Quote:
Originally Posted by cpsTN
Your animosity is showing. They weren't recreated because doing all of this was partly to show the faithfulness of Noah. I would say there were not nearly as many types of creatures on Earth at that time. Many of the creatures we have now, I would think, probably came from interbreading among existing animals. All of the sea creatures were not on board, I would say anyway.
Charles Sands
37129
|
Politely stated: your commentary highlighted in blue above, is totally and unthinkingly speculative, with no basis in biological FACT nor ecological soundness. I'll happily show you why.
Why would you say
...all the sea creatures were not on board... anyway."? Please understand the critical importance of
specific salinity and water density, tempurature and oxygenation levels to
all marine and fresh water life forms. I'll let
you look that term
salination up if you
really care to learn about it.
Then consider that the global intermixing of
all the fresh water, lakes and rivers and swamps and so on, with oceanic saline water. The result: all the world's water, saline or fresh, brackish or gin-clear mountain meltwaters, would all thus be "contaminated". would have their salinity completely savaged. Then consider all the oceanic organisms with
their salinity completely altered.
FACT: all such marine, lacustrine ( look it up...) water-quality-dependent organisms would be completely devastated, not to mention all the marine & fresh-water plants (try inundating your pet rose plant or whatever in your house with some nice salty but also cold ocean water. Heck, even mix it down 50:50 with fresh! But make sure theses are not your spouse's prize house plants first, OK?
)
Then try putting that same dilute mixuture into your tropical fresh water fish tank. The next day (actually, in about an hour or less..) they will be a-floatin' upside down, eyes glazed over and all ;puffy (the variation in osmotic {look it up...} pressure bulges their once-cute little peepers right out of their heads...) it'll be off to the pet store to buy new ones. More money out of your pocket but science does have it's costs...
This does not even
begin to address the other "little" problem of feeding and providing drinking water for the relative few pairs of animals, including the reproductively necessary numbers of T-Rexs, Brontosauri, and herds of Velociraptors that he could have stowed on board, with no access to heat, light (
meaning many animals!
Btw, we now KNOW, as FACT, that there were
at least 3000 very different species [as we define that word, properly...] of giant lizards alone, also known as dinosaurs, extant pre-Noah's fludd. Trying to hide this glaring problem under the heading of "animal and plant types!"? That old "saw" simply does not cut it, and is also easily explained to be a massively incorrect error, but that's another long post. But do let me know if you want the skinny on that stuff, n'Kay?
We also have that danged geological column with all it's chronologically sorted and accurately dated preserved finds in the Arctic and in glacier core samples and in lacustrine and riverine sedimentary deposits, all of them measured to be literally millions of years in the making... (
varves... look it up... I've done a peer-reviewed paper in that one, so I can
really attend to the details if you'd like!) alone, prove that issue up.
http://irapl.altervista.org/cpm/albu...zona--Port.jpg
No argument possible, unless you tell us that all such dating methods, including simple counting (tree rings, sediment strata, lake bottom cores samples and so on...) are completely inaccurate, though using entirely different methods, and different research teams, those techniques all co-support each otehr and also accurately measure the ages or chronologies of
known items or artifacts. Dang it agan, huh,
cps?.
And let's not forget all the
plants Noah would absolutely
have to have HAD on board. And so, equally obvious [
]; do you also imagine we can submerge
all land plant species for 18 mo. with absolutely no consequences to their operational requirements or proper environs? Cheetahs don't just sit about with nothing to eat, ditto for polar, grizzly and all the other bears, plus footloose pandas, raccoons, kangaroos, jackals, African wild-dogs and the like simply dismissing them as mere "types"? What does that mean
cps: I'm honestly curious: "types" of animals? Doesn't produce too much good info when I try to "look it up" as referencing the biblical fludd. Must be a biblical term rather carelessly interpreted then, huh? Like "types" of cat breeds being identical to the concept of two-only giraffes forming up some kangaroos shortly after this magical hydrologic event. That be the way as you imagine it, cps?
Yazzuh; I can imagine all those predators and their pray, trying to sneak about for a good tactical attack position amongst the now rotting and stinking vegetation piled up on the floor, water leaking in through the mud-chunked-up walls as this tub of creaking wood surges about in the throes of the macro-storm outside, Noah & sons frantically bailing......
http://www.hydrolance.net/Common/Rou...hipInStorm.jpg
{PS: the ship in this picture was created using now-known oceanic engineering principles, plus poswer, steerage, water-tighness, but also drinking water & gfood and heat and light... and still, they can do this...
http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/sinking-ship-2.jpg
While this sort
God's Phhun & Gaymes, version 1.01 topside are happening (Noah no doubt inn his bridge command seat...)...
http://www.bu.edu/today/files/2011/0...KOWSKI-063.jpg
All while those lucky little lesser-consumers are prowling around on Deck 12... for a meal out of some convenient garbage can (
) twice a day. Bats in the roofs? Birds, all of the 'kinds" in the entire world, trying each night to get a warm but also fresh-air supplied roosting position. [NOTE: agressive albatrosses and big old seagulls
always win out over some danged chirping and loving robin or hummingbird 'type'...] Then there's all the different kinds of blind cave lizards and adapted mammals and skinks and snakes and cave fungi and snails and centipedes... all descended from them soon-to-be outrageously busy cockroaches, from where we all
probably came from... ?
Oh, and not to mention pythons, cobas, a plethora of pigs and sheep (not ever to be "of the same 'kind', would you not agree,
cps? I mean..
really now... All those fidgety leopards, lions and so on and so on.
Well then... righty-ho! Everyone.. just snuggle up a bit, OK? It's only another 5 - 6 months 'till we unceremoniously kick-drop you off on a frozen glacier, and you can find your own ways home, with no drinkable fresh water or undamaged plants to eat. Stay fit, I always say!
Oh well, this issue and so-called debate* has been dragged out so many times, to see it proposed and defended yet again, is so utterly tiresome, since fundamentalist Christians then go into trying to defend i all with bogus science.
Remember I've predicted this response, and so we'll all be so very interested to watch the response following from our spokesperson for Christian Reality Presentations! My prediction remains: I doubt fundamentalist Christians are capable of EVER saying:
"You know, you bring up some very valid ecological and hydrological and thermal and atmospheric and geological issues. I'm going to honestly investigate what you've said with a truly open mind!" (PS: if you do in fact go for it, I can easily and politely provide you with straightforward point-by-point info via DMs. The offer is now officially up on the board.)
Alternately, just in case you think I'm just an aging simpleton know-it-all blowhard, my particular professional career background was as a wildlife biologist, ecologist, field geologist specializing in sediment and debris flow events, and a few other valid specialties, all of which, sadly but factually, seems to trump your imaginative and speculative understandings of such macro-events. That much is easily seen by your technically errant commentary. To just assume your comment is even possible:
"Oh, the fishies are in some sort of water, [after all, it's composition is al the same, everywhere, be it Antarctica, the Amazon, the Sea of Japan, the Columbia and Mississippi rivers and so on...]? Wowweee!
After all, who cares about water's oxygenation levels or temperature or flow rate or sediment load: an Amazonian fresh-water fish will be right at home in the frigid and salty fludd waters of the Columbia in mid-spring freshet, they all happily playing about in God's wonderful world, gleefully dabbling and cavitating alongside a specialized deep water coral (yup: they too are symbiotic little micro-organisms but absolutely need specific pHs (look that up too...) and temp ranges) so they will be OK!" is so sadly lacking in fact.
{PS:If you do look up corals, you'll note that they are dying off in large volumes down in the Great Barrier Reef, due to minor but now measured micro-changes in temp and pH. Just thought you'd like to know...}
Durned FACTS, huh? Always getting in the way of the truth. Kiddies
absolutely believe in Santa as well [as young naive minds, they are strung along in this materialistic culture to expect it as well as the mandatory pile of presents from Costco or Wal-Mart.... ] just as young spiritually empty kiddie-heads are roted-chant taught in Sunday School to believe in such stuff as Noah's Ark, preferring to ignore that it's but a simple message device. Also look up allegory and metaphor, OK? .
Because then, some day in their lives they ask you
"So... how does that big fat guy get down our tiny 6" diameter gas furnace chimney, dad?" And the *** is thus forever "toast". And yet such thinking, demonstrated by any literally 8+ year old, seems to evade the closed Christian mind...
But I also know you will not even entertain these ecological facts in evidence. Just the fact that, pre Noah's time, there were probably at least 25 - 40 MILLION unique species on this planet, all backwards-linked by the new but also
inarguable science of DNA genetic lineage tracking.
Noah would have to have provided all the necessary and unique lifestyle environments for reproducible numbers of all those species, not just "two" of each. Sunday School comix style of thinking seems to be v. persuasive to even adult Christian minds! As in: Polar bears and cheetahs and dingo doggies (all the same 'type' again,
cps?)do
not sit around in sweat- and stench-filled, not to mention leaky... old wooden barges, on a constantly rolling ocean, with nothing provided for them to eart. A cheetah eats one gazzelle every two to three days. A cougar eats a deer a week. And so on.
These known and verifiable FACTS, along with all the other logical deconsructions of claimed biblical miracles
(e.g.: a guy living in the acidic, oxygen free stomach of a fish, (actually a whale...), for whatever time it was? Q: ever seen one of those TV media coverages of some beached and dead whale or shark, and they open up their stomachs? Such fabulously livable conditions, but where did Jonah plug in his coffee maker pray tell? The Grand Canyon formed up in... what's the current "theory"? Anywhere from one to 6 days of very "fluddy" and violent action! Also hydrologically & geologically impossible, but then: who's checking on that sort of thing? Anyone? Anyone? (<cricketz>)
Yup: that one's so very credible, and yet I see where many fundies actually literally believe in all that stuff too... I mean, they have to, apparently. RTheir ingrained mindsets are apparently incapable of separating out allegorical or metaphorical (look them up..) connections... "He had arms like cedar trees!" Really?).
http://0.tqn.com/d/weirdnews/1/0/D/W...hands-feet.jpg
FACT: all of these investigations, honest and forthright, done by separated and intensely ethical researchers, end up in the same way. They inevitably & completely deconstruct and shatter the ideas of an inerrant bible and it's associated miracles.
Pause for intermission and...
VERY IMPORTANT ADMISSION AND NOTE RIGHT ABOUT.... HERE!:
I will say, absolutely, as a scientist and thus (
) atheist, that I do not toss ever out the bible as a metaphorical teaching and good living guideline instrument. It's simply NOT an scientifically accurate or useful & defensible source of technical information. It
was written by scientifically illiterate wandering minstrels, after all. Agreed,
cps?
As well, I am more than willing to see the independent research done by you or some credible Christian University (no, not
The Creation Institute lovingly and fiscally-rapaciously brought to you by Cocoa Puffs, or... no wait... sorry: it was non other than the redoubtable and ethically unbound Carl Baugh, with his self-appointed pHd...) according to the accurate information that any credible and published scientific paper or the specific Journal it might end up published in, requires, to re-do any of the studies that you might chose to challenge
__________________________________________________ ________.
And yet, like seasonal clockwork, this
"Noah's Ark as literal truth" topic gets trotted out, so utterly reliable & predictable, either to demo the utter lack of Christian understanding in the most basic topic lessons, coupled with their seeming inability to fathom even the simplest logic. Or otherwise, most sadly, they are
purposefully trolling us, just to tweek anyone with a rational and educated mind, which in this case means anyone who took even a Grade 8 high school science class.
Sadly for the trollistás or biologically/oceanographically/geologically uneducated, such FACTS are persistent and inarguable. And...
all of it incontrovertible and rock-hard-verifiable on
any reasonable ecological basis.
But we'll see if you have the God-given ability, humility and personal ethics and grace to think it through
, and then tell us all about your resulting conversion to logic and rational deduction!
RSVP, sil vous plait! 
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.
""A Short Rebuke"... hee hee.. But then, FACTS in EVIDENCE sometimes take a bit of 'splaynin' to Luthy...
