Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[D the Atheist]

All this talk about good old Noah and family, a supposed magic Ark and of dinosaurs living at the same time as humans, reminds me of a poem I read some years back that I have just come across again by luck.

It is an explanation of why the dinosaurs died out and a look at the implausibility of the whole story.

It mentions the reality of there being a million species of animal. I think that is wrong. The figure is in the millions.

Anyway, for what it is worth…here it is. Enjoy:

There’s a story going around
Of an Ark, animals and dinosaurs,
Supposedly one quite profound
About the interference of nature’s watery laws,
Disappearing not some, but every piece of ground.

The number of species on this Earth,
At that date and now,
Well over a million came from birth.
Strange it seems and I wonder how
Only fifty thousand had some worth,
Enough it seems to fill all and bow.

Salt water and fresh mixed all up,
That must have caused a stir
To the function of those that did not sup,
Death would surely have to occur,
On this point alone the story does err.

Forty days and forty nights
Came the torrents all pouring sent,
Seven hundred feet a day, well must have been a fright,
Whence it came and where it went,
Till this day, with logic, dare no one write.

Ten months of bobbing too and fro,
A marvellous feat of feeding care
And most importantly where did the dung go.
Every Zoo on this planet fair
Would like Noah’s formula for keeping the staff so low.

If taken into account the walkways and cage,
The bulkheads, water, food and human habitat,
One then might not too quickly gauge,
That this story happened like that,
But rather, was written by a none too clever sage.

The mighty boat on Ararat did found
Out poured them all only to find,
“Where’s the food?” “It’s all been drowned!”
“Never the mind”, all the animals resigned,
“To the ends of the Earth we must swim and pound.”

A likely story, the wise think not,
So full of holes
And unlikely plot,
That the dinosaurs from head to sole
Came to extinction from laughing a lot.

 

[jeremiah]

To ex-fundy:

You put a fair amount of effort into calculating the volume requirements of an ark for 30,000 sheep sized animals. I applaud you for your efforts. It must be really important to you. Along the lines of an old adage, "For believers there are no questions, for unbelievers there are no answers." Could you describe from your experience how and or why not having answers to life's deepest questions is intellectually or otherwise liberating.
I found a few creationist sites refuting the impossibility notions of an Ark. Perhaps one that would be of interest would be this one. http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-273.htm
You probably have already read of his book and perhaps rejected it, but others might find it of value. It is a resource for answering the critics of Noah's Ark: " Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study." by John Woodmorappe 1996?
He starts with only 16,000 animals, and the median size is the size of a rat.
He seems to address every common feasability objection raised. You will probably LOVE that he has over 1200 references.
I think this is a book you have probably read {considering your Creationist background} or should read? Don't you think?

 

[Bigotboy]

Ex-fundy,
I am in the same boat (pun intended) as Jeremiah. I would like to add that your assumption that the animals on the Arc would be modern animals is unfounded. Also, no less a person than Jesus the Christ thought the Arc story was valid.

 

[ex_fundy]

Originally posted by jeremiah Could you describe from your experience how and or why not having answers to life's deepest questions is intellectually or otherwise liberating.

Some people think the important thing is to have answers. I think the important thing is to have truth. I believe that most people are in the first category and not in the second. I also find exploration must more enjoyable than homesteading (an apt analogy). The freedom to explore all possible answers to life's deepest question (without fearing going astray from a predetermined set of right and wrong answers) is very fulfilling.

Though I haven't read the book, I am quite familiar with Woodmorappe's tome. "median" and "mean" have very different meanings in the field of stastics.

Sheep were the animals of choice in "The Genesis Flood" book and that is what Jack agreed was a fair estimate. I will not address every follow-on crack-pot (not directed at you) effort to now insist that sheep aren't a good choice. If anyone wants to present an alternate analysis, they are more than free to do so. But anyone that merely takes pot-shots at my post (remember my "possibilities" and "probabilities" post) without doing any of their own analysis isn't worth a response.

PS. Glad to see your still around Jeremiah.

 

[ex_fundy]

Originally posted by Bigotboy Also, no less a person than Jesus the Christ thought the Arc story was valid.

Did Jesus also think that the many parables he used to teach were valid historic events?

If you actually read Jesus's reference to Noah, it is far from clear that his useage is supporting the notion of a global flood that killed all but 8 humans. In fact, the passage in Luke 17, uses the story of Lot leaving Sodom as a parallel passage and uses the same terminology of "destroy them all". So unless you think everyone in the world outside of Lot's group were destroyed you'd have to admit that Jesus isn't necessarily supporting your interpretation of the Genesis story.

 

[Aussie Thinker]

Aside from making the Ark storyy look completely ridiculous ex-fundy did raise an interesting point.

Could any fundy here honestly state that even a modern built vessel could pull of what the Ark did. You would be lying if you said yes.

With the specialist care required in Zoo's all over the world for all sorts of animals do you really think 8 ancient people could have kept them ALL alive ?

So in every case you have to resort to divine intervention for the Ark to have survived... then... why did god not just zap the world.. all except Noah ?

I know why.. and deep down so do you !

 

[jeremiah]

To Aussie Thinker:
You should check out that link, and posssibly get his book from a library if you really want to know if there are any non-miraculous possibilities to the Ark and the 8 caretakers onboard.

 

[NATEDOG]

It's interesting. There are a few craters on earth that are 60 miles in diameter. There are even more with a diameter of about 20+ miles.
I meteorite of that size would have a tremendous impact all throughout the globe. Could civilization have progressed as it has over the past 5,000 years if there were earth shaking eco changing meteorites intermitently rocking the earths surface?
This is an honest question.

 

[jeremiah]

To ex-fundy:

Yes, I am still around, and I am looking forward to round ten of the debate. What did you think of Bob's points in round 9?
My family is all over me for hogging the computer. I am on this and various other sites WAAAAY too much lately. When the debate is over I will probably bring my post rate back down to .1 where it was a few weeks ago.
I understand when you say you are seeking truth and therefore you are following where it leads. If you are sincere and continue to follow it I am convinced it will lead you back to where you started, only with a deeper faith than before.
I am glad that some people who you know, still think you are a Christian. It is a good mistake for them to make and you to be known by.
I have recently learned that the Greek mind thinks wisdom is gained through education. The Biblical thought is that wisdom is gained through obediance to God's teachings. Two very interesting and opposing ways of acquiring wisdom.

 

[JanowJ]

Originally posted by D the Atheist
All this talk about good old Noah and family, a supposed magic Ark and of dinosaurs living at the same time as humans, reminds me of a poem I read some years back that I have just come across again by luck.[/I]

Your view reminds me of a poem as well.

There once was an idiot in France.
Who couldn't find the seat of his pants
He said he had solved
The way we evolved
And got millions in government grants.

 

[D the Atheist]

JanowJ,

Which reminds me of this one also:

There once was an idiot in France.
Who couldn't find the seat of his pants
He said he had solved
That we hadn't evolved
Turns out he just had a case of the rants.

 

[D the Atheist]

JanowJ,

I have been worrying about the word idiot used in the limerick. I do not use the word in normal interaction and I apologise for the continuation of its use in this form by my hand. I was carried away by the moment. This is a rule I impose on myself and is not in any way meant as a rod to beat you with.

All boiled down, there are no idiots

I would prefer the poem to read:

There was once a French person in France
Who couldn't find the seat of his pants
He said he had solved
That we hadn't evolved
Turns out he just had a case of the rants.



Cheers,
:cheers:

 

[NoLies]

id·i·ot
n.
A foolish or stupid person.
A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.

Sounds like there are such persons...

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Re: Ark Capacity

Re: Ark Capacity

Originally posted by ex_fundy
Well it’s been fun Jack, but I have real work to focus on for a while. Freeing the minds of those still held captive in fundamentalist dogma is only a part-time hobby. I truly wish for you the intellectual freedom that I have obtained. Though leaving fundamentalism is scary at first, once you experience the joy of free-thought you’ll be glad you did.

I am a free-thinker, and I still believe Noah took all those animals on board the ark. You've done nothing to dispell that belief. Even going by your calculations (which I don't agree with, by the way), the animals would have taken up even barely over a third of the Ark's total volume.

That leaves plenty of room for food -- a lot less of which is required for animals that aren't very active. Many of the reptiles could have possibly gone the entire journey without food (I've read documentation of a Madagascar boa that went for four years without eating). Furthermore, it isn't unreasonable to assume that many of the animals hibernated for a significant portion of the journey, reducing the food and water requirements even further. And in a global flood, coming across water isn't going to be very difficult -- all they need are some buckets.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by D the Atheist
No we were not. We, or you, that is, were stating how Bob has some expertise in the use of computers. This has nothing to do with models.

This has everything to do with mathematical models. Do you even know what the word 'compute' means?

I can live with uncertainty on the origins of life.

And with your atheistic beliefs, you're gonna have to. A naturalistic explanation will never be found. That's my prediction.

You can’t and that is why you say a god did it.

No, I believe in God, and He said He did it. Big difference.

Do you mean it is wishful thinking that we are here?

No, I mean it is wishful thinking to assume that life is inevitable. I told you before that the old bait and switch isn't going to work on me.

It is indeed encouraging that your knowledge of this non-infinite Universe has it all worked out.

I have everything far from all worked out, but I do know how life originated. The Bibles tells us.

 

[Heino]

I have been wondering about this issue of religion in America for a time myself. In Europe, there is hardly a similar controversy when it comes to evolution and religion. In my memory, there has not been a single European government which has attempt to pass laws to make the teaching of evolution illegal. America and Australia seem to be the only places on the world which have many people willing to forego evolution and science for the religious story of Noah.

Americans, more than any other nation, seem to be obsessed with spreading the idea of taking the bible as literal. I have a cousin in Germany who has a friend who prefers the English King James Bible to his own German Bible, claiming that the English Bible is "more true" than the German one, which is actually an older translation than the English one.

Since living here (I am a German-born, naturalized American citizen), I have noticed that there are great divisions, especially on issues of politics and religion. Though similar divisions exist in Europe countries, they are not as strong as they are here in America. I have often wondered why, and concluded (about 15 years ago, when I was in high school) that it was because Americans are less "homogenous" (homogenized?) -- we are made up of diverse people from diverse cultures, all competing for dominance, as opposed to a nation of one or two ethnic groups that are very similar, and only have superficial differences. Later, I concluded that it was the public school system. Still later (and currently) changed my mind, and have concluded that the strongest divisions are likely due to the disparity of rich and poor, urban and rural, coastal and inland, but especially north and south.

I still don't understand where all the dislike comes from. I hesitate to call it hate, because I believe that when the situation is serious enough, people who normally dislike each other come together.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Re: Ark Capacity

Re: Ark Capacity

I'm not going to bother deconstructing ex_fundy's entire post, but I will deal with this part.

Originally posted by ex_fundy
Now I move on to the actual sheep. How many can actually fit in a “standard” rail car? Well, in “The Genesis Flood” Whitcomb and Morris pull the ol’ undefined term switch-a-roo.

He starts by stating that Whitcomb and Morris pull a switcheroo, without proving that they did such a thing.

They quote from one source that says a double-decker rail boxcar (no dimensions given) can hold 240 sheep. Then they quote from a different source to show that the ark is as big as 522 boxcars (of the 9’x9’x33’ sized varieties).

This link will show that stock-cars of approximately this size (actually these particular models are 36 feet long) were indeed used in a double-decker capacity and were likely used to carry sheep in this configuration. And why would they need to quote from another source to show the Ark was as big as 522 railroad stock-cars, when all they had to do was perform a few simple calculations? Unless, of course, they quoted from the dimensions given for the Ark in the Bible, which is perfectly acceptable.

Hmm, I wonder if the first quote was actually referring to one of the 17’x9’x90’ sized varieties? We have a potential sheep carrying volume capacity error of 5-fold.

No we don't, ex_fundy, because those aren't the kind of stock-cars they're referring to. You don't need a car that big to carry 240 sheep, which would be a very inefficient way of transporting that many -- allowing over 50 cubic feet per sheep.

I found one record of a major sheep transport rail station that averaged 90 sheep per boxcar, but again the boxcar dimensions weren’t given. I’m willing to give Whitcomb and Morris a break and go along with 120 sheep for each of those small (9x9x33) boxcars that they used for their volume.

No, you need to allow for a double-decker configuration that will hold 240, but then that wouldn't inflate your numbers as much as you'd like.

That would then produce 30K (sheep) / 120 (sheep per box car) x 2670 ft^3 (volume per boxcar) = 667.5 K ft^3

And now we've got sheep that take up over 20 cubic feet apiece. Those are some pretty big sheep, but even allowing this, that's still barely over a third of the Ark's volume.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Heino
America and Australia seem to be the only places on the world which have many people willing to forego evolution and science for the religious story of Noah.

Nobody is foregoing science here, and religion and science aren't mutually exclusive terms. What we're rejecting is evolution, which is a belief with no scientific basis whatsoever.

 

[ex_fundy]

Re: Re: Ark Capacity

Re: Re: Ark Capacity

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack Here's a glaring example of ex_fundy's dishonesty.
He starts by stating that Whitcomb and Morris pull a switcheroo, without proving that they did such a thing.

The Genesis Flood - The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company. (c)1961 25th printing, May 1981.
Page 68 FN#1 Mechanical Engineers Handbook (1958) "states that the standard stock car contains 2670 cu. ft."
Page 69 FN#2 H.W, Vaughan: Types and Market Classes of Live Stock (1945) "sheep about 120 per deck."

Since railcars range from between about 35' up to 90' in length and up to 17' in height (http://www.alaskarails.org/fp/Boxcars.html) an honest researcher would have to question why Morris and Whitcomb didn't use the same source and didn't give dimensions on the sheep carrying boxcar? Could it be that footnote #2 was referring to a 50' or 60' boxcar (or even a 90' one)? That is the unknown, so that is why I allowed for the 120 (though 90 was the average for one major rail service I found).

Like I said, volume alone is too simplistic, you can't stack them in like square shipping crates. The modern farm example I gave required 72 ark-sized decks for only 25,000 sheep, without storing a years supply.

allowing over 50 cubic meters per sheep.

I think you mean cubic feet here. There's a big difference.
I didn't use the calculations of a 9'x'17'x90' boxcar, I merely said that such boxcars existed and Whitcomb and Morris neglected to offer consistent dimensions.

No, you need to allow for a double-decker configuration that will hold 240, but then that wouldn't inflate your numbers as much as you'd like.

Nice assertion, but I don't need to allow for anything unless I come across additional data. You show me a reference that shows a 2670 ft^3 boxcar that transported 240 sheep and I'll adjust my calculations.

Unfortunately your link didn't say how many sheep would fit in those boxcars. But I'm glad to see you're doing some of your own research.

And now we've got sheep that take up over 20 cubic feet apiece. Those are some pretty big sheep, but even allowing this, that's still barely over a third of the Ark's volume.

2'x3'x3'=18 ft^3 and that would barely provide adequate room for sheep to stand, turn, and lie down without stepping on each other. These are supposedly living animals, not boxes that can be stacked.

Your buckets over the side for water was a good effort, but it is an imagined "possibility", not something you have determined was feasible. The amount of water for 30,000 sheep would be aproximately 31,704 gallons every day. It would be highly unliikely that 8 people could lower buckets and pull that much water up every day (while still doing all their other feeding chores). And don't forget the contanimation in the water.

Your still in the realm of "possibilities" and I'm still in the realm of "probabilities". There are no hurdles (except the ones you imagine) between the other 2 options I offered and orthodox Christianity. There are a lot of non-evolutionary Christians that hold to a regional flood. You should read some of their literature.

 

[attention]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
What we're rejecting is evolution, which is a belief with no scientific basis whatsoever.

Please Jack. Don't fool yourself too much.

I already asked you before, please explain to us in what way the theory of evolution would not be scientific.

You never answered that one, because you can not anwer it.

So, again. If you have a profound statement to make about evolution theory as a scientific theory, then please let us know.