U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 05-23-2010, 03:04 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,621 posts, read 6,892,022 times
Reputation: 3627

Advertisements

Facts, as though it mattered in this ongoing fantasy:

The Himalayan snow **** (oh dang this editing software! It's a snow "Kaw-kkk" only spelled differently! Sheesh!) is the only bird that nests over 15,000 feet. anywhere on this planet. The next-closest bird, a clough, only nests below 10,000 feet, and then only if conditions are right. As well, the snow **** is only found in northern India and the Himalayas. Not over in Turkey.

At any rate, more facts: the snow **** builds it's nest, as do most partridge types, not in deep frozen caves of ice or even rock, or un old barns or Arks, but rather out in the relative open, since that's all there is up there, usually under a low alpine shrub. And they like to be able to flee, not be trapped in a cave. Just as the ptarmigan I observed up in the Canadian Arctic do.

They, like all gallinacious birds (the chickens and their allies) utilize ground cover and small ledges or positions under bushes to assemble a rough nest of twigs, feathers (there were no left-over feathers in that spectacular video...) and moss, all locally available. Not hay from a sything combine anywhere even remotely nearby, much less 10 - 12,000 feet down the mountain. where, even then, those videos showed a remaerkably sparse country. No hay fields to be seen.

Now, if instead you built a mountain goatherd hut, during a period of warmer climatic conditons, let's say 50 - 50 years ago, you'd also have to bring along some hay for your simple bed, or to treat your pet alpaca.

So, again, like clock-work, it all falls apart on even the most rudimentary examination, especially when you apply, Oh. My. God. ...logic and reason.

Still, I wonder where that darned conclusive summary report is...

 
Old 05-23-2010, 03:12 PM
 
7,654 posts, read 6,560,302 times
Reputation: 483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius View Post
Well I read the whole link Campbell and I didn't see anything there about the height at which birds nest. It's all about migration and the height at which some birds fly during migration. Ashville was talking about nesting not flying.
Well, the Rufous-necked Scimitar babbler breeds in Nepal and builds nests of dry grass and is found nesting at altitudes of 12,000 feet.
http://www.birding.in/a_hume/nest_and_eggs_of_indian_birds_9f.htm (broken link)

Near Bolivian border at 14,800 feet many altiplano birds gather around the freshwater lakes. The Chilean, Andean, and James flamingos nest there.
Life at the Top: The Andes - Articles - Travel + Leisure

The point of the matter is, if birds are flying 20,000 feet or higher, there is little to keep a bird from nesting above 10,000 feet. And that was the point I was making. Yet there are numerous examples of birds nesting much higher than 10,000 feet. So again, to try and limit bird nesting to 10,000 feet would be nonsense.
 
Old 05-23-2010, 03:29 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,621 posts, read 6,892,022 times
Reputation: 3627
Default Tiii..iilt... and.. aaand...."she's gone under!" Glub glub glub.

"Damn it Martha.. now those chairs are really slipping and sliding! Focus on what's important, why can't you?"
 
Old 05-23-2010, 03:34 PM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
7,884 posts, read 4,684,746 times
Reputation: 1525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
Near Bolivian border at 14,800 feet many altiplano birds gather around the freshwater lakes. The Chilean, Andean, and James flamingos nest there.
Life at the Top: The Andes - Articles - Travel + Leisure
No they don't Tom....

"Near the Bolivian border, about 11 miles east of Parinacota, lies the cobalt-blue Lago Chungara, a piece of fallen sky. At 14,800 feet, it is one of the world's highest lakes. Reflected in its surface are the faces of two snowy volcanoes known as Payachatas, or the Twins. Many altiplano birds gather around the freshwater Chungara, including the Chilean, Andean, and James flamingos, three of the world's six flamingo species. They do not breed in Lauca, but nest in the salars, or salt lakes, found sporadically throughout the altiplano."
 
Old 05-23-2010, 04:36 PM
 
16,310 posts, read 14,556,347 times
Reputation: 7970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
Not true, the Rufous-necked Scimitar Babbler is found in Nepal, and builds it's nest of dry grass, and has been found nesting at 12,000 feet. In northern Chilean Andes a Flamingo nest was found at 13,000 feet. Bar-Headed Geese migrate over the Himalayas and have been recorded as high as 27,880 feet. A large African vulture collided with an aircraft at 37,000 feet. The Bateleur acrobat Eagle will be found at altitudes of 14,000 feet. A himalayan mountain climber at 16,000 feet was amazed when a flock of geese flew northward about two miles over his head honking as they went. At 14,000 feet storcks and crans were flying so high that they could be seen only throught field glasses. To suggest that birds are some how limited to nesting at 10,000 feet, would be ridiculous. Of course, if one did not want to believe that a bird could nest in the Ark of Noah found at 13,000 feet. Well, I could see why someone would want to believe that. LOL

Migration of Birds
A few species can actually fly at 7 miles altitude, but nesting is a different story. The extremes you will go to to support an outrageous and absolutely impossible event, a.k.a. fairy tale, is the most amazing thing I have witness lately.
 
Old 05-23-2010, 04:37 PM
 
7,654 posts, read 6,560,302 times
Reputation: 483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius View Post
No they don't Tom....

"Near the Bolivian border, about 11 miles east of Parinacota, lies the cobalt-blue Lago Chungara, a piece of fallen sky. At 14,800 feet, it is one of the world's highest lakes. Reflected in its surface are the faces of two snowy volcanoes known as Payachatas, or the Twins. Many altiplano birds gather around the freshwater Chungara, including the Chilean, Andean, and James flamingos, three of the world's six flamingo species. They do not breed in Lauca, but nest in the salars, or salt lakes, found sporadically throughout the altiplano."
Wrong again Rafius. The Bolivian (ALTIPLANO) is the area of the Andes (ABOVE 3500 METERS). And it stretches into neighbouring Peru and Argentina. If you do the conversion from meters to feet, that comes to 11,482 feet above sea level.

So yes, these birds do nest above 10,000 feet.
 
Old 05-23-2010, 04:53 PM
 
7,654 posts, read 6,560,302 times
Reputation: 483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asheville Native View Post
A few species can actually fly at 7 miles altitude, but nesting is a different story.
Nesting may be a different story, yet it should be obvious by examples given, that nesting does occur above 10,000 feet. Chilean flamingos are an extremely hardy bird. And they regularly live in lakes at altitudes up to (15,420 FEET).

Woodland Park Zoo, Seattle, WA - Chilean Flamingo Fact Sheet
 
Old 05-23-2010, 05:03 PM
 
7,654 posts, read 6,560,302 times
Reputation: 483
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
Facts, as though it mattered in this ongoing fantasy:

The Himalayan snow **** (oh dang this editing software! It's a snow "Kaw-kkk" only spelled differently! Sheesh!) is the only bird that nests over 15,000 feet. anywhere on this planet. The next-closest bird, a clough, only nests below 10,000 feet, and then only if conditions are right. As well, the snow **** is only found in northern India and the Himalayas. Not over in Turkey.

At any rate, more facts: the snow **** builds it's nest, as do most partridge types, not in deep frozen caves of ice or even rock, or un old barns or Arks, but rather out in the relative open, since that's all there is up there, usually under a low alpine shrub. And they like to be able to flee, not be trapped in a cave. Just as the ptarmigan I observed up in the Canadian Arctic do.

They, like all gallinacious birds (the chickens and their allies) utilize ground cover and small ledges or positions under bushes to assemble a rough nest of twigs, feathers (there were no left-over feathers in that spectacular video...) and moss, all locally available. Not hay from a sything combine anywhere even remotely nearby, much less 10 - 12,000 feet down the mountain. where, even then, those videos showed a remaerkably sparse country. No hay fields to be seen.

Now, if instead you built a mountain goatherd hut, during a period of warmer climatic conditons, let's say 50 - 50 years ago, you'd also have to bring along some hay for your simple bed, or to treat your pet alpaca.

So, again, like clock-work, it all falls apart on even the most rudimentary examination, especially when you apply, Oh. My. God. ...logic and reason.

Still, I wonder where that darned conclusive summary report is...








The Chilean flamingos regularly live in lakes at altitudes up to 15,420 feet rifleman. So I believe that puts your only bird nesting at 15,000 feet theory to rest. Well, another evolutionst theory gone wrong. Rats. LOL
 
Old 05-23-2010, 06:25 PM
 
61 posts, read 42,799 times
Reputation: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
The Chilean flamingos regularly live in lakes at altitudes up to 15,420 feet rifleman. So I believe that puts your only bird nesting at 15,000 feet theory to rest. Well, another evolutionst theory gone wrong. Rats. LOL
Wow.... I guess since flamingos live in lakes up to 15,420ft in CHILE, then that somehow conclusively proves that there were birds NESTING in a wooden structure in TURKEY found above 13,000ft which MUST be THE "Noah's Ark"?

Talk about making leaps and bounds...

Have you given any thought to the REAL mathematical, and logical scenarios which rifleman and I have provided for your consideration? (About the logistics of keeping billions of life forms alive on a boat of limited space.)

Last edited by ACEsydney; 05-23-2010 at 06:35 PM..
 
Old 05-23-2010, 06:33 PM
 
61 posts, read 42,799 times
Reputation: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
The video link thoughtfully provided by ACEsydney is quite entertaining, but it is in err on several key issues.

1. The significant change in oceanic and fresh water salinities (one is salty, the other is not...) would essentially kill all aquatic life. So Noah would also have to have taken care of those 105,000 additional species, times two (NOTE: A recent NatGeo show about life under the sea ice in Antarctica indicated they were finding entirely new species at the rate of 8 per day... Imagine that count over the entire world?) So in fact, we do have about 100 million species of plant and animal to be cared for. Times about 40 -50 of each sex [i.e.: 80 - 100 of a mating species, per species...] for the larger, sexual reproducers. total; that's 8 Billion organisms, but hey; let's be conservative and reduce that by a factor of, say, 75%: Heck! Noah only had to safely board and house.... (thimk, thimk...) 2 (TWO) B (BILLION) larger-than-a-bacterium organisms. All loaded in one rather busy day...

Well, good thing there wasn't a "Union of Organism Loaders", huh? (Can you say "Overtime Pay"???)

2. The video also failed to mention that all land-based plant life would also not endure an 18 month, or longer, inundation by salty water. All that would be dead as well, requiring Noah have a fully capable arboretum and herbarium onboard. With loads of fresh, and also correctly saline, water. Oh, and food appropriate for each species.

(Best gather those requisite bamboo shoots for the mountain gorillas, and what is it that Koalas will ONLY eat? Oh yeah: this from the web:

"Once koalas are out on their own, their diet consists of primarily eucalyptus leaves. These are low in protein, high with indigestible substances, and have phenolic and terpene compounds which are toxic to most other animals. Average koalas eat 500 grams of eucalyptus leaves every day."

(Well then; it's best that old Noah keep them euc-leaves properly and securely stored, huh? So: 500 grams/koala X a minimum of 80 animals X 18 mo X 30 days/mo = 23,760,000,000, that's Billion, grams, friends... just for the Koalas alone...) divided by 454 grams per pound, to get, you know, a nicer, smaller number, = "only" 52,334,801 lb (or, even better: 27,000 tons...) of fresh euc leaves. How veddy, veddy plausible.)

And right now, I'm watching some robins (T. migratorius spp.) pulling worms out of my lawn. I read just last week, on the web, that they typically pull and eat 8 - 10 per hour for at least 6 h each day, more when they are feeding their young. Let's forget those "extremes" for a moment, shall we? Conveniently? So there's Noah, with his two dehydrating worms, and 80 robins eying them hungrily. Quick math, one more time: 80 birds, times 6h/bird foraging/day X 8 worms/hr, X 18 mo X 30 days/mo = oh heck, that's easy. Noah had to only have (and keep alive...) 2,073,600 worms. Just for the N. American Robins alone! Yup.)

3. Plus the necessary food and water for all his lucky passengers and plants, all now packed into a more reasonable, oh, 0.05 cubic inches per species.

"Stop crowding me, or I'll eat you!" (overheard being uttered by a very crowded T-Rex...)

4. Finally, it's also proven ecological fact that you cannot restart, or even sustain, a viable population of anything with only two of each. Please: check out the California condor sitch, where they are very worried about the fact there's now less than 100 of them left, total. They'll likely go extinct soon, but we're actively protecting them and their habitat, which has food and water! We even provide "Condor popsicles", which are frozen deer carcasses on a big stake. That what Noah did, Tom?

So... what if one of the Noah's pairs dies, or, as a natural prey species, is quickly devoured, right there on Ararat's lifeless slopes, by, let's say, just one of those just-released co-existing T-Rexs, or more rationally, a hungry lion pair. What, did God forbid them from acting normally until the "herd" was re-developed to it's original numbers, let's say 10 years later??

What did they eat in the meantime then? Old rotted vegetation? Ice? Or drink? Salty water?

Meantime, all salmon, and sharks, require rapidly moving, highly oxygenated water. Tropical fish species require the right salinity and water temp. And light regimes. So how was all this exactly maintained down in the lightless, unheated barge's deepest levels? It's hard enough for a typical major aquarium to always get it right. (I know, I know: YSM assures us that Noah had secret, yet to ever be demonstrated, wireless fuel-less light sources, all neatly wired up in there... Big sigh# 2).

This is so pathologically impossible, it's downright laughable. The requisite volume of secret water, the lack of suitable habitat on their trip and after dis-embarkation, the impossible trip back home, the total lack of resources or available size on the barge, the total catastrophic conditions on a flood-devastated land, not to mention the complete alteration of the aquatic environment, and the fact that two of each just doesn't work out....

("Damned arrogant and assumptive scientists and their illogical and incorrect calculators!")

And yet, C34 continues to argue fervently about now-known-to-be faked facts about Russian fly-overs. and other Ark stories. (Tom; didn't you see or read the link by Jaymax, #294, about how the story was totally faked? I guess not.) And then he rolls in ever-more absurd "evidence" as time goes on.

What's that they say about folks who busy themselves re-organizing the deckchairs on the Titanic after it hit the 'berg?

C'mon guys; let's go get a coffee. There's nothing to be gained or learned here any more. It's like trying to reason with a mushroom.
I agree with you that the math was missing a few key factors, but the guy who made that video stated that he purposely erred on the conservative side. I'm guessing he went this route to avoid arguments from people who will accuse him of "padding" his numbers to support his case.

Thanks for your input, you brought up a few key factors that I hadn't even realized weren't considered in the video.

Here's another link to an Ark video that I liked:
This one might give you a good laugh.

YouTube - Messed-Up Bible Stories 4: Noah's Ark
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:10 PM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top