"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

fatmammycat · 03-03-2012 12:39pm

Heh, the ark, so stupid. Not at all surprised troll JC doesn't know what was written in the book of ancient myth he defends. Regarding the 'flood'. What happened to the salt water creatures when a fresh water flood happened? And vice versa?

Sarky · 03-03-2012 12:48pm

All his answers are a variant of "F*CKING MAGIC".

Man, I'm such a timesaver.

joseph brand · 03-03-2012 12:50pm

Sarky wrote: »

Please continue, J C. Your posts are obviously well-written and contain thought-provoking points, and are in no way a hilarious conglomeration of really stupid attempts to make science out of a millennia-old collection of shoddily-written books trying to convince tribes of desert goat herders that they had a manifest destiny.

Odds J C will not see the sarcasm? I'd say 50/50, at least.

He might not. He believes in this:

Zombrex · 03-03-2012 12:53pm

fatmammycat wrote: »

Heh, the ark, so stupid. Not at all surprised troll JC doesn't know what was written in the book of ancient myth he defends.

I would be surprised if JC has even read the Bible. As a troll pretending to be a Christian he has little need to, he just has to copy and paste things from Creationist websites.

Interesting research coming from Australia that trolls actual have a empathy detachment disorder.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/it-just-makes-me-happy-when-i-can-make-someone-angry-a-special-investigation-into-the-dark-world-of-trolling/story-e6frfro0-1226278282934

Almost makes me feel sorry for someone like JC. Almost.

Bannasidhe · 03-03-2012 1:01pm

joseph brand wrote: »

He might not. He believes in this:

They had Friesian cows on the Ark? :eek:

We'll have to reassess the whole timeline in that case - Friesian cattle have only been around for about 2,000 years which begs the question...did Jesus see the flood too? How did Noah get to Northern Europe to collect the Friesian's?

It's all very complicated isn't it....the logistics must have been a nightmare.

Sonics2k · 03-03-2012 1:06pm

J C wrote: »

There are over 500 stories/myths (amongst peoples all over the World) that recall a worldwide flood disaster. It is thought that they are all a common 'folk memory' of Noahs Flood with accounts of varying corruption of the real account due to the passage of time and repeated telling.

http://www.nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html

Did you also know that virtually every civilization across the world, from South America, to Europe, to Africa and as far as a Japan also had stories/myths about Vampires?

In each one they are essentially the same, undead Humans who feed on Human blood, the only real variations being the positioning of the teeth used to draw blood, and what animals they could turn into, such as Bats, Wolves, Hyenas and even Tigers.

By your own logic, I can claim that Vampires are as real as the Flood that you believe swept over the world, all based on stories and myths.

robindch · 03-03-2012 1:21pm

Uh, flood myths; von Däniken; shiver

oldrnwisr · 03-03-2012 1:38pm

OK, I think it's time to cut this "Flood Hypothesis" bull**** down to size.

What the Bible Says

It's important first of all to detail what the bible actually details so as to outline the constraints involved.

The dimensions of the ark are outlined in Genesis 6:15-16

"This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high. Make a roof for it, leaving below the roof an opening one cubit high all around. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks."

So the external dimensions are approx. 135m long, 23m wide and 14m high.

The loading of the ark is described in Genesis 6:19-21

"You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."

The effect of the flood is described in Genesis 7:17-24

"For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark. The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days."

Problem 1 - The Self-Contradictory Nature of the Bible

The first and one of the more significant problems (from JC's POV) is that once the author of Genesis goes about outlining the basic story in Genesis 6, he immediately begins to contradict it in Genesis 7. Genesis 7 begins with the following commentary:

"The LORD then said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.” "

This immediately creates two entirely different stories, one of gathering an innumerable amount of species and the other involving less than 300. Staying with the second one for a moment, the story differentiates between clean and unclean animals. This isn't a vague distinction, however. The "clean" animals are listed in Deuteronomy 14:4-5:

"These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, the deer, the gazelle, the roe deer, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope and the mountain sheep."

Similarly, the unclean animals are also listed, in Leviticus 11:4-19 and Deuteronomy 14:7-18:

“‘There are some that only chew the cud or only have a divided hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. The hyrax, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you. “‘Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams you may eat any that have fins and scales. But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to regard as unclean. And since you are to regard them as unclean, you must not eat their meat; you must regard their carcasses as unclean. Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be regarded as unclean by you. “‘These are the birds you are to regard as unclean and not eat because they are unclean: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat."

"However, of those that chew the cud or that have a divided hoof you may not eat the camel, the rabbit or the hyrax. Although they chew the cud, they do not have a divided hoof; they are ceremonially unclean for you. The pig is also unclean; although it has a divided hoof, it does not chew the cud. You are not to eat their meat or touch their carcasses. Of all the creatures living in the water, you may eat any that has fins and scales. But anything that does not have fins and scales you may not eat; for you it is unclean. You may eat any clean bird. But these you may not eat: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, the black kite, any kind of falcon, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the cormorant, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat."

So according to the second story, there were 10 pairs of clean animals and 30 pairs of unclean animals. In addition there were 7 pairs of each of the 5 species of clean bird giving 70 birds. Allowing for 12 sq. ft. per large animal and 4 sq. ft. per small animal and bird, this would require 2200 sq. ft. of deck area for the 270 animals, allowing plenty of space given the dimensions in Genesis 6 as well as cabin space for Noah and his family and food for all of them and the animals.

And there's the problem. The second story is perfectly reasonable in terms of workload, payload and logistics. It doesn't even begin, however, to address the repopulation of the earth or explain the biodiversity that we see today, supposedly 4000 years later (give or take). The first story due to its more ambiguous language allows for the possibility of taking the necessary animals for repopulation and alleged rapid speciation (although I'd love JC to show that) but is contradicted not only by the second story but also by the constraints imposed in the first story (i.e. the size of the ark). Either way, the combination is fatally flawed. So which is it to be, JC, Genesis 6 or 7?

Problem 2 - The Flood Hypothesis: Scientific Inferences

The next major problem is what the implications of the flood story being true are. These are the ones that JC seems to be banging on about the most, flood fossil record and such. So for the purposes of this section I'm sticking with the flood story as JC is using it.

2a - Flood Climatology

The first and most obvious problem when someone mentions global flood is where the water came from.

We know from extensive work done by the US Geological Survey that the current best estimate for the total volume of water on earth today is about 400 million cubic kilometres or about 400 million trillion litres. [Source]

Now, given a mean height above sea level of approx. 840m, the total volume of landmass above sea level is approx. 128.5 million cubic kilometres.

Since, according to the bible story above, the water reached over the tops of the mountains by 15 cubits, then we can calculate that the increase in water volume due to the flood is approx. 3.8 billion cubic kilometres or 3.8 billion trillion litres.

So, JC where did the extra 3.8 billion cubic kilometres of water come from, and more importantly, where did it go?

There are, obviously, several different "ideas" suggested by creationists to explain this such as vapour canopy (i.e. suspended in the atmosphere), hydroplate (i.e. trapped underground), cometary impact, runaway subduction (i.e. the pre-flood lithosphere was denser than the mantle), topographical restructuring (i.e. flood caused changes to crust density and created oceans as they presently are). None of these ideas stand up to even the most basic scientific scrutiny, though, so how do you explain it JC?

Secondly, the idea of a global flood means that we should expect to see certain evidence and changes in something, like say, ice cores which go back tens of thousands of years. Changes in salinity from all this extra fresh water or layers of sediment or thermal stress cracks. We don't see any of this, however, as you can see here:

Climate and atmospheric history ofthe past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica

Irregular glacial interstadials recorded in a new Greenland ice core

Abrupt increase in Greenland snow accumulation at the end of the Younger Dryas event

Dust-climate couplings over the past 800,000 years from the EPICA Dome C ice core

I'm afraid I'm going to have to return to this in a little while. I'll be back soon to finish off JC this post.

Sarky · 03-03-2012 1:43pm

Sonics2k wrote: »

Did you also know that virtually every civilization across the world, from South America, to Europe, to Africa and as far as a Japan also had stories/myths about Vampires?

In each one they are essentially the same, undead Humans who feed on Human blood, the only real variations being the positioning of the teeth used to draw blood, and what animals they could turn into, such as Bats, Wolves, Hyenas and even Tigers.

By your own logic, I can claim that Vampires are as real as the Flood that you believe swept over the world, all based on stories and myths.

Pfft, why do you think Jesus insisted on everyone drinking his blood?

He was clearly a god-forsaken creature of the night.

clever_name · 03-03-2012 2:12pm

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I'm afraid I'm going to have to return to this in a little while. I'll be back soon to finish off JC this post.

Good post, I would not waste time trying to further educate J C about this, he will realize that opening the floodgates (insert rimshot FX) was a booboo and move on.

my guess will be he will post something along the lines of "the numbers do not matter... what matters is that God created glory... and men for muck is still a fairytale

then he will get back into character and make sure to leave the flood out of his copy & paste routine for a bit.

clever_name · 03-03-2012 2:14pm

Sonics2k wrote: »

Did you also know that virtually every civilization across the world, from South America, to Europe, to Africa and as far as a Japan also had stories/myths about Vampires?

In each one they are essentially the same, undead Humans who feed on Human blood, the only real variations being the positioning of the teeth used to draw blood, and what animals they could turn into, such as Bats, Wolves, Hyenas and even Tigers.

By your own logic, I can claim that Vampires are as real as the Flood that you believe swept over the world, all based on stories and myths.

Keep it on the down low will ya!, we have spend centuries making the daywalking happy-meals think we are fake!

J C · 03-03-2012 9:12pm

Teg Veece wrote: »

Does the image of kangaroos and koala bears crossing frozen oceans during an Ice Age not strike you as a bit odd though?

The ice was confined to the higher latitudes ... and there was no ice in the tropics ... through which animals migrated from Asia to Australia.

Teg Veece wrote: »

I'm a bit confused about this part. I thought that creationists believed that two monkey mates could only ever produce another monkey. I think you use the analogy of a stamp in one of your videos saying no matter how manner times you stamp it, it will still produce the same image. Doesn't a large cat pair producing every other type of large cat species eventually not fly in the face of all that?

Species today are relatively 'fixed' ... but all of the Big Cats are inter-fertile thereby indicating that they were one Kind originally.

Teg Veece wrote: »

Last question for now, I'm genuinely intrigued by this. I was looking on some websites regarding Noah's Ark after you mentioned it and noticed that a lot of them say Dinosaurs were also on the Ark. Is this the general consensus among creationists or are those websites in the tiny minority?

... its generally accepted ... and the many folk tales about 'Dragons' being killed are probably based on the fact that some Dinosaurs survived up until relatively recently.

Teg Veece wrote: »

Thanks again for your answers. It's interesting hearing an alternative viewpoint on some of these issues.

No problem. That's why Creation Scientists also keep up to date with the latest Evolution Hypotheses ... its always interesting to see what other people think.

oldrnwisr · 03-03-2012 9:29pm

2a - Flood climatology contd.

One last point on this before I move on. The flood is depicted in the bible as having been enacted through rainfall. This creates a problem in and of itself.

The story says that the mountain covered the tops of the mountains by 15 cubits. It also says that the rainfall lasted 40 days, with the flood lasting a further 150. That means the average rainfall at sea level over the course of 40 days is approx. 738000mm or 18450mm per day. This is 10 times more than the heaviest daily rainfall ever recorded. So, again JC, how do you explain this?

2b - The geological record

The geological record problem is the biggest one that JC has to face up to. According to JC and his ilk:

J C wrote: »

... none of this makes any sense using a 'long ages' Evolutionist interpretation ... but it is perfectly in line with what would be expected if the rocks and their fossils were laid down raidly by Noah's Flood

The thing is that there is a mountain of evidence which is either a) not explained by or b) directly contradicted by the flood story.

The first of these is the presence of surface features deep within the geologic record. Like this core sample showing ten years of plant growth found 7000 feet down in Colorado:

or ant burrows:

or even desiccation cracks:

In addition to these, researchers have found river channels, meteorite impacts, dinosaur footprints and coral reefs with no explanation being offered by creationists for such features.

Unfortunately, to deal with this area of the flood in any great detail would require vast pages and pages of discussion so it must be necessarily summary.

The two problems as I have already stated are: questions not answered by the creationist position and inaccuracies in the creationist position. The questions are so numerous that they themselves would take up an inordinate amount of space but I'm going to include a short list as an example of what I'm talking about.

Questions/problems created by the idea of a global flood:

Where did all the organic material (e.g. chalk, coal) in the fossil record come from?
How was the heat from metamorphic events like limestone formation dissipated?
Why are there no modern plants, or, for that matter, human artifacts or other fossils found deep in the geologic column?
Why do smaller organisms dominate the lower strata instead of having floated to the upper strata if the flood were true?
Why is the ecological information consistent within but not between layers in the fossil record?
How could varves have been formed so quickly?
Why do marine fossils vastly outnumber land animals in the fossil record?

The other problem is that when the creationists do decide to put forward a theory it is invariably wrong. Take the Karroo Formation for example. Both Henry Morris and Duane Gish have claimed that the Karroo formation contains the remains of 800 billion fossil animals laid down during the flood. The problem with that is that the mean animal size is that of a fox. So if all those fossils had been victims of the flood, there would have been at least 21 of them for every acre of land on earth.

2c - Post-flood: Speciation and bio-diversity

There are two principal problems here, the survival of the creatures taken aboard the ark and their extremely rapid speciation to account for the biodiversity we see today.

The first problem is how these creatures survived post-flood? The bible story tells that the destruction wrought by the flood was complete and that the top of the mountains were covered by water for 150 days (at least). Water is not a very good conductor of light (to put it in those terms). The abyssal zone of the ocean where absolutely no light penetrates begins at about 2000m below the surface. Therefore any plants living on land would have been killed from lack of sunlight within a few days or weeks. So even when the flood waters receded, what were these animals on the ark going to eat?

Secondly, the animal kingdom is made up of endless predator-prey relationships. How were such relationships maintained post-flood. It must have been the case that at least some of the animals on the ark would have died from starvation with only one pair of prey animals to feed on.

Thirdly, there is the rapid speciation of those that survive. There are currently about 8.7 million species on Earth as shown in the graph below:

Now, no creationist has yet come forward to put a definite figure on the number of created kinds or what they were so it's hard to quantify a starting point, but even were it in the thousands (which is unlikely) the diversification even among kingdom Animalia is impossible to explain using the creationist viewpoint. A better representation of that is seen below:

As I have posted previously, this pattern shows the action of evolution over time, something not explained by creationism or JC.

Problem 3 - The universality of flood myth

JC has pointed out, correctly for once, that there are a great many flood myths recorded throughout history.

J C wrote: »

There are over 500 stories/myths (amongst peoples all over the World) that recall a worldwide flood disaster. It is thought that they are all a common 'folk memory' of Noahs Flood with accounts of varying corruption of the real account due to the passage of time and repeated telling.

http://www.nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html

The problem for JC is that this is something which runs utterly counter to the idea of the Noachian flood as being a historical event.

First of all, the account of the Noachian flood in Genesis is not what Christians claim that it is. Unlike the assertion of Christians that the pentateuch was written by Moses, the scholarly consensus since at least the first half of the 20th century was that the pentateuch was drawn from four distinct sources: the Elohist, the Yawhist, the Priestly and the Deuteronomist source. Then in the 1970s the increasing archaeological evidence prompted a revision in the consensus. Now the consensus holds that the Yahwhist source was written just before the Babylonian Exile in the 6th century BC, with the other portions following either during or after the exile.

Immediately this undermines the veracity of the Noachian narrative since we have evidence of flood myths older than the one told in the Bible including:

Epic of Gilgamesh (Sumerian) - 13th century BC
Manu (Hinduism) - 8th century BC
Great Flood (China) - 3rd millennium BC
Tiddalik (Aborigine) - 10000 BC

We also have flood myths which bear no resemblance to the narrative presented in Genesis, which contradicts JC's assertion that they borrowed from the story of Noah's flood. Such myths include "The Entrance to the Fourth World" in Hopi mythology, The Legend of Trenten Vilu in Chilean mythology and Tawhaki in Maori mythology.

Teg Veece, you'll find that JC and his creationist rabble are dishonest, deceitful and for the most part wilfully ignorant. The Noachian flood explains nothing of what we see in paleontology, geology, oceanography etc. The story is so utterly bereft of detail and coherent thought that it creates more questions than, even by its own feeble standards, it attempts to answer.

Oh, and clever_name, I know that JC will never learn or take on board any of the points I have made. I learned that lesson after my first few posts in this thread. However, because of the occasional visitor who is genuinely curious about this debate its important to refute the crap that JC manages to come out with.

J C · 03-03-2012 9:35pm

dlofnep wrote: »

And why did all marsupials go to Australia? Did they all go together as a big gang?

Like I have already said ... here is what evolutionists themselves say happened (My Comments in Red):-
Quote:-
The best evidence is that marsupials originated Asia, (Mount Ararat) migrated to North America via a land bridge, and that they co-existed with placental mammals in the northern hemisphere for some time. Marsupials colonized first South America, and from there moved on to Antarctica and then Australia. (I think they colonised both continents simultaneously over land bridges and/or Human introduction) The marsupial populations in Asia and North America went extinct, possibly as a result of competition with placental mammals among other factors, and the populations on southern continents remained in those safe havens.(Agreed)
http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/marsupials

dlofnep wrote: »

What did the Thylacine eat along the way?

Anything it could catch ... and vegetation when it couldn't!!!!

dlofnep wrote: »

There was no Ice age in the past 6,000 years, so how did they get there? Perhaps they hitched a ride on the back of a Whale? ..

They probably crossed over on a land bridge 6,500 years ago!!!
They may also have hitched a ride in a canoe ... or on a vegetation raft ... which were quite common in the immediate aftermath of the flood.

dlofnep · 03-03-2012 9:41pm

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

J C · 03-03-2012 9:44pm

clever_name wrote: »

JC I am disappointed in you, rookie mistake you made there giving away the fact that you have no idea whats in the bible.

Genesis 7:2-3 - Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.

This is where you got your facts from I believe, you should have read past the first few lines.

http://www.poppyfields.net/poppy/songs/twobytwo.html

I know you make up most of the stuff in your posts on the fly but try to stay in character and get the bible stuff right.

I was using 'shorthand' ... there were a relatively small number of Human food producing (or clean) Kinds ... and you are correct that 7 pairs of these animals were taken on board (and seven pairs of bird Kinds) ... while 2 pairs of the unclean Kinds were also taken.

dlofnep · 03-03-2012 9:48pm

Hey J C - According to your definition of kind - would these be the classified as the same kind?

Mr. Boo · 03-03-2012 9:52pm

dlofnep wrote: »

Hey J C - According to your definition of kind - would these be the classified as the same kind?

Yes, they are both of the little brown jobbie with wings kind from which bats and politicians arose.

dlofnep · 03-03-2012 9:53pm

Please allow for J C to answer the question.

Sonics2k · 03-03-2012 9:58pm

Why won't JC respond to my Vampires are real theory

Or is that just a too weird?

J C · 03-03-2012 10:12pm

joseph brand wrote: »

He might not. He believes in this:

... actually something more like this:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws_imCi0Hsw

J C · 03-03-2012 10:33pm

Sonics2k wrote: »

Did you also know that virtually every civilization across the world, from South America, to Europe, to Africa and as far as a Japan also had stories/myths about Vampires?

In each one they are essentially the same, undead Humans who feed on Human blood, the only real variations being the positioning of the teeth used to draw blood, and what animals they could turn into, such as Bats, Wolves, Hyenas and even Tigers.

By your own logic, I can claim that Vampires are as real as the Flood that you believe swept over the world, all based on stories and myths.

They walk amongst us ... mostly at night!!!:):eek:

Sonics2k · 03-03-2012 10:54pm

Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if you really meant it.

J C · 03-03-2012 11:03pm

oldrnwisr wrote: »

What the Bible Says

It's important first of all to detail what the bible actually details so as to outline the constraints involved.
The dimensions of the ark are outlined in Genesis 6:15-16

"This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high. Make a roof for it, leaving below the roof an opening one cubit high all around. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks."

So the external dimensions are approx. 135m long, 23m wide and 14m high. Agree

The loading of the ark is described in Genesis 6:19-21

"You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."
Agree

The effect of the flood is described in Genesis 7:17-24

"For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark. The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days."
Agree

Problem 1 - The Self-Contradictory Nature of the Bible

The first and one of the more significant problems (from JC's POV) is that once the author of Genesis goes about outlining the basic story in Genesis 6, he immediately begins to contradict it in Genesis 7. Genesis 7 begins with the following commentary:

"The LORD then said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.” "

This immediately creates two entirely different stories, one of gathering an innumerable amount of species and the other involving less than 300.
Disagree
Staying with the second one for a moment, the story differentiates between clean and unclean animals. This isn't a vague distinction, however. The "clean" animals are listed in Deuteronomy 14:4-5:

"These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, the deer, the gazelle, the roe deer, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope and the mountain sheep."
Agree
Similarly, the unclean animals are also listed, in Leviticus 11:4-19 and Deuteronomy 14:7-18:
Agree
“‘There are some that only chew the cud or only have a divided hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. The hyrax, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you. “‘Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams you may eat any that have fins and scales. But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to regard as unclean. And since you are to regard them as unclean, you must not eat their meat; you must regard their carcasses as unclean. Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be regarded as unclean by you. “‘These are the birds you are to regard as unclean and not eat because they are unclean: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat."

"However, of those that chew the cud or that have a divided hoof you may not eat the camel, the rabbit or the hyrax. Although they chew the cud, they do not have a divided hoof; they are ceremonially unclean for you. The pig is also unclean; although it has a divided hoof, it does not chew the cud. You are not to eat their meat or touch their carcasses. Of all the creatures living in the water, you may eat any that has fins and scales. But anything that does not have fins and scales you may not eat; for you it is unclean. You may eat any clean bird. But these you may not eat: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, the black kite, any kind of falcon, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the cormorant, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat."
Not an exhaustive list of unclean animals ... just typical examples
So according to the second story, there were 10 pairs of clean animals and 30 pairs of unclean animals. In addition there were 7 pairs of each of the 5 species of clean bird giving 70 birds. Allowing for 12 sq. ft. per large animal and 4 sq. ft. per small animal and bird, this would require 2200 sq. ft. of deck area for the 270 animals, allowing plenty of space given the dimensions in Genesis 6 as well as cabin space for Noah and his family and food for all of them and the animals.

And there's the problem. The second story is perfectly reasonable in terms of workload, payload and logistics. It doesn't even begin, however, to address the repopulation of the earth or explain the biodiversity that we see today, supposedly 4000 years later (give or take). The first story due to its more ambiguous language allows for the possibility of taking the necessary animals for repopulation and alleged rapid speciation (although I'd love JC to show that) but is contradicted not only by the second story but also by the constraints imposed in the first story (i.e. the size of the ark). Either way, the combination is fatally flawed. So which is it to be, JC, Genesis 6 or 7?

Have a look here
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html

Problem 2 - The Flood Hypothesis: Scientific Inferences

The next major problem is what the implications of the flood story being true are. These are the ones that JC seems to be banging on about the most, flood fossil record and such. So for the purposes of this section I'm sticking with the flood story as JC is using it.

2a - Flood Climatology

The first and most obvious problem when someone mentions global flood is where the water came from.

We know from extensive work done by the US Geological Survey that the current best estimate for the total volume of water on earth today is about 400 million cubic kilometres or about 400 million trillion litres. [Source]

Now, given a mean height above sea level of approx. 840m, the total volume of landmass above sea level is approx. 128.5 million cubic kilometres.

Since, according to the bible story above, the water reached over the tops of the mountains by 15 cubits, then we can calculate that the increase in water volume due to the flood is approx. 3.8 billion cubic kilometres or 3.8 billion trillion litres.

So, JC where did the extra 3.8 billion cubic kilometres of water come from, and more importantly, where did it go?

If the surface of the earth was perfectly smooth the entire surface would be completely covered by a continuous layer of seawater 2,686 metres deep or 1.6 miles ... so there is more that enough water on the earth to flood it completely and comprehensively!!!

.

dlofnep · 03-03-2012 11:12pm

J C, learn how to use the quote function properly. I know you are of limited intelligence, but even you can figure it out.

MUSEIST · 04-03-2012 12:29am

J C wrote: »

... actually something more like this:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws_imCi0Hsw

It would take a biblical sized boat to be able to carry 2 of all species (there are hundreds of thousands). Food for all of them, fresh water, somewhere to leave all the sh!t, veterinary supplies (be a feckin nightmare if one died), individual cages and areas for disease control and to prevent animals killing each other, several hundred lucky volunteers to make sure it all runs smoothly.

So yeah, seems plausible to me:)

oldrnwisr · 04-03-2012 12:50am

J C wrote: »

Disagree

With what exactly? And why?

J C wrote: »

Not an exhaustive list of unclean animals ... just typical examples

OK, demonstrate that it's not an exhaustive list and also provide said exhaustive list.

J C wrote: »

Have a look here
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html

I did. What a load of demented horse****!

Its length to width ratio of six to one provided excellent stability on the high seas.

If that were the only factor then I might agree with you but its not. We know that there are many other factors affecting the stability of a boat, not least of which is the construction material. We also know from the ships that were built which approached that size like the Rochambeau that wooden craft of that magnitude are notoriously unstable and incapable of adequately responding to the changing stresses associated with open seas.

Let’s assume 50,000 animals, far more animals than required, were on board the ark, and these need not have been the largest or even adult specimens.

OK, but then looking back, the author assumes a floor area of just 100,000 square feet. So that's 2 sq. feet, on average, per animal. I don't think crowded comes close to describing those conditions.

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.

Since when is the dinosaur a single animal. What about brachiosaurs, pterodons, T. Rex etc. etc. You know, these dinosaurs:

List of dinosaurs

And what exactly do you mean by a few. This article is very light on actual data.

By the way, as for another problem which the article avoids, how do 8 people look after 50,000 animals. There are 90 zookeepers in London Zoo and they only have 16000 animals. This suggestion of "dormancy" isn't backed up by anything, just like the rest of the article.

All in all its the same speculative crap you've been posting for 8000 posts now.

J C wrote: »

If the surface of the earth was perfectly smooth the entire surface would be completely covered by a continuous layer of seawater 2,686 metres deep or 1.6 miles ... so there is more that enough water on the earth to flood it completely and comprehensively!!!

Yes, but it isn't. Not even the biblical story claims such a thing since it mentions the flood covering the mountains and the ark coming to rest on Mount Ararat (any luck in finding it there btw?). Even if it didn't mention mountains, you haven't provided any evidence to suggest that this was the case.

Even by your pitiful posting standards JC, that was beyond feeble.

J C · 04-03-2012 4:40pm

oldrnwisr wrote: »

With what exactly? And why?

I disagree that the Bible is contradictory on the number of animals on the Ark. It doesn't give a number ... it gives examples of clean and unclean animals.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

OK, demonstrate that it's not an exhaustive list and also provide said exhaustive list.

It isn't exhaustive ... as there were and are more Kinds than those listed ... like I have said, they are examples.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I did. What a load of demented horse****!

I could say the same about Abiogenesis-Evolution ... but I wouldn't ... as that would get us all nowhere!!!

oldrnwisr wrote: »

If that were the only factor then I might agree with you but its not. We know that there are many other factors affecting the stability of a boat, not least of which is the construction material. We also know from the ships that were built which approached that size like the Rochambeau that wooden craft of that magnitude are notoriously unstable and incapable of adequately responding to the changing stresses associated with open seas.

The ability to build very large seaworthy wooden ships was held by the Ancient Chinese whose treasure ships were reputed to be 127x52 metres ... in comparison with 137x23 metres for Noah's Ark.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world's_largest_wooden_ships
... also bear in mind that Noah's Ark didn't need to be manoeuvred like a ship needs to be, in order to avoid rocks and to tie up in port ... all the Ark needed to do was to float about on endless seas ... until the lands started to rise above the waves ... and it ran aground.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

OK, but then looking back, the author assumes a floor area of just 100,000 square feet. So that's 2 sq. feet, on average, per animal. I don't think crowded comes close to describing those conditions.

The author was being conservative ... the Ark was actually 45 feet high and thus was about six stories high and would therefore have a total floor area of approximately 200,000 square feet ... and 50,000 animals is being exceedingly generous ... some estimates have concluded that 1,000 Kinds (approximately 2,000 animals) would hav been sufficient.

Quote from feasibility study:-
The total cubic volume would have been 1,518,000 cubic feet [462,686.4 cubic meters] --that would be equal to the capacity of 569 modern railroad stock cars...
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.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Since when is the dinosaur a single animal. What about brachiosaurs, pterodons, T. Rex etc. etc. You know, these dinosaurs:

List of dinosaurs
And what exactly do you mean by a few. This article is very light on actual data.

Some Dinosaur Kinds may have already been extinct by the time of Noah's Flood ... and some may have become extinct during the Flood ... so the number of Dinosaur Kinds on the Ark may have been quite limited.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

By the way, as for another problem which the article avoids, how do 8 people look after 50,000 animals. There are 90 zookeepers in London Zoo and they only have 16000 animals. This suggestion of "dormancy" isn't backed up by anything, just like the rest of the article.

'Dormancy' is a distinct possibility ... as this was a unique and very stressful time.
London Zoo needs to keep animals indefinitely and they need to maintain gardens and buildings as well as disposing of waste within a city environment.
Noah's Ark was new and designed to be occupied for only about one year.
Waste disposal was no problem ... it would simply have flowed over the sides through slits in the sides into the sea!!!
Animals that were in peak condition and young could survive on minimal rations ... and feed demand would be even less if 'dormancy' was induced naturally or pharmaceutically.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Yes, but it isn't. Not even the biblical story claims such a thing since it mentions the flood covering the mountains and the ark coming to rest on Mount Ararat (any luck in finding it there btw?). Even if it didn't mention mountains, you haven't provided any evidence to suggest that this was the case.

With a capacity to inundate the entire globe to a depth of 1.6 miles ... the point is that there is adequate water to cover the Earth totally, if the Earth surface was somewhat smoother that it is today.

There are intriguing recent reports of finding Noah's Ark on Ararat ... but I have an open mind on what exactly has been found:-
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/noahs-ark-found-10496395

Sarky · 04-03-2012 4:45pm

Sure you do.

Years after it's been shown to be crap, you'll still be parroting on about how the ark was found on mount Ararat. And we shall still be laughing at you.

dlofnep · 04-03-2012 4:50pm

LOL @ J C still continuing this escapade. Keep posting J C, but make it quick - I'm looking for something entertaining to read while I have a cup of tea.