Noah's Ark - How'd that happen? (philosophical, Old Testament, pagan, meaning)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well I believe the site below can do a better job when it comes to explaining the area of the ark, and it ability to house two of each kind of animal. It goes into much detail, and it states that the volume area of the ark would be about the area of 569 modern railroad stock cars...
... However, heres the link for the area of the ark.
Remember there are really only a few very large animals, such as the dinosaur or the elephant, and these could be represented by young ones. Assuming the average animal to be about the size of a sheep and using a railroad car for comparison, we note that the average double-deck stock car can accommodate 240 sheep. Thus, three trains hauling 69 cars each would have ample space to carry the 50,000 animals, filling only 37% of the ark. This would leave an additional 361 cars or enough to make 5 trains of 72 cars each to carry all of the food and baggage plus Noah's family of eight people. The Ark had plenty of space.
The ark was not a borg cube and though you could fit 240 sheep in a container, a year later, you would just end up with 240 dead sheep. You know what young animals do over the course of a year? They grow, they eat(a lot) and they need space. The site also suggests that every creature was hibernating which must be due to magic since most animals can't hibernate and those that do can only do so for a season.
The degree of feasibility keeps going down, what does go up are the number of apologetics which remain largely inconsistent with each other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
As far as the flood, the Bible indicates that it was not just rain that flood the earth, but it states the fountains of the earth were opened. It appears to many that the earths crust actually collapsed.
Fell from where? Into what? What caused it to fall? What happened afterwards?$(ie how did the water disappear from the earth?)
Well ancient drawings and figurines show us that people from the past knew what dinosaurs were, the Bible itself describes dinosaurs. So yes, they would have to of been there. And Inca burial stones show us some very good pictures of dinosaurs. This is the kind of information believers in Evolution do not want in the classroom. Yet I don't know how long they are going to be able to keep people from finding out about this. The die hard Evolutionest will just continue to deny it, but the evidence is there. The best defence for the believers in Evolution is their use of the courts. And this is the only way they can keep this kind of information out of the classroom. And I must say, some of this evidence is very impressive.
Well ancient drawings and figurines show us that people from the past knew what dinosaurs were, the Bible itself describes dinosaurs. So yes, they would have to of been there. And Inca burial stones show us some very good pictures of dinosaurs.
This is the kind of information believers in Evolution do not want in the classroom.
Yet I don't know how long they ( Just so I understand, you mean a sort of "they" [scientists and secular educators versus "us", YHECs and evangelical Xtians, right?) are going to be able to keep people from finding out about this. The die hard Evolutionist will just continue to deny it, but the evidence is there.(Proof of this insulting comment? See my final paragraph below). The best defence for the believers in Evolution is their use of the courts. (Huh? You've got me here. Pls Explain... Perhaps you mean a final judgement by a bunch of possibly impartial, logical citizenry? Ohhh no!). And this is the only way they can keep this kind of information out of the classroom. (WRONG. You show me it, I'll certainly teach it in the classroom. As will ANY intellectually honest scientist / teacher. This is a blatant, insulting, untruthful adhominem broad-brush attack, and you know it). And I must say, some of this evidence is very impressive.
Really. To whom? YECs, who discount "science" out of hand, incessantly, unless it conveniently provides them with new evidence?
As a fully peer-reviewed, experienced and accredited scientist and teacher, I'll happily volunteer to go to court to discuss and defend 1) a layman's explanation of the Scientific Method and how it's used in the daily lives of a housewife trying to get a tough soup can open, a handyman trying to figure out how the "In-Sink-Erator" works, the teen-aged boy trying to figure out how the alternator in his new "used" car works or why it doesn't, and on and on ad infinitum (AOAOAI).
Whether you like to admit it or not, we all, even you, use and acknowledge the step-wise logical process that is officially called "Science" on a regular basis. Otherwise we'd still be huddled in caves or in crude stone temples believing, absolutely, in such mythologies as multiple or single dieties (a single one's being much easier to do the book-keeping on, hence the eventual migration over to that idea).
The "Science" that most fundies have learned to hate is the one that truly open-minded, rational and logical people have formalized the rules for. That way, they would minimize errors, maximize consistency, confidence and verifiability for any and all observations, theories or "mind-boggling discoveries".
One guy's potentially ego- or financial gain-driven so-called "discovery" of perpetual motion machines or time travel or room-temp fusion reactors or... AOAOAI , is effectively nipped in its bud. Some simple questions, or a simple re-test of the guy's experimental setup, puts the idea to the test. Peer review ensures that egos are left out of it. A successful re-test, or hundreds or millions of re-tests (as in the case of, say, archeological dating techniques based on solid nuclear or organic chemistry laws or geo-chronological dating) either proves the hypothesis, the "theory" or the nonsense of the posited idea.
Got it so far, or do I need to repeat?
In the case of the Ark fable, sorry, Campbell34... you're trying to invoke your own theories of the story, like the "volume of 569 railway cars" and that "there was lots of room on the Ark". Including room for "Two Tame T-Rexs"? (Sounds like a Sesame Street skit, don't it? And about as scientific, BTW).
You obviously haven't read about the literal THOUSANDS of saurian species, those being only the ones we've discovered to date. Notice how you read, on a pretty regular basis, that archeologists/anthropologists/dinosaurists have unearthed yet another dino somewhere? Incontrovertible bone assemblies, etc.
And what about the Brontosaurus, the Gigantosaurus and a few other mega-vegans? PS to the stupid vegan T-Rex theory: the reason Bronties or Gigantosaurs were so big is the same reason a cow is bigger than a leopard, cougar, ocelot, coyote, badger, weasel or wolf: vegetarians must consume vastl quantities of low-energy-density foods and quietly process them out in a meadow somewhere just to live. Their surface area-to-mass ratio (which directly affects heat loss when just living...) is such that they consume less specific unit energy as long as they're sorta lethargic, like a cow, bison, sheep or any number of typicval vegan herd animals. Predatory carnivors, however, then feed on the nicely concentrated protein and energy sources that ARE these typical species. Carnivors, needing to go and seek out a few free-ranging prey species, must, of needs, move about, consuming energy all the while. Their ecological niche is to move, find, stalk and kill. They have no choice.
Got this one?
Brief PS: even if everyone on board the Ark was a vegan (hah hah haaaaa, but I digress...) , do you realize how much POOPO a gigantosaurus or two, plus a couple of Bronties, and a bunch of everything else, would produce every day?
Hand Noah that new Ultra-Mop™ 2000 would you please? Wake up , Noah.. no time to sleep here! But cheer up... only 39 more days 'till this soggy poopo-filled nightmare is over!
See, here's where true scientists just simply and logically look at the possible issues, and say, "OK, So he has to deal with, what, 197 tons of CRAPPO each and every day. How would he do that? Anyone? Anyone? Even shoving it overboard would be a MONUMENTAL task. Heck, a stable boy can't keep up with the waste from 10 horses! Implausible! Unlikely. Untrue.
Anyhow, you can't get two T-Rexs, two Bronties, two Gigantosaurs, plus plus plus plus AOAOAI, of even just the big vegans onboard, much less the really active predators. And everything else. and the food necessary to sustain all of them, vegan or not! And as for vegan carnivors? Really? Absurd postulation, Easily discredited, whether one wants to believe it or not.
I mean, for god's sake, yours or mine, let's try to be intelligent here, Campbell34. To insist on screwball ideas in the face of logical, quietly asked questions, is to show one's true fundamentalist logic or lack of alternate open-minded education, wouldn't you agree? Probably not.
It's blatantly obvious that a) you've never read a basic ecology textbook, a basic vertebrate physiology tex, any recent and basic nuclear physics books, any genetics text that clearly explains the utter simplicity of DNA transcription error theory and it's clear role in evolution, or any other books but your bible. If that's so, I'd also assume that you don't want to know anything about the basics of these proven sciences. Right or wrong?
I'ts also obvious that you will alter facts readily to suit the inescapable situation presented to you. Vegan T-Rexs that co-existed with man.... Absurd on its face, absurd in any honest review of the details.... Absurd.
And the person who insists that this was the case based circular logic from a multi-authored book written by people scared of lightnig bolts, eclipses and comets, before any simple scientific approach to anything was set up and agreed-on? That person or group of like-minded individuals are clearly delusional or absolutely intent on proselytizing their particular version of mythology. At the expense of the truth.
Finally, please post, for my open-minded critical review, the exact link(s) that show me where cave drawings clearly, incontrovertibly (BTW, please look up THAT word first...)prove that the artists had a nice quiet dino posing in front of them, ("Can I PLEEEZE get dressed now, master? I'm REALLY hungry, and you're starting to look kinda, well, "crunchy"").
You get me that info you ref'd above so confidently, and respond to my points above, honestly, and if there's even a quarter of an inkling that it's even vaguely possible, I'll go to church this weekend and quietly listen. Honest. And when I say it, I mean it!
"Unerring Faith is the Shield Upon which The Truth is Dashed" By me, rflmn™
P&L2A! Happy Yuletime! Cheers to St. McClarity™ and Santa Claus! And happy holidays to the Christian Community!
Last edited by rifleman; 12-09-2008 at 10:52 AM..
Reason: typos, clarity
Really. To whom? YECs, who discount "science" out of hand, incessantly, unless it conveniently provides them with new evidence?
As a fully peer-reviewed, experienced and accredited scientist and teacher, I'll happily volunteer to go to court to discuss and defend 1) a layman's explanation of the Scientific Method and how it's used in the daily lives of a housewife trying to get a tough soup can open, a handyman trying to figure out how the "In-Sink-Erator" works, the teen-aged boy trying to figure out how the alternator in his new "used" car works or why it doesn't, and on and on ad infinitum (AOAOAI).
Whether you like to admit it or not, we all, even you, use and acknowledge the step-wise logical process that is officially called "Science" on a regular basis. Otherwise we'd still be huddled in caves or in crude stone temples believing, absolutely, in such mythologies as multiple or single dieties (a single one's being much easier to do the book-keeping on, hence the eventual migration over to that idea).
The "Science" that most fundies have learned to hate is the one that truly open-minded, rational and logical people have formalized the rules for. That way, they would minimize errors, maximize consistency, confidence and verifiability for any and all observations, theories or "mind-boggling discoveries".
One guy's potentially ego- or financial gain-driven so-called "discovery" of perpetual motion machines or time travel or room-temp fusion reactors or... AOAOAI , is effectively nipped in its bud. Some simple questions, or a simple re-test of the guy's experimental setup, puts the idea to the test. Peer review ensures that egos are left out of it. A successful re-test, or hundreds or millions of re-tests (as in the case of, say, archeological dating techniques based on solid nuclear or organic chemistry laws or geo-chronological dating) either proves the hypothesis, the "theory" or the nonsense of the posited idea.
Got it so far, or do I need to repeat?
In the case of the Ark fable, sorry, Campbell34... you're trying to invoke your own theories of the story, like the "volume of 569 railway cars" and that "there was lots of room on the Ark". Including room for "Two Tame T-Rexs"? (Sounds like a Sesame Street skit, don't it? And about as scientific, BTW).
You obviously haven't read about the literal THOUSANDS of saurian species, those being only the ones we've discovered to date. Notice how you read, on a pretty regular basis, that archeologists/anthropologists/dinosaurists have unearthed yet another dino somewhere? Incontrovertible bone assemblies, etc.
And what about the Brontosaurus, the Gigantosaurus and a few other mega-vegans? PS to the stupid vegan T-Rex theory: the reason Bronties or Gigantosaurs were so big is the same reason a cow is bigger than a leopard, cougar, ocelot, coyote, badger, weasel or wolf: vegetarians must consume vastl quantities of low-energy-density foods and quietly process them out in a meadow somewhere just to live. Their surface area-to-mass ratio (which directly affects heat loss when just living...) is such that they consume less specific unit energy as long as they're sorta lethargic, like a cow, bison, sheep or any number of typicval vegan herd animals. Predatory carnivors, however, then feed on the nicely concentrated protein and energy sources that ARE these typical species. Carnivors, needing to go and seek out a few free-ranging prey species, must, of needs, move about, consuming energy all the while. Their ecological niche is to move, find, stalk and kill. They have no choice.
Got this one?
Brief PS: even if everyone on board the Ark was a vegan (hah hah haaaaa, but I digress...) , do you realize how much POOPO a gigantosaurus or two, plus a couple of Bronties, and a bunch of everything else, would produce every day?
Hand Noah that new Ultra-Mopâ„¢ 2000 would you please? Wake up , Noah.. no time to sleep here! But cheer up... only 39 more days 'till this soggy poopo-filled nightmare is over!
See, here's where true scientists just simply and logically look at the possible issues, and say, "OK, So he has to deal with, what, 197 tons of CRAPPO each and every day. How would he do that? Anyone? Anyone? Even shoving it overboard would be a MONUMENTAL task. Heck, a stable boy can't keep up with the waste from 10 horses! Implausible! Unlikely. Untrue.
Anyhow, you can't get two T-Rexs, two Bronties, two Gigantosaurs, plus plus plus plus AOAOAI, of even just the big vegans onboard, much less the really active predators. And everything else. and the food necessary to sustain all of them, vegan or not! And as for vegan carnivors? Really? Absurd postulation, Easily discredited, whether one wants to believe it or not.
I mean, for god's sake, yours or mine, let's try to be intelligent here, Campbell34. To insist on screwball ideas in the face of logical, quietly asked questions, is to show one's true fundamentalist logic or lack of alternate open-minded education, wouldn't you agree? Probably not.
It's blatantly obvious that a) you've never read a basic ecology textbook, a basic vertebrate physiology tex, any recent and basic nuclear physics books, any genetics text that clearly explains the utter simplicity of DNA transcription error theory and it's clear role in evolution, or any other books but your bible. If that's so, I'd also assume that you don't want to know anything about the basics of these proven sciences. Right or wrong?
I'ts also obvious that you will alter facts readily to suit the inescapable situation presented to you. Vegan T-Rexs that co-existed with man.... Absurd on its face, absurd in any honest review of the details.... Absurd.
And the person who insists that this was the case based circular logic from a multi-authored book written by people scared of lightnig bolts, eclipses and comets, before any simple scientific approach to anything was set up and agreed-on? That person or group of like-minded individuals are clearly delusional or absolutely intent on proselytizing their particular version of mythology. At the expense of the truth.
Finally, please post, for my open-minded critical review, the exact link(s) that show me where cave drawings clearly, incontrovertibly (BTW, please look up THAT word first...)prove that the artists had a nice quiet dino posing in front of them, ("Can I PLEEEZE get dressed now, master? I'm REALLY hungry, and you're starting to look kinda, well, "crunchy"").
You get me that info you ref'd above so confidently, and respond to my points above, honestly, and if there's even a quarter of an inkling that it's even vaguely possible, I'll go to church this weekend and quietly listen. Honest. And when I say it, I mean it!
"Unerring Faith is the Shield Upon which The Truth is Dashed" By me, rflmnâ„¢
P&L2A! Happy Yuletime! Cheers to St. McClarityâ„¢ and Santa Claus! And happy holidays to the Christian Community!
Facts are interpreted and your historical sciences are hardly "proven" as you seem to whole heartedly demand we believe.
Applied science has nothing to do with the stories created by evolutionist.
Truth is Jesus Christ
Faith is the Evidence of thing not seen
Gee, I wonder why I can't find this stuff on anything but fundie sites? Very curious....Oops I just found it.
The figurines show every evidence of being recent folk art, fraudulently buried in an archeological excavation. De Peso (1953) made the following observations:
* The surfaces of the figurines were new. They were not marred by a patina or coating of soluble salts characteristic of genuinely old artifacts from the same area. The owner said none of the figures had been washed in acid. Edges of depressions were sharp and new. No dirt was packed into crevices.
* Genuine archeological relics of fragile items are almost always found in fragments. Finding more than 30,000 such items in pristine condition is unheard of. The excavators of the artifacts were "neither careful nor experienced" in their field technique, yet no marks of their shovels, mattocks, or picks were noted in any of the 32,000 specimens. Some figurines were broken, but the breaks were unworn and apparently deliberate to suggest age. No parts were missing.
* "The author spent two days watching the excavators burrow and dig; during the course of their search they managed to break a number of authentic prehistoric objects. On the second day the two struck a cache and the author examined the material in situ. The cache had been very recently buried by digging a down sloping tunnel into the black fill dirt of the prehistoric room. This fill ran to a depth of approximately 1.30 m. Within the stratum there were authentic Tarascan sherds, obsidian blades, tripod metates, manos, etc., but these objects held no concern for the excavators. In burying the cache of figurines, the natives had unwittingly cut some 15 cms. below the black fill into the sterile red earth floor of the prehistoric room. In back-filling the tunnel they mixed this red sterile earth with black earth; the tracing of their original excavation was, as a result, a simple task" (Di Peso 1953, 388).
* Fresh manure was found in the tunnel fill.
* Fingerprints were found in freshly packed earth that filled an excavated bowl.
Gee, I wonder why I can't find this stuff on anything but fundie sites? Very curious....Oops I just found it.
The figurines show every evidence of being recent folk art, fraudulently buried in an archeological excavation. De Peso (1953) made the following observations:
* The surfaces of the figurines were new. They were not marred by a patina or coating of soluble salts characteristic of genuinely old artifacts from the same area. The owner said none of the figures had been washed in acid. Edges of depressions were sharp and new. No dirt was packed into crevices.
* Genuine archeological relics of fragile items are almost always found in fragments. Finding more than 30,000 such items in pristine condition is unheard of. The excavators of the artifacts were "neither careful nor experienced" in their field technique, yet no marks of their shovels, mattocks, or picks were noted in any of the 32,000 specimens. Some figurines were broken, but the breaks were unworn and apparently deliberate to suggest age. No parts were missing.
* "The author spent two days watching the excavators burrow and dig; during the course of their search they managed to break a number of authentic prehistoric objects. On the second day the two struck a cache and the author examined the material in situ. The cache had been very recently buried by digging a down sloping tunnel into the black fill dirt of the prehistoric room. This fill ran to a depth of approximately 1.30 m. Within the stratum there were authentic Tarascan sherds, obsidian blades, tripod metates, manos, etc., but these objects held no concern for the excavators. In burying the cache of figurines, the natives had unwittingly cut some 15 cms. below the black fill into the sterile red earth floor of the prehistoric room. In back-filling the tunnel they mixed this red sterile earth with black earth; the tracing of their original excavation was, as a result, a simple task" (Di Peso 1953, 388).
* Fresh manure was found in the tunnel fill.
* Fingerprints were found in freshly packed earth that filled an excavated bowl.
Of course their were fingerprints in the freshly packed earth, because those who were involved with the dig site when finished for the week or whatever the time period, would often refill dirt around the objects that had not been removed to protect them. This was a common pratice. All of this was pointed out, and all the arguements coming from Dipeso were debunked long ago. You keep bring up these old arguements because that is all you have. The fact that these figurines have been time tested, and numerous times you fail to adress. And every time they have been tested, they show these figurienes to be over 3,000 years old. And your expert Dipeso spent a full four hours at the mansion where the figurines were stored, and then he claimed he inspected all 33,000 of them. It's obvious, his words cannot be trusted, and his science is shotty at best. Your whole arguement rests on one mans opinion, and all the others who did not agree with this man, you have ignore. And these men spent months on the site, not two days and four hours. Also, you failed to mention that the figurines were also found under the living room floor of a house that was built 25 years before Julsrud arrived from Germany. And you failed to mention that some of the figurienes had features displayed on them that were not even known to science at the time they were unearth. Do you really believe poor native Mexicans made 33,000 of them, and do you believe they knew more about Dinosaur anatomy then modern science?
Here is a list of other researchers and professors you have ignored.
You point me to a bible track site and call it evidence? You know better than that. It seems to me that we've been down this road before....The figurines were exposed as a hoax years ago.
Don Patton has provided what he claims to be accurate radiocarbon dates for the figures ranging from 6500 years to 1500 years. The laboratories that produced these dates have stated that they were inconclusive, but Dennis Swift claims that once the laboratories discovered what they were dating, they retracted their original dates. The claim is strange because radiocarbon dating can only be performed on items which possess carbon: living or formerly living things, of which pottery or ceramic is neither.
The very circumstances from which the figures first appeared are dubious. Julsrud claims that he paid the farmers for every figure they brought him. This alone gives the farmers motive to create their own figures and disguise them as ancient artifacts.
The sheer number of perfect figures found is evidence for a hoax. Over 32,000 figures were found, and all of them in perfect condition except for a few that were cleanly broken, obviously to create the illusion of antiquity. If these were authentic antiquities, they would not be preserved with such perfection in such an inhospitable environment. Pottery is almost always uncovered as fragments called sherds; nowhere has 32,000 unblemished ceramics been uncovered with none of them in fragments and all of them in perfect condition (cleanly broken in two does not count as fragments).
You point me to a bible track site and call it evidence? You know better than that. It seems to me that we've been down this road before....The figurines were exposed as a hoax years ago.
Don Patton has provided what he claims to be accurate radiocarbon dates for the figures ranging from 6500 years to 1500 years. The laboratories that produced these dates have stated that they were inconclusive, but Dennis Swift claims that once the laboratories discovered what they were dating, they retracted their original dates. The claim is strange because radiocarbon dating can only be performed on items which possess carbon: living or formerly living things, of which pottery or ceramic is neither.
The very circumstances from which the figures first appeared are dubious. Julsrud claims that he paid the farmers for every figure they brought him. This alone gives the farmers motive to create their own figures and disguise them as ancient artifacts.
The sheer number of perfect figures found is evidence for a hoax. Over 32,000 figures were found, and all of them in perfect condition except for a few that were cleanly broken, obviously to create the illusion of antiquity. If these were authentic antiquities, they would not be preserved with such perfection in such an inhospitable environment. Pottery is almost always uncovered as fragments called sherds; nowhere has 32,000 unblemished ceramics been uncovered with none of them in fragments and all of them in perfect condition (cleanly broken in two does not count as fragments).
Well could you point me to an Evolutionest site that has interviewed the 12 men my link speaks about? You know very well, that believers in Evolution have not take the time since the 1950s to consider the figurines of El Toro mountain.
And your right about the labs that did the testing. They did retract their statements confirming those dates, just as soon as they discovered they tested part of the collection from ElToro mountain. Because before their retraction, they first sent a letter confirming those dates. And their first letter stated,
"We have had years of experimentation both here and at the lab at Oxford, we have no doubt about the (dependability) of the thermoluminescent method. We may have errors of up to 5-10% in absolute dating, but we are no longer concerned about unexpected bug that might put the whole system in doubt. ect.
Well they sure had their doubts when they found out they just tested the figurines from ElToro Mountain. LOL
And it was not actual carbon dating that was performed, they used the thermoluminescent method.
The figurines were tested again in 1997, and again the date that came back was 1500 B.P. Now they were going to use this in a video called Jurassic Art, but because of the date and how modern science would view this, they discarded the date in the program. Today, the figurines remain an embarasment to Evolution, just like so much of the other ancient art that depicts dinosaurs.
And please, the amount of money paid the farmer would not even come close to the manufacturing cost of said item. So please don't even suggest that farmer went to work makeing complicated ceramic figurines for 12 cents a piece. And that was the price paid to the farmer for figurine recovery.
And you failed to mention that many of the figurines were made of hard stone, and it was obvious they were very old because of the erosion that was found on many of them. Or do you believe the farmer found a way to create erosion on those stone objects to make them appear old?
You have but one person to hang your hat on. And if you can believe that he inspected all 33,000 figurienes in 4 hours, well then you would believe anything. I find all the other accounts far more reliable, and far more intrested in the truth.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Oh Lordy II"
