how to reason properly.

 

[Garrette]

Another one! Refusing to offer a counterargument smacks of defeat.





Good. And I won't bother cluttering my screen with your useless, lazy- minded comments


BTW
I prefer to be spoken to not about--especially in my presence. So if you wanna gossip-I suggest you take it to private message.

Ah, the aroma of unfounded indignation. It is at least more pointed than your arguments.

 

[Rincewind]

No surpize at all. I knew you understood it all along and were feigning. Wasted my time? No big deal. Fundies, as you think I am, don't need to conserve time. Right? You keep jabbering about my defending this, defending that. You seem to have blinders on which prevent you from realizing that I'm not defending anything at all. But then again that's beyond your comprehension. After all, if I'm not defending, then why would I be posting creationism arguments and asking for rebbutals?
So since you are unable to fathom any other reason while feigning ignorance of posted material only to reveal later with a chuckle that you understood all along. it's best that our discussion, if indeed it can be viewed that way, be permanently terminated.

Hi Radrook,

It looks like your answer to my post was really directed against another post.

I can't see anything connecting the two - but OK, whatever....

 

[Radrook]

You are talking about INCREDIBLY rapid and varied evolution. This kind of thing is something we would be able to actually observe happening in every creature from one generation to the next due to the speed. Why don't we see that now?[/.quote]

You place great value on seeing now. Yet without seeing transitional forms in the rvolution record
you accept it as fact. No demand to see there. Furthermore, punctuated equilibrium, or rapid evolutionary changes you accept. But of course not rapid enough to account for post flood speciation. Isn't that a bit inconsistent?

If you have to explain it away as a miracle, then why this part? Once you start involving miracles just to cope with the scientific problems, how do you choose what part of the story to apply them to? And once you add them in, why bother trying to defend any part of it as scientifically possible at all?

If I were trying to explain it away as a miracle I would explain it away as a miracle. Or I could easily shift to the ID guidence line,. But I prefer not to. But since these false accusations copiously decorated with colorful suspicions are becoming annoying, I'm considering bowing out of this thread and leaving you people to chortle and gawfaw and mutual congratulatory backslap in peace. After all, I certainly don't wanna be accused of ruining the party.

 

[Radrook]

Hi Radrook,

It looks like your answer to my post was really directed against another post.

I can't see anything connecting the two - but OK, whatever....

If that happened I apologize. Anyway, I am bowing out of this thread. Thanx for the informative responses.