Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jun, 2006 01:35 pm
real life wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Pretty damned fast, i'd say. Given that there would have had to have been more than a million species of insect, and more than 50,000 of all other animals, there wouldn't have been much room for growth. Quite apart from the sheer magnitude of the task, you are stuck with every species currently know having been accomodated on your fanciful boat, because you're stipulating for a direct creation of all known forms of life--unless, of course, you're now willing to stipulate that some form of evolution has taken place since then.

By the way, Brontosaurus is no longer the accepted term, as it was found that the head originally attributed to the fossils found was not the right head. They are now called Apatosaurs. Full grown Apatosaurs weighed forty tons. Quite apart from the ludicrous image of Noah going into the nesting grounds of Apatasaurs to turn the juveniles over to establish the gender, one has to consider that to get from an egg (even if quite a large egg) to a forty ton, full-grown adult would have required a very rapid growth rate altogether.

I'm rather disappointed in you, though. The last time this came up, you used a different dodge, and claimed that your boy, god, put the critters into some sort of suspended animation, so that fodder would not have been needed. That sillines is irrelevant, though, as your boat with the given dimensions could not have held all the species, even if juveniles.


hi Setanta,

Instead of guessing 'pretty fast', maybe we could consider that unlike mammals which grow to full size in a specified period of time and then do not continue to increase in size, many other species continue to grow throughout their lifespan. So a rapid growth curve from 0 to 40 tons is not necessarily the case.

Maybe someone who has specialized knowledge of these big critters can enlighten us further.

Also, there was no need for Noah to search the nesting area of any animal, because the animals came to him.

I don't remember postulating any 'suspended animation', although I may have mentioned that some others have suggested ordinary hibernation (just as many animals do today) may have taken place during the time the animals were onboard. This would , of course, have eased the burden of feeding, cleaning , etc


As i've noted, i find it amazing hilarious that you continue to want to discuss this as though your thesis were plausible.

More than one million species of insect; more than 50,000 species of other animal life. As is always your tactic, you attempt to distract from the totality of the absurdity of your position. You are happy to mire the discussion in pointless little side discussion in which you attempt to establish the plausibility of this nonsense by convincing others to argue crap like picking out juveniles, or the assertion that the animals came to him. As TSA has pointed out, you've got to have seven pairs of the "clean" animals.

The jokers who wrote that crap probably thought they had described a pretty big boat--but it doesn't even come close to providing sufficient space, nevermind fodder and food Noah and Company. I've already shredded in detail the notion that such a vessel of such a size could have been built and survived a year at sea, when built by those clueless about naval architecture.

And you continue to attempt to show how it were possible to have gotten all the critters on board. Amazing . . . simply amazing obtuse absurdity . . .
0 Replies
 
BDV
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jun, 2006 01:55 pm
One final point and then i will never speak of this subject again as i can no longer laugh this hard or my sides will burst, how did he get kangeroos or any other animal only native to countries 1000's of miles away, or did they swim from australia to his boat shouting "Hey noah, give us a lift on your large island or at the very least take our DNA sample so you can clone us in your lab afterwards?"

Also why didn't God just kill everything and create again from the start as it was so easy in first place, surely all the effort in getting the animals to the boat (Island) would have been much more than just destroying and beginning again?
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jun, 2006 01:59 pm
Setanta wrote:
real life wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Pretty damned fast, i'd say. Given that there would have had to have been more than a million species of insect, and more than 50,000 of all other animals, there wouldn't have been much room for growth. Quite apart from the sheer magnitude of the task, you are stuck with every species currently know having been accomodated on your fanciful boat, because you're stipulating for a direct creation of all known forms of life--unless, of course, you're now willing to stipulate that some form of evolution has taken place since then.

By the way, Brontosaurus is no longer the accepted term, as it was found that the head originally attributed to the fossils found was not the right head. They are now called Apatosaurs. Full grown Apatosaurs weighed forty tons. Quite apart from the ludicrous image of Noah going into the nesting grounds of Apatasaurs to turn the juveniles over to establish the gender, one has to consider that to get from an egg (even if quite a large egg) to a forty ton, full-grown adult would have required a very rapid growth rate altogether.

I'm rather disappointed in you, though. The last time this came up, you used a different dodge, and claimed that your boy, god, put the critters into some sort of suspended animation, so that fodder would not have been needed. That sillines is irrelevant, though, as your boat with the given dimensions could not have held all the species, even if juveniles.


hi Setanta,

Instead of guessing 'pretty fast', maybe we could consider that unlike mammals which grow to full size in a specified period of time and then do not continue to increase in size, many other species continue to grow throughout their lifespan. So a rapid growth curve from 0 to 40 tons is not necessarily the case.

Maybe someone who has specialized knowledge of these big critters can enlighten us further.

Also, there was no need for Noah to search the nesting area of any animal, because the animals came to him.

I don't remember postulating any 'suspended animation', although I may have mentioned that some others have suggested ordinary hibernation (just as many animals do today) may have taken place during the time the animals were onboard. This would , of course, have eased the burden of feeding, cleaning , etc


As i've noted, i find it amazing hilarious that you continue to want to discuss this as though your thesis were plausible.

More than one million species of insect; more than 50,000 species of other animal life. As is always your tactic, you attempt to distract from the totality of the absurdity of your position. You are happy to mire the discussion in pointless little side discussion in which you attempt to establish the plausibility of this nonsense by convincing others to argue crap like picking out juveniles, or the assertion that the animals came to him. As TSA has pointed out, you've got to have seven pairs of the "clean" animals.

The jokers who wrote that crap probably thought they had described a pretty big boat--but it doesn't even come close to providing sufficient space, nevermind fodder and food Noah and Company. I've already shredded in detail the notion that such a vessel of such a size could have been built and survived a year at sea, when built by those clueless about naval architecture.

And you continue to attempt to show how it were possible to have gotten all the critters on board. Amazing . . . simply amazing obtuse absurdity . . .


hi Setanta,

Let's keep in mind that the number of 'species' is purely arbitrary.

An animal is a 'separate species' dependent wholly on where we decide to draw an arbitrary line.

Since many 'species' can interbreed and did interbreed in the past (even evolution would require that ) , the current diversity of 'species' is more an expression of the genetic variation which was probably present in a much smaller number of creatures.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jun, 2006 02:03 pm
BDV wrote:
.... how did he get kangeroos or any other animal only native to countries 1000's of miles away, or did they swim from australia to his boat shouting "Hey noah, give us a lift on your large island or at the very least take our DNA sample so you can clone us in your lab afterwards?"



Many folks believe that most of Earth's land masses were connected at one time.

The Bible seems to indicate the breakup of this land mass after the Flood.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jun, 2006 02:22 pm
BDV wrote:
So we now have a boat the size of an island, I suppose he brought enough food for them all also, plus if he only took eggs, how would he know which was male, and which female, I know maybe he had a DNA sample of each and cloned all the animals in the world.


Noah was the earth's first human bio engineer.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jun, 2006 02:30 pm
real wrote:
The Bible seems to indicate the breakup of this land mass after the Flood.

Show us where it says such a thing.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jun, 2006 02:34 pm
Actually, Noah was the first bio-human, super-shipbuilder created from the imagination of humans no different than superman or batman.
0 Replies
 
BDV
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jun, 2006 02:34 pm
But we all know most land masses only move by inches per year, which would mean we need millions of years for australia to get where it is. So now you are supporting an old earth as per evolution ? Thats a change in stance congratz you took the first step to normalization and realization of the crap spoken of in the bible.

real life wrote:
BDV wrote:
.... how did he get kangeroos or any other animal only native to countries 1000's of miles away, or did they swim from australia to his boat shouting "Hey noah, give us a lift on your large island or at the very least take our DNA sample so you can clone us in your lab afterwards?"



Many folks believe that most of Earth's land masses were connected at one time.

The Bible seems to indicate the breakup of this land mass after the Flood.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jun, 2006 02:34 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
real wrote:
The Bible seems to indicate the breakup of this land mass after the Flood.

Show us where it says such a thing.


Genesis 10:25
And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jun, 2006 02:39 pm
BDV wrote:
But we all know most land masses only move by inches per year, which would mean we need millions of years for australia to get where it is. So now you are supporting an old earth as per evolution ? Thats a change in stance congratz you took the first step to normalization and realization of the crap spoken of in the bible.

real life wrote:
BDV wrote:
.... how did he get kangeroos or any other animal only native to countries 1000's of miles away, or did they swim from australia to his boat shouting "Hey noah, give us a lift on your large island or at the very least take our DNA sample so you can clone us in your lab afterwards?"



Many folks believe that most of Earth's land masses were connected at one time.

The Bible seems to indicate the breakup of this land mass after the Flood.


How does that fact that they tend to move by inches per year now (i.e in the last few years that we have been able to measure their movement) indicate that they have always and only moved inches per year?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jun, 2006 02:41 pm
That right, otherwise this couldn't happen within those few years.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jun, 2006 02:42 pm
real wrote:
Genesis 10:25
And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan

The earth was already divided. It's been going on on billions of years.
0 Replies
 
BDV
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jun, 2006 02:46 pm
real life wrote:
BDV wrote:
But we all know most land masses only move by inches per year, which would mean we need millions of years for australia to get where it is. So now you are supporting an old earth as per evolution ? Thats a change in stance congratz you took the first step to normalization and realization of the crap spoken of in the bible.

real life wrote:
BDV wrote:
.... how did he get kangeroos or any other animal only native to countries 1000's of miles away, or did they swim from australia to his boat shouting "Hey noah, give us a lift on your large island or at the very least take our DNA sample so you can clone us in your lab afterwards?"



Many folks believe that most of Earth's land masses were connected at one time.

The Bible seems to indicate the breakup of this land mass after the Flood.


How does that fact that they tend to move by inches per year now (i.e in the last few years that we have been able to measure their movement) indicate that they have always and only moved inches per year?


You tell me otherwise, your argument is weak, how far would the island have had to move in 6000 years, per year to reach where it is ? I am quite sure anything above a few inches would could massive disturbances in the oceans, massive land masses are not surf boards.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jun, 2006 02:58 pm
RexRed wrote:
Life arises out of chance over billions of years?

This chance is dependent on a moon that is in a precise location and a sun that is a certain age size and composition for humans to be able to even live? The earth has to be a certain age and all corresponding to the tiny window a few million years where the earth will even be inhabitable for life?


Many people make this mistake. You are assuming that humans are the goal, or that life as we see it are the goal, and they are not. So the whole argument of "particular conditions and events" simply falls apart.

Life would simply have evolved differently to match the conditions which existed.

RexRed wrote:
There needs to be the exact same mass extinctions so life can evolve in the very same manner it did and so we are not shooting giant raptors in our back yards.

There is nothing unintelligent about that.


Do you see why the assumptions you are making cause you to recite irrelevancy?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jun, 2006 03:02 pm
real life wrote:
hi Setanta,

Let's keep in mind that the number of 'species' is purely arbitrary.

An animal is a 'separate species' dependent wholly on where we decide to draw an arbitrary line.


Not so arbitrary that you could cram every species (no matter how loosely or strictly defined) into a space the size specified for the Ark. Continued attempts to make this ludicrous proposition plausible just make you look more ridiculous.

Quote:
Since many 'species' can interbreed and did interbreed in the past (even evolution would require that ) , the current diversity of 'species' is more an expression of the genetic variation which was probably present in a much smaller number of creatures.


No, a theory of evolution does not "require" that "species interbreed." A theory of evolution only posits that plants and animals differentiate from common ancestors on the basis of natural selection. This is yet another hilarious and pathetic dodge. If you deny that evolution ever occurred, you don't get to justify that Noah horseshit by appeal to speciation since that time from a smaller number of animals. You're trying to have it both ways.

You have not at all addressed the issue of ludicrous description of the vessel, the need to keep all these plants and animals alive for a year, and the thoroughly implausible contention that a handful of men over the age of one hundred years accomplished all of this.

Your story is not only not plausible, it's not possible.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jun, 2006 03:07 pm
real life wrote:
wandeljw wrote:
real life,

Your posts about dinosaurs on the ark sound like you are telling a children's story.


hi Wandeljw,

Well, it did seem rather elementary to point out that a full grown TRex is not specified (nor a full grown animal of any kind) in the account of the flood.


Maybe God stored all the animals and plants (how did all those plants walk onto the ship anyway?) as embryo's, that would save space. Or maybe they were all just single cells in test tubes. Better yet, maybe God stored all the genetic information on DVD's and then Noah played them all back into life on his super god-given DVD rematerializer.

All this talk of omnipotent supernatural gods populating arks is ridiculous. Even I, with my average human brain can think of better ways to use omnipotent poof powers than that.
0 Replies
 
BDV
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jun, 2006 03:50 pm
OK OK promised not to post on this, but here goes

If the food requirement while on the ark is not in question…but what about afterwards. The land would be decimated, with no living plants. Noah would have to feed the herbivorous animals for months after they departed from the ark, so the ark would have to carry this food as well. In addition, the number of carnivorous animals would probably make the herbivores extinct in a matter of weeks…so then why do we have cows today? If we assume cows came from a common cow-kind, as the authors suggest, and there were seven pairs on the ark, then there were 14 cows. Even if you assume cats like lions and tigers came from a cat-kind, you also have dogs, and several species of dinosaurs, including T-Rex. The two T-Rex alone would probably make the cow-kind extinct after a month…and then you have the two Raptor-Kind also!
0 Replies
 
BDV
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jun, 2006 03:56 pm
I also found this article on the net which will help you christians possibly change your literal belief

Quote:
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jun, 2006 04:05 pm
We know; only god saw days where there were no suns or lights.

All we have to do now is convince the bible scholars they're all wrong in assuming the bible is "literal."
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jun, 2006 04:30 pm
BDV wrote:
I also found this article on the net which will help you christians possibly change your literal belief.


Fat chance.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Evolution? How?
  3. » Page 587
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.89 seconds on 11/26/2024 at 11:20:05