by hooberus 207 Replies latest watchtower bible
Question: How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark? Answer: hmmmmmmmmmmm let's see, oh GOD is perfect and he does not make any mistakes.
You know, there's a certain "train wreck" fascination to this. You want to look away, you know you should, but still you find yourself watching in total amazement, all the moreso because of the seriousness of the whole thing.
LOL @ Micheal.
~Aztec
Redhorsewoman said:
For your review, Hooberus.....excellent facts here....not conjecture and fantasy:
"excellent facts here....not conjecture and fantasy" - from a site that advocates that people descended from fish?
The arcticle linked above is titled Probalems with a Global Flood "second edition"
What became of the arguments of the "first edition" of Problems with a Global Flood?
http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp
You know, a couple of years ago -- while still a doubting dub -- I would have read this article with rapt attention. Now it's not even worth my time.
B.
Descend: To move from a higher to a lower place; come or go down. To proceed or progress downward.
Evolve: To develop or achieve gradually. To undergo gradual change, develop.
Hooberus, there is a huge difference.
~Aztec
PS Bradley, I saw what you had there before...LOL!
Aztec said:Descend: To move from a higher to a lower place; come or go down. To proceed or progress downward.
Evolve: To develop or achieve gradually. To undergo gradual change, develop. Hooberus, there is a huge difference.
The why do evolutionists use the phrase "descent with modification" ?
why do evolutionists use the phrase "descent with modification"
Beats the heck outta me. I prefer to use the phrase "some of us are more highly evolved than others".
~Aztec
Are you serious? Exactly which animals are in the class of "many animals" that don't need daily feeding?
snakes, lions, tigers, etc.
Okay, valid point. However, the animals that would be needed to feed these non-daily feeders would have to be fed every day, and that actually means that there would be MORE animals needing to be fed than had been originally anticipated. Where, exactly, did Noah stash these "feed" animals? Since there was no refrigeration on the Ark, he would have had to bring scores of additional animals on board to be slaughtered and used as food.
Which animals are you aware of that would not trample their food and make it inedible if a large amount was thrown in their enclosures.
Partially trampled food is not inedible. Feeders also work.
Partially trampled food in a tiny enclosure in which the animal also defecates, and which, as Woodmorappe implies, would not be cleaned up every day--in fact, couldn't be cleaned up every day because of time constraints--would be inedible and dangerous to feed to the animals. Feeders are an interesting idea, but feeders take up quite a bit of room, which they didn't have, and would also be dangerous for animals attempting to keep their footing on the deck of a rolling ship.
Hibernating animals also need specific conditions in which to hibernate, and barring the provision of those conditions (which is highly unlikely) the animals would NOT be in total hibernation and would still need to be fed.
I never said that they would never need to be fed.
You certainly implied it. So, since this isn't what you meant, let's just add these partial hibernators back into the feeding schedule. Oops....can't do that....no time.
Hibernating animals also lose condition during their period of hibernation. Exactly how do you suppose that these half-starved animals would be able to survive after getting off the Ark if they had spent over a year without food or water.....well, actually that point is moot, since NO animal could survive in hibernation for over a year without food or water.
I never said that that they would have to go "for over a year" without food or water.
Even if they didn't go the entire year, which they couldn't anyway, they would still be debilitated after their hibernation period and would be unlikely to survive the harsh, nearly barren, post-Flood conditions.
I may do some of the rest later.
Oh, please do. This is fun.
What became of the arguments of the "first edition" of Problems with a Global Flood?
Well, silly, second edition doesn't mean that the first edition arguments were trashed. All it means is that there were ever so many MORE arguments that needed to be added that they found it necessary to come out with a second edition.
Desperation mounts in the Creationist camp.
