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.
You two are looking at this all wrong. There is no reason to ask all these questions. The entire flood story is incredibly easy to fathom when you add an unfathomable supernatural element to it.
Actually you are right. There is no need to ask, or answer questions about the flood...Just read this thread. They've all been asked and answered from different points of view multiple times.
Hummmmmmm, OK, Noah and his ark, the drunk and his boat..... I guess this just goes to show ya that an overactive imagination is not a recent invention.
So we can apply that because there is no photo of Jesus, he did not exist?
Good one, jm58! A Gold Star for you, and I mean it. Of course, we have the fossilized bone set from this fish/land breather, but we haven't even got those from Jesus.
But of course, according to Insta-Poof Genesis, we should NEVER find ANY fossils of unidentifiable oddly adapted land animals, plants or ichthyosaur fish, right?
Various "transitionals' are predicted by evolution, and when we find the bones exactly in the right oder of deposition or location, along with the predicted plant life of the time, or with other evidentiary finds, and do a bit of simple reconstructive paleontology, we can then speculate about the original animal. With a high degree of accuracy.
As evolutionary processes (chance radiation-created, for example) are not magically arrested when a particularly well-adapted species arises, it's quite technically correct to say we're all "transitionals".
Too bad that doesn't fit with the Creationist's tiresome and scientifically illiterate definition of "transitionals". Just for laughs on our side, why don't one of you literate Creationists take a minute or two and define for us what you mean this week by "transitionals"?
You know, so we are arguing about the same thing. We know what the biologists, evolutionists, geologists, paleontologists and fossil experts mean, but obviously it's vastly different from your AiG-provided definition.
If we apply some simple logic here: science has counted, not imagined or theorized, over 30M different animal species. (they estimate that there's at least another 20 M they haven't even discovered yet, but we'll leave those out). no evolution means they all had to be on the Ark. Except, I'll admit, some that we can subtract: the saltwater fish & whale varieties, the... well... OK, that's about all we can subtract, 'cause everything else requires fresh water or a tree or a rock to nest in or land on, or a rock to hide under.
There's even a problem there, because the vast silt-filled flood runoff would have killed off many of the seawater living species, and some, like salmon and many others, need a freshwater river to go spawn in. every year. and thi8s flood was for what again? Oh yeah: 18 months.
Guess all the original salmon died off, huh? (never thought of that one, now did yah? How come they're still here? Did Noah grab some thousands of salmon species as well, and keep them in the special humongoid salt water aquarium in his cabin?)
So, anyhow, that leaves us, still, about, let's estimate, about 15 million types, minimum. We'll assume most of these are sexual reproducers, so we'd have to have a minimum of 15 X 2 = 30M actual individual animals. Times the reproductive ecology minimum numbers of each type to ensure their success once we turn them all loosse when the flood dries up (leaving salt residue on all the earth's now dead plants, you know, with no viable seeds to restart the millions and millions of types of plants.. but hey' who's counting? or even thinking clearly.).
So, where was I? Oh yeah; 30M times, let's say a minimum of 20 of each sex; (so each species would need 40 animals) this is a highly controversial and low number; it usually takes about 50, minimum, of each type, but let's stick with a screwy low number of 20 for now; you'll get my point even with that unlikely low number:
30M X 20 = 600M animals. Wow! That's some big boat you're gonna need, man. You must have about ten GM 502-CI boat motors to move that thing. Wind, you say? Who's the 20 man crew that's gonna run it, and sweep up all that animal poop each day, and feed and water them. And find quiet place to sleep. Oh, and where's the water tanks, about 200M gallons for, what was it, 18 mo? Wow again.
This gonna work, Noah? Or maybe you should ask God for another solution, man.
Plus the food, even though God made 'em all vegan. Thats' about, oh let's say, another 50M tonnes of lettuce nd corn and roots and hay. Them Brontosaurs eat 2 tonnes a day, times 40 of them, for 18 months; that's what: 1440 tonnes per brontosaur type. Times about twenty types of them, plus the 5 or so T-Rex types, all gobbling vegetation, the least energy-dense form of food you could ask for, plus, of course, their digestive biochemistry would also have to have been completely altered, and stomachs added (like a cow's) and their original dentition (not what we find in their fossils...) all changed.
I dunno; quick back-of-the-napkin kind of low estimate gives me about 200M tonnes of vegetation. And then again, how do you keep the lettuce fresh all that time? Just have them eat nothing but rain-soaked once-upon-a-time dried hay, now going moldy?
Fascinating. But of course, it's only a fairytale, and we all know it. Ceptin' the six year olds.
C'mon, C34: 600M animals on ANY boat? Even the USS Reagan plus the USS Enterprise combined couldn't handle that. Even they have to come in every 6 months or so, and they have a nuclear-powered fresh water plant on board, and they preapre and serve (and then clean up) 18,000+ meals a day from their well-run kitchen. 'Course, they only have 5000 people or so on them.
"Captain, we have to take on an additional 599,005,000 animals. Yep, some are small, but about 1000 of them are brontosaurs and T-Rexs. But don't worry, Cap'n, they're all confirmed vegans... for now. I know, we'll set up a team with RPGs just in case they look a bit, well, you know, hungry for a late night snack!"
What is it you're smokin' again, old buddy? Let's just get real for a moment here....
It didn't happen. nor any of the other allegorical fun fantasy stuff you desperately defend here. It didn't happen, man. I'm so sorry.
Hey! An idea! Talk to your God, ask him what really happened. You've apparently got a direct line. Go for it, man, and then report back to us.
I was, in fact, aware that the term Brontosaurus is now obsolete, replaced by Apatosaurus, and it's physiology has been reviewed and corrected, as science reliably does with new information. Thx to a dutiful reader, I will correct the terminology in order to be exculpate as regards terminologies.
I mean, why be out of date when there's better stuff out there? This, from Wiki, is in fact, more up to date. Other sources are available to the interested reader; just Google apatosaurus:
The cervical vertebrae were less elongated and more heavily constructed than those of Diplodocus and the bones of the leg were much stockier (despite being longer), implying a more robust animal. The tail was held above the ground during normal locomotion. Like most sauropods, Apatosaurus had only a single large claw on each forelimb, with the first three toes on the hind limb possessing claws.
I really wouldn't want to meet a pair of them, or all 40 of them in fact, while strolling on the decks one evening after a four course meal of hay, rotting lettuce, moldy grain and saltwater, huh? Even if they were vegans' they might just switch after a few months of such food...). and what if they were doing laps, jogging around the deck for excercise they would so surely need?
The apaptosuarus was in fact slightly smaller than the Brontosaurs, thus my numbers should be down-graded as to how much food they'd require on that overloaded, awash Ark. Let's just drop the estimates by 12.45% for that group, shall we? Still requires a h$ll of a lot of fresh lettuce!
(The mind boggles at the idiocy and illogic of trying to make this fable a true story...)
Last edited by rifleman; 05-22-2009 at 11:23 AM..
Reason: clarifications
Wha'd he say? "Don't do the numbers, Tom; it'll only hurt your head! I did not design a logical world, rather, I thought I"d do a fantasy, unbelievable and unprovable world. To test the faithful you understand!"
Yep. That'll do it fur shur!
Well, I gotta go be a realist. For sure God won't feed or care for my beloved chiggens, now will he? Unless of course I pray for it to "poof!" happen....
(BTW, did you know we humans have absolutely identical tRNA structures to that in the ex-dinosaurian chickens, Tom? Coincidental? I don't think so.. Bah-Gawk I say. No wonder they look at me so lovingly, like a long-lost ancestor would...)
Start here, and we'll go from there. There's so much to teach, and so little time.
Last edited by rifleman; 05-23-2009 at 01:40 AM..
Reason: clarification, obfuscation
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.
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.
Logic Uber Alles....
correction re Brontosaurs
