Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[D the Atheist]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

Noah didn't have to take insects on board the ark either.

How did they survive then?

As already stated, the number of species of insects is huge. It is in fact somewhere in the order of just under a million. That is 1,000,000

Disturbing the habitat of most species of insects would make their annihilation a sure thing.

Insects are not made up of mom, dad and the kids but are very complicated societies that need stability to live long and prosper.

Insects also (As a rule) have very short lives, such as some ant species that live for only a few weeks. They tend to be very temperature sensitive to their own requirements.

Prolonged turmoil in water or on floating rubbish would see the demise of near all, if not all.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Insects are a lot hardier than you seem to think.

 

[D the Atheist]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Insects are a lot hardier than you seem to think.

Your scientific reasoning is extraordinary Jack! Extraordinary but not acceptable though.

Beside that, while you are around, could you explain how I may place my photo in the appropriate square?

Thanks

 

[D the Atheist]

OE Jack

Guess I did it without your help or divine intervention…hey!

Insects, as with everything else had to withstand a total rain-storm coming in at the rate of 700 feet a day for 40 days and of course, 40 nights.

Real science does not accept the convenient low hills scenario of YE’s.

Just imagine for a moment, the effects of rain happening everywhere on the planet at 700 feet a day. That is the average rainfall. It may have been more and less in certain parts unless another averaging miracle (Magic) was at play.

Even a modern nuclear submarine would have been bashed to pieces in such an unprecedented catastrophe as this. The Ark would have ended up in pieces the size of matches.

Insects, or indeedy do, anything alive would have been pulverized beyond recognition.

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Your inability to answer the questions has been noted. Thank you for playing.

Too funny. Jack asks for evidence as to why the notions of his shining example of a "scientific" creationist, Humphreys, is utterly wrong, is pointed not only to a web site giving a concise presentation of Humphreys' errors AND numerous reference to others, but a site that is itself coming from the perspective of trying to find rational evidence in support of Christianity, and the best he can come up with is the above.

It would be worth quite a laugh were it not so sad.

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Insects are a lot hardier than you seem to think.

Ah, Jack continues to attempt humor in the absence of presenting any real arguments. When asked how practically the entire class Insecta managed to survive the supposed Genesis Flood, the best answer he can provide is "insects are a lot hardier than you seem to think." Which completely ignores the fact that the vast majority of insects are purely terrestrial (not aquatic), and could not possibly survive for an extended period of time in the absence of dry land. And so far, we HAVE just talked about the insects - not the rest of the phylum Arthropoda, which in recent estimates comprises some 5-6 million distinct species - again, primarily terrestrial.

But I'm sure we'll hear another "just so" story to explain this one, too...

 

[One Eyed Jack]

I asked you more than one question bmyers. Here's another one that you've ignored.

Originally posted by bmyers
There's nothing at all on that page which says anything at all about that question, and I fail to see how even you could infer the above from the information given there.

Mt. Everest about 28 degrees north latitude Height above sea level - 8463 meters
Distance of peak from Earth's center of mass - 6382.279 kilometers

What about this information, which can be found here? Notice it's the exact same site to which I linked before, which you said contained no such information.

I'd also still like to know which chapter of which book in the Bible implies a 6,000 year old universe. You said that this is how Dr. Humphreys derived his theory, and I want you to answer the question, or admit that you were merely blowing smoke.

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by D the Atheist

Just imagine for a moment, the effects of rain happening everywhere on the planet at 700 feet a day. That is the average rainfall. It may have been more and less in certain parts unless another averaging miracle (Magic) was at play.

You know, that IS another very interesting point.

An average rainfall of 700 feet per day represents a rate of

(700 x 12)/(24 x 60) = 8400/1440 = 5.83 inches/minute

Now, anyone who has spent any time chasing storms - and I've done that a bit, having worked some amateur radio storm reporting duty in the past - knows what a torrent just "inch an hour" rainfall is. And here we're talking about something that's about 350 times as bad. In very slightly longer than two minutes, every square foot on the planet would be struck by a cubic foot of water - about seven and a half gallons, or 62.4 pounds, falling onto the ground in about 124 seconds.

Those insects - and everything else - had BETTER be a lot hardier than we think!

Of course, along with the rest of the Earth, Noah's Ark would also be battered by this much water. The exact size of the Ark is a matter of some debate, but it appears safe to say that it would be at least 400 feet long, and we'll say 40 feet wide. (Remember, this is going to intentionally be a low-ball estimate - if the Ark is supposed to have been larger, things get much worse quickly.) An area of 16,000 square feet would be pummelled by half a million pounds of water every minute. Or in other words, every minute, Noah and family will have the equivalent of a typically-loaded Boeing 777 coming down on them.
This, on a craft made completely of wood, by a man who had no apparent marine engineering experience whatsoever. One wonders how they even managed to maintain breathing air in such a downpour.

Hey, forget the insects. We'd better hope that Noah was a lot hardier than we think!

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by bmyers
Ah, Jack continues to attempt humor in the absence of presenting any real arguments. When asked how practically the entire class Insecta managed to survive the supposed Genesis Flood, the best answer he can provide is "insects are a lot hardier than you seem to think." Which completely ignores the fact that the vast majority of insects are purely terrestrial (not aquatic), and could not possibly survive for an extended period of time in the absence of dry land. And so far, we HAVE just talked about the insects - not the rest of the phylum Arthropoda, which in recent estimates comprises some 5-6 million distinct species - again, primarily terrestrial.

But I'm sure we'll hear another "just so" story to explain this one, too...

I see you're not familiar with the concept of insect eggs undergoing dormancy. Perhaps this link will serve to introduce you to the concept by providing a couple examples of insect eggs that can remain dormant for over a year.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by bmyers
You know, that IS another very interesting point.

No, it's another strawman. The Bible never says the flood was caused simply by rain. Much of the water, if not most of it, came bursting up from beneath the ground. Furthermore, 700 feet per day for 40 days would be 28,000 feet. This is nearly three times the amount of water on the Earth.

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
No, it's another strawman. The Bible never says the flood was caused simply by rain. Much of the water, if not most of it, came bursting up from beneath the ground.

Well, THAT certainly looks like another very convenient point - were it not for the fact that you can't show any evidence of ANY place where sufficient water could possibly have been stored pre-Flood, or where it could have come "bursting up" in such torrents without leaving any trace of the event. You don't think that delivering this much water in the required time would leave a mark?

Question, Jack - at how many points should we believe this water came "bursting up"? Note that there are quite a few problems with saying "lots of them" (such as "where are they now?"), and just as many (if not more) with the idea that there were just a few bigger ones. But keep digging that hole, Jack - I'm sure you'll be striking water any moment now....

Of course, you're also on questionable ground when you say that "much...if not most [of the water] came bursting up from beneath the ground." The Bible makes no such claim; the only explictly-stated source for the flood waters noted in Genesis 7 is rain, specifically in the fourth verse (KJV):

"For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights, and every living substance that I have made I will destroy from off the face of the earth."

Every other reference to the water of the flood in Genesis speaks of it only as "the flood" or "the waters," without reference to any source other than rain.

Your assertion that Noah didn't have to take all of the insects (or apparently any of the other little creepy-crawlies) on to the Ark in order for them to have survived is also un-Biblical. Genesis 7, verses 21-23 state this quite clearly (again, KJV):

"And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man.

"All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, and all that was in the dry land, died,

"And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the earth, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven, and they were destroyed from the earth, and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark."

That last verse seems pretty unambiguous; if a living thing was not on the ark, it did not survive the flood. Period.

So now you find yourself in the interesting position of arguing not only with the physical evidence, but with the Bible as well. Enjoy.

 

[D the Atheist]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
No, it's another strawman. The Bible never says the flood was caused simply by rain. Much of the water, if not most of it, came bursting up from beneath the ground. Furthermore, 700 feet per day for 40 days would be 28,000 feet. This is nearly three times the amount of water on the Earth.

KJV Gen: 7-4 “For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights;”

No doubt you are selecting Gen: 6-17 “And behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth,” And by absence of the word rain you state it is implied by some other method.

What is your biblical quote to support this stance of yours?

Even if this water came from under the ground a hollow would then be made at 700 feet a day (Approximately) and end up being 28,000 feet in depth or the surface of the earth would have to be subsiding at 700 feet a day.

That amount of water is unknown of now and 700 feet a day subsidence would be an earthquake like no other ever known.

And yes you are most likely correct. That is far more water than is on the Earth now. Glad you recognise this point.

Science is very firm that the last 6 or 7 thousand years have not made the mountains from the small hill that YE’s suggest.

 

[D the Atheist]

Originally posted by bmyers

That last verse seems pretty unambiguous; if a living thing was not on the ark, it did not survive the flood. Period.

Maybe insects aren’t living things.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by bmyers
Well, THAT certainly looks like another very convenient point - were it not for the fact that you can't show any evidence of ANY place where sufficient water could possibly have been stored pre-Flood, or where it could have come "bursting up" in such torrents without leaving any trace of the event. You don't think that delivering this much water in the required time would leave a mark?

Of course it would, and it has. How many deep ocean trenches are there, anyway?

Question, Jack - at how many points should we believe this water came "bursting up"?

See my question above.

Of course, you're also on questionable ground when you say that "much...if not most [of the water] came bursting up from beneath the ground." The Bible makes no such claim; the only explictly-stated source for the flood waters noted in Genesis 7 is rain, specifically in the fourth verse (KJV):

You seem to have missed the eleventh.

"For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights, and every living substance that I have made I will destroy from off the face of the earth."

Every other reference to the water of the flood in Genesis speaks of it only as "the flood" or "the waters," without reference to any source other than rain.

Not true.

from Genesis:
7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Your assertion that Noah didn't have to take all of the insects (or apparently any of the other little creepy-crawlies) on to the Ark in order for them to have survived is also un-Biblical. Genesis 7, verses 21-23 state this quite clearly (again, KJV):

"And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man.

"All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, and all that was in the dry land, died,

Insects don't have nostrils.

That last verse seems pretty unambiguous; if a living thing was not on the ark, it did not survive the flood. Period.

What about the fish?

So now you find yourself in the interesting position of arguing not only with the physical evidence, but with the Bible as well. Enjoy.

I'm not arguing with the Bible. Fish don't live on dry land, and insects don't have nostrils.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by D the Atheist
Maybe insects aren’t living things.

Or maybe they just don't have nostrils. You've got to read carefully.

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

What about this information, which can be found here? Notice it's the exact same site to which I linked before, which you said contained no such information.

Yes, Jack, it's the same site you linked to before - and it didn't say anything at all about the difference between the geometric center of the planet and its center of mass, and - surprise! - it still doesn't! To draw the conclusions you have from what is presented there requires what might charitably be called some interesting, although unwarranted, assumptions.

I'd also still like to know which chapter of which book in the Bible implies a 6,000 year old universe. You said that this is how Dr. Humphreys derived his theory, and I want you to answer the question, or admit that you were merely blowing smoke.

Oh, come on, Jack, is this really the best you can do? Yes, I engaged in a bit of hyperbole - which does not in the least change the fact that Humphreys is engaged in madly waving his hands to reconcile the observed data with his pet notion of a young Earth/universe. It doesn't matter if the exact figure is 6,000 years, or whether that is implied in one chapter, an entire book, or even the whole Bible - the point is that Humprehys is most definitely not engaged in anything that could remotely be called scientific reasoning.

I don't understand why you seem to think that focusing on such minor points will divert anyone's attention from the fact that you are unable to address the larger questions AT ALL. Again, what do you think is the MAXIMUM age of the Earth or the universe permissible by the Bible? Six thousand years? Ten thousand? A hundred thousand? A million? A billion? Even an order of magnitude would be far more of an answer than you've provided so far.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by bmyers
Yes, Jack, it's the same site you linked to before - and it didn't say anything at all about the difference between the geometric center of the planet and its center of mass, and - surprise! - it still doesn't!

I never said it did. You're the one saying its geometric center isn't the center of mass. Are you now backpedaling?

Oh, come on, Jack, is this really the best you can do? Yes, I engaged in a bit of hyperbole - which does not in the least change the fact that Humphreys is engaged in madly waving his hands to reconcile the observed data with his pet notion of a young Earth/universe. It doesn't matter if the exact figure is 6,000 years, or whether that is implied in one chapter, an entire book, or even the whole Bible - the point is that Humprehys is most definitely not engaged in anything that could remotely be called scientific reasoning.

So you don't believe in the theory of general relativity?

I don't understand why you seem to think that focusing on such minor points will divert anyone's attention from the fact that you are unable to address the larger questions AT ALL. Again, what do you think is the MAXIMUM age of the Earth or the universe permissible by the Bible?

I've already said that the Earth is about 6,000 years old, and that the farthest reaches of the universe are around 14 or 15 billion years old.

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
I never said it did. You're the one saying its geometric center isn't the center of mass. Are you now backpedaling?

Sigh. You cited the page as saying that the geometric center is the center of mass. The page makes no such claim. Your silly "backpedaling" question is just another clumsy attempt at misdirection. Are you incapable of arguing points of fact, such that you feel you must resort to such comments just to seem to be staying afloat?

So you don't believe in the theory of general relativity?

THAT non-sequitur was quite a stretch, even for you.

I've already said that the Earth is about 6,000 years old, and that the farthest reaches of the universe are around 14 or 15 billion years old.

How...interesting. So you disagree with the ordering for creation given in Genesis 1, verses 2-17, in which the Earth is quite explicitly said to have been created before the stars?

 

[D the Atheist]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Or maybe they just don't have nostrils. You've got to read carefully.

The nostrils are irrelevant if you read even more carfefully.

“All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, and all that was in the dry land, died” and it goes on and every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the foul of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive. and they that were with him in the Ark.”

So let’s have a look at the underlined. AND ALL that was on the dry land died. AND ALL means AND ALL.

The creeping things died. This covers everything else especially when THE words EVERY LIVING SUBSTANCE are incorporated and not neglected.

And only Noah and his clan remained alive. I am sure whosoever wrote the alleged account recognised that insects were living things. Or were they more stupid than they made out.

Does this make it clearer Jack?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by bmyers
Sigh. You cited the page as saying that the geometric center is the center of mass. The page makes no such claim.

The information it contains seems to support such a claim. The figure they give for the Earth's center of mass roughly correlates with its geometric center. How do you explain that?

How...interesting. So you disagree with the ordering for creation given in Genesis 1, verses 2-17, in which the Earth is quite explicitly said to have been created before the stars?

Not at all. I do believe the Earth was created before the stars.