NationStates

LogiChristianity wrote:

Wisconsin9 wrote:The fact that various forms of vegetation regularly die when subjected to extraordinary amounts of water?

Where is this fact? I don't see it anywhere.

Oh, shocking.

Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f wrote:

Wikkiwallana wrote:Your name is possibly the most ironic one I have seen on this forum in my entire time here.

Well I'd say it is one of the more imaginative names for a puppet/troll account.

Clever Troll is Clever.

LogiChristianity wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
Under salt water?

Also, how big was the Ark according to the Bible?

What proof is there that vegetation couldn't survive underwater?

Under saltwater, I mean.

Never heard of osmosis?
Also freshwater fish and salt water fish cannot survive in the other's environment, and before you bring up salmon, not all fish are like that.

Noobubersland wrote:

LogiChristianity wrote:
Where is this fact? I don't see it anywhere.

Hypocrite!

No, I provided the facts in the OP. Which has facts in the footnotes.

What a dumbass, of course not.

LogiChristianity wrote:

Wisconsin9 wrote:The fact that various forms of vegetation regularly die when subjected to extraordinary amounts of water?

Where is this fact? I don't see it anywhere.

Seriously? Here. Have a link. It's also got a Biblical reference in there, so you should like it.

Don't we all love being ignored by troll OP's.

Omniscience wrote:

Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f wrote:
Well I'd say it is one of the more imaginative names for a puppet/troll account.

Clever Troll is Clever.

Well I wouldn't go that far

LogiChristianity wrote:

Noobubersland wrote:Hypocrite!

No, I provided the facts in the OP. Which has facts in the footnotes.

Publish them then, didn't do that? Right, it's because everyone from Biologists to Geologists would have had a field day ripping it to shreds

Todlichebujoku wrote:Don't we all love being ignored by troll OP's.

Actually, he takes this stuff seriously. I think.

We are required to suppose that two (and only two, one male and one female) of every land-based, sexually reproducing species present on the planet at the time was somehow preserved.

And in this we arrive at a serious problem: inbreeding. Inbreeding would be, as of the first generation of offspring, impossible to avoid since all members of that generation are directly related as brothers and sisters. The second generation of offspring, therefore, would begin a cycle of accumulation of deleterious recessive genes. This is especially problematic for those species on the boat since the extremely low population makes them all endangered by default. Endangered species with extreme genetic uniformity are especially susceptible to environmental factors and therefore extremely vulnerable to extinction.

Now let's address the matter of water-based species. The fact of the matter is that there is a great diversity of ecological niches occupied by water-based species. A freshwater fish could not easily survive in brackish water, nor could a saltwater fish survive easily in a lake filled with freshwater. The species which would survive would have to be highly resistant to sudden fluctuations in water temperature, pH, and salinity. There's also the added problem for predatory and omnivorous species finding their prey in a significantly expanded environment (not to mention the problem for herbivorous species whose food supply has been killed by constantly harsh weather conditions and the absence of sunlight with which to carry out photosynthesis).

LogiChristianity wrote:Okay, so I know most of you aren't open to this kind of stuff, but you should be, because it really matters. I bet a lot of you think that the Bible is just full of silly stories that couldn't actually happen. But would it amaze you to discover that Noah's ark could have actually happened?

Oh really now?

LogiChristianity wrote:Now, you probably think that the idea of a giant flood covering the whole Earth is crazy, right? But can you prove it didn't happen? I didn't think so.

Because a huge flood that covers the entire Earth is possible, and is not just the hyperbole of various civilizations living near bodies of water. Right.

LogiChristianity wrote:But think about it - continental drift is true. So maybe God actually split the continents very quickly to create the great flood. Maybe that's when it happened - when Pangaea split.

There weren't humans alive at that time.

LogiChristianity wrote:Is there any solid proof that continental drift took a long time? Nope. Just theories. and just because it is slow now, doesn't mean it was slow then.

Of course it doesn't, but there's no evidence to state that it's faster either.

LogiChristianity wrote:Now, as for the logistics of Noah's ark itself, there are good facts to support that it is logical.

This article: http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... fnList_1_2

I'm going to stop you there and say, no, that's not a valid, non-biased source. Try harder.

LogiChristianity wrote:This article explains all the reasons why it is perfectly reasonable AND it has good sources; just check the footnotes!

See above.

LogiChristianity wrote:Here are some revolutionary examples of what this article shows.

How could Noah build the ark?

The Bible does not tell us that Noah and his sons built the Ark by themselves. Noah could have hired skilled laborers or had relatives, such as Methuselah and Lamech, help build the vessel. However, nothing indicates that they could not—or that they did not—build the Ark themselves in the time allotted. The physical strength and mental processes of men in Noah’s day was at least as great (quite likely, even superior) to our own.2 They certainly would have had efficient means for harvesting and cutting timber, as well as for shaping, transporting, and erecting the massive beams and boards required.

O really? Without modern technology? *rolls eyes*

LogiChristianity wrote:

If one or two men today can erect a large house in just 12 weeks,

With modern technology.

LogiChristianity wrote:

how much more could three or four men do in a few years? Adam’s descendants were making complex musical instruments, forging metal, and building cities—their tools, machines, and techniques were not primitive.

Yes they are by our standards today.

LogiChristianity wrote:How could the animals fit?

In the book Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study4, creationist researcher

Yeah, no. Bias is bias.

LogiChristianity wrote:

John Woodmorappe suggests that, at most, 16,000 animals were all that were needed to preserve the created kinds that God brought into the Ark.
The Ark did not need to carry every kind of animal—nor did God command it. It carried only air-breathing, land-dwelling animals, creeping things, and winged animals such as birds. Aquatic life (fish, whales, etc.) and many amphibious creatures could have survived in sufficient numbers outside the Ark. This cuts down significantly the total number of animals that needed to be on board.

Okay, let's say that this flood did happen. Let's also assume that it did cover the whole Earth, making one gigantic ocean of water, right?

Biology would tell me that freshwater animals will not be able to tolerate saltwater that would have been in the oceans and vice versa, and hence, they'll perish. Explain that.

LogiChristianity wrote:

Another factor which greatly reduces the space requirements is the fact that the tremendous variety in species we see today did not exist in the days of Noah. Only the parent “kinds” of these species were required to be on board in order to repopulate the earth.5 For example, only two dogs were needed to give rise to all the dog species that exist today.

So you're admitting that evolution occurs?

LogiChristianity wrote:

Creationist estimates

Yeah, no. Not good enough, from a scientific standpoint.

LogiChristianity wrote:

for the maximum number of animals that would have been necessary to come on board the Ark have ranged from a few thousand to 35,000, but they may be as few as two thousand if the biblical kind is approximately the same as the modern family classification.

From my understanding, there were almost the same amount of species (probably more, to account for human-induced extinction of many species) in Noah's time. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on that assumption.

LogiChristianity wrote:

As stated before, Noah wouldn’t have taken the largest animals onto the Ark; it is more likely he took juveniles aboard the Ark to repopulate the earth after the Flood was over. These younger animals also require less space, less food, and have less waste.

Because you can theoretically wean the young from their mother at that age. Right, and their protective mothers won't kill you first for attempting to try.

LogiChristianity wrote:

Using a short cubit of 18 inches (46 cm) for the Ark to be conservative, Woodmorappe’s conclusion is that “less than half of the cumulative area of the Ark’s three decks need to have been occupied by the animals and their enclosures.”6 This meant there was plenty of room for fresh food, water, and even many other people.

You realize how big of an arc you'll need? Also, 18 inches? That's TINY -- I'd call it animal abuse if an animal would have to live in that small of an enclosure for the theoretical forty days and nights.

LogiChristianity wrote:How could Noah care for all the animals?

Just as God brought the animals to Noah by some form of supernatural means, He surely also prepared them for this amazing event. Creation scientists suggest that God gave the animals the ability to hibernate, as we see in many species today. Most animals react to natural disasters in ways that were designed to help them survive. It’s very possible many animals did hibernate, perhaps even supernaturally intensified by God.

I'm going to stop there and just say, BS. Not all animals hibernate, for one thing.

LogiChristianity wrote:

Whether it was supernatural or simply a normal response to the darkness and confinement of a rocking ship, the fact that God told Noah to build rooms (“qen”—literally in Hebrew “nests”) in Genesis 6:14 implies that the animals were subdued or nesting. God also told Noah to take food for them (Genesis 6:21), which tells us that they were not in a year-long coma either.
Were we able to walk through the Ark as it was being built, we would undoubtedly be amazed at the ingenious systems on board for water and food storage and distribution.

Uh huh. Not convinced that people in ancient times could get away with it.

LogiChristianity wrote:

As Woodmorappe explains in Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study, a small group of farmers today can raise thousands of cattle and other animals in a very small space. One can easily imagine all kinds of devices on the Ark that would have enabled a small number of people to feed and care for the animals, from watering to waste removal.

Apples to oranges. You can't compare what we can do with modern technology with what they could do in ancient times.

LogiChristianity wrote:

As Woodmorappe points out, no special devices were needed for eight people to care for 16,000 animals. But if they existed, how would these devices be powered? There are all sorts of possibilities. How about a plumbing system for gravity-fed drinking water, a ventilation system driven by wind or wave motion, or hoppers that dispense grain as the animals eat it? None of these require higher technology than what we know existed in ancient cultures. And yet these cultures were likely well-short of the skill and capability of Noah and the pre-Flood world.

Uh huh. Show me the plans to the ventilation system, the hoppers, etc. No motors, no engines, nothing.

LogiChristianity wrote:And finally, the great idea of the flood being related to continental drift.

As even secular geologists observe, it does appear that the continents were at one time “together” and not separated by the vast oceans of today. The forces involved in the Flood were certainly sufficient to change all of this.
Scripture indicates that God formed the ocean basins, raising the land out of the water, so that the floodwaters returned to a safe place. (Some theologians believe Psalm 104 may refer to this event.) Some creation scientists believe this breakup of the continent was part of the mechanism that ultimately caused the Flood.11

Because there were humans at the time Pangaea broke apart. Uh huh.

LogiChristianity wrote:Surely NationStates General is surprised by these facts.

I'm more surprised that you're willing to believe this could happen, logistics wise. Not good enough.

LogiChristianity wrote:

Noobubersland wrote:Hypocrite!

No, I provided the facts in the OP. Which has facts in the footnotes.

No, it doesn't. It has links to other shit in the same website as well as books. Not actual sources.

LogiChristianity wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
We can come back to that later.

How big was the Ark according to the Bible? I've been asking for 3 pages now.

http://www.creationtips.com/arksize.html

Genesis 6:15 in the Bible tells us the Ark's dimensions were at least 135 meters long (300 cubits), 22.5 meters wide (50 cubits), and 13.5 meters high (30 cubits). That's 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high! It could have been larger, because several larger-sized cubits were used. But the 45-centimeter (18-inch) cubit is long enough to show the enormous size of the Ark.

(A cubit was the length of a man's arm from fingertips to elbow.)

And you really think that's big enough to contain 2 of every animal, insect and bird ever to exist?

LogiChristianity wrote:

Noobubersland wrote:Hypocrite!

No, I provided the facts in the OP. Which has facts in the footnotes.

No you posted a creationist website, and those are detached from reality.

And ask any gardener about happens if over water a plant.

Wisconsin9 wrote:

Todlichebujoku wrote:Don't we all love being ignored by troll OP's.

Actually, he takes this stuff seriously. I think.

That's the scary part.

Todlichebujoku wrote:Don't we all love being ignored by troll OP's.

What did I ignore? I'm dealing with a lot of people.

Fartsniffage wrote:

LogiChristianity wrote:
http://www.creationtips.com/arksize.html

And you really think that's big enough to contain 2 of every animal, insect and bird ever to exist?

Yeah, it says so on the website I posted. And before you say "that's a bad website" look at it.

Wisconsin9 wrote:

Todlichebujoku wrote:Don't we all love being ignored by troll OP's.

Actually, he takes this stuff seriously. I think.

I don't think anybody who takes this sort of stuff this seriously, touches technology.

Chinese Regions wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
Under salt water?

Also, how big was the Ark according to the Bible?

Not big enough for two of every animal in existence.

Getting the whales in there must have been a right pain the arse...notwithstanding the creatures found at the bottom of the oceans at depths over several kilometres...

LogiChristianity wrote:

Todlichebujoku wrote:Don't we all love being ignored by troll OP's.

What did I ignore? I'm dealing with a lot of people.

For one, you ignored the very first reply to the thread.

I have a question: Why don't Creationists rebuild the Ark by the exact measures given in the Bible out of the same materials, and then they can attempt to fit every animal in it?

LogiChristianity wrote:But you admit that God could've prevented the animals from eating each other.

Because,.... OH!

Good game.

Go make another nick.

As I said above (don't miss it!) there are serious ecological and genetic concerns which invalidate the reasoning that your source uses.

What a dumbass, of course not.