by Jason 175 Replies latest jw friends
Farkel,
Actually in case you didn't figure it out, the BIGGEST animal we are talking about IS a land animal. The creature I am talking about is a creature from a biblical accout. In this account the creature
"eateth grass as an ox." I've seen many whales do this.
He lives "where all the beasts of the field play."
"He lieth under the shady trees..."
What was it you called me again? Oh yes, "dummy."
Jason.
Jason,
: The creature I am talking about is a creature from a biblical accout. In this account the creature "eateth grass as an ox." I've seen many whales do this.
Where were those "many" whales you saw that ate grass as an ox? What types of whales eat "grass as an ox?" Krill ain't grass, bubba. Krill is little critters. "Grass" is stuff that grows on land. Whales don't live on land. However, I'm sure it's entirely possible that millions of whales weighing dozens, hundreds and THOUSANDS of tons each COULD sneak up on land at night when no one is watching and waddle their way over to the grass and "eat" it. Of course, whales don't actually have any teeth. I believe that even Orcas are not really whales, but even if they were, their teeth are not suitable for grass-eating. It's entirely possible that whales could have scissors for cutting this grass so they could eat it (whales are VERY intelligent), but they would have to be BIG scissors. Whales need TONS of food per day, you know. I'm sure whales are clever creatures and can do all that you say, so I'm not calling you a liar. I'm merely calling you "really stupid."
Do these "many" whales you've seen doing this "grass-eating" chew the cud? Do you have photos or videos of this? I would like to see that.
: He lives "where all the beasts of the field play."
Of course! That's where all those grass-eating whales live. Duh!
: "He lieth under the shady trees..."
Yes. Even whales need shade from time-to-time and lying under shady trees is good for them. Since they have sun-sensitive skin they would have to use sunscreen. It costs approximately $138,000 to apply sun-screen on each their bodies. Whales have no money and they have no way to apply sun-screen on each other. Where do they buy their sunscreen they would need to use whilst basking under those trees? Try applying sun-screen on 80 feet of blubber with only a gigantic flipper to work with. Unless whales buy their sun-screen in 55 gallon drums, they face a serious chance of getting melanoma or at least a big sun burn.
: What was it you called me again? Oh yes, "dummy."
Right. I did call you that. I was wrong. Change "dummy" to "nutball." My apologies for getting it wrong the first time.
Farkel
Jason,
Insults: You opened the discussion by hurling the insult of lier. Wouldn't "misinformed" have been a better choice of words? On the post to me and RHW you referred to our "self righteousness". I consider that to be an insult.
Questioning AlanF and Amazing: Since they are extremely knowlegeble in the subjects the covered previously, I not in a position to question them. I am only in the position, as student, to learn from them. AlanF discussed Einstein's theories in great detail. Amazing discussed various methods of dating very old organic materials. Both of these persons are very expert in the aforementioned areas.
You asking a question: I am assuming you are referring to RHW, because you never asked me a question.
Actual evidence debunking your theory: I think the questions I posed regarding deminsions, time tables, numbers of animals, and amounts of food make it very clear that all this taken together is very damning evidence against your theory.
Jason's smarts: I never commented on you or your level of intelligence.
larc,
: Jason's smarts: I never commented on you or your level of intelligence.
The latter is obvious.
Farkel
Larc,
i apologize for using the word liar. you're right, I could have just as easily used "misinformed." If 'self-righteous' insults you then you must be a little like me. So far on this site I've been called that a few times.
About AlanF and Amazing, just because they are knowledgable doesn't necessarilly make them right. Just because someone knows more about a subject than you do doesn't mean what they are saying is accurate. I'm not saying they weren't accurate because I don't know what they said.
About debunking "my" theory. Just because you asked me questions about dimensions that YOU don't know the answer to doesn't mean it is "damning" to my theory. It just means you don't know the answer. I am at the moment compiling the answers to the many questions I have been asked so far.
Jason.
RedhorseWoman/Larc/Whoever else,
This may be a bit long but it takes a bit of space to provide evidence for the questions I am trying to answer. It may seem boring, it may be a rollercoaster ride at Playland, I don't know. But if you are interested at all in what I have to show you please read all of it. I know you will have many more questions after this and I probably missed a few on the way. If I failed to add them then ask again.
(To RedhorseWoman)You say that proving anything to me is difficult because I refuse to accept the fossil evidence. Tell me, WHAT fossil evidence are you refering to. Dinosaur bones? Animals that are no longer alive? Tell me how those are in support of evolution. Creationists use the exact same evidence. Evolutionists don't dig up evolution. They make the assumption that evolution happened and then take the evidence they find as proof for it. Creationist take the same evidence but start with a different assumption.
You said I dismiss everything that is based on scientific research so I can "tout" my beliefs as truth. Aren't you also telling me that your beliefs are "truth" when you use them for an argument? I'm sorry to say but evolution is not science. Science is the study of things which can observe or that have been previously recorded by someone who did observe them. Macro-evolution has not been observed by anyone and there is no evidence of it in the fossil record.
"Did Jesus speak of them?" No. But why did he come here? It wasn't to tell everyone there were dinosaurs inthe jungle. I don't recall him mentioning any elephants either but that proves nothing about whether or not they existed. I didn't say every species of dinosaur was alive until 500 years ago when they all just became exinct. But they had been dying off a species at a time just like animals today. Also many fish and oceanic creatures would have become extinct or few and fa between in the flood.
About the romans, egyptians, etc seeing dinosaurs. This question will obviously take a bit of research to give you specifics and references. Simply because I'll have to look into each ones history individually. But I will inform you as soon as I can.
About the cave drawings. I don't have any idea why you keep asking about pre-flood cave drawings. Because I highly doubt there are any. The flood would have destroyed them, don't you think? Know one claimed that any pre-flood cave drawings had survived.
Noah's Ark: I don't know what Ark calculations you have been reading but the ones I've seen included ALL the land animals. If you want to read about it indepth read 'Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study' By John Woodmorappe. He calculated it all himself and has proven that it is quite possible. he doesn't even claim to prove it happened. Just that it would be altogether possible with the scenario described in the Bible.
Here is a bit of information from his book:
How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark?
Many sceptics assert that the Bible must be wrong, because they claim that the Ark could not possibly have carried all the different types of animals. This has persuaded some Christians to deny the Genesis Flood, or believe that it was only a local flood involving comparatively few local animals. But they usually have not actually performed the calculations. On the other hand, the classic creationist book The Genesis Flood contained a detailed analysis as far back as 1961.[1] A more detailed and updated technical study of this and many other questions is John Woodmorappe’s book Noah’s Ark: a Feasibility Study. This article is based on material in these books plus some independent calculations. There are two questions to ask:
How many types of animals did Noah need to take?
Was the ark large enough to hold all the required animals?
How many types of animals did Noah need to take?
The relevant passages are Genesis 6:19-20 and Genesis 7:2-3.
Genesis 6:19-20:
'And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.'
Genesis 7:2-3:
'Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.'
In the original Hebrew, the word for 'beast' and 'cattle' in these passages is the same: behemah, and it refers to land vertebrate animals in general. The word for 'creeping things' is remes, which has a number of different meanings in Scripture, but here it probably refers to reptiles.[2] Noah did not need to take sea creatures[3] because they would not necessarily be threatened with extinction by a flood. However, turbulent water would cause massive carnage, as seen in the fossil record, and many oceanic species probably did become extinct because of the Flood.
The Flood wiped out all land animals which breathed through nostrils except those on the Ark (Genesis 7:22). Insects do not breathe through nostrils but through tiny tubes in their exterior skeleton.
Clean animals: Bible commentators are evenly divided about whether the Hebrew means 'seven' or 'seven pairs' of each type of clean animal. Woodmorappe takes the latter just to concede as much to the biblioskeptics as possible. But the vast majority of animals are not clean, and were represented by only two specimens each.
The term 'clean animal' was not defined until the Mosaic Law. But since Moses was also the compiler of Genesis, if we follow the principle that 'Scripture interprets Scripture', the Mosaic Law definitions can be applied to the Noahic situation. There are actually very few 'clean' land animals listed in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14.
What is a 'kind'? God created a number of different types of animals with much capacity for variation within limits.[4] The descendants of each of these different kinds, apart from humans, would today mostly be represented by a larger grouping than what is called a species. In most cases, those species descended from a particular original kind would be grouped today within what modern taxonomists (biologists who classify living things) call a genus (plural genera).
One common definition of a species is a group of organisms which can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, and cannot mate with other species. However, most of the so-called species (obviously all the extinct ones) have not been tested to see what they can or cannot mate with. In fact, not only are there known crosses between so-called species, but there are many instances of trans-generic matings, so the 'kind' may in some cases be as high as the family.
Identifying the 'kind' with the genus is also consistent with Scripture, which spoke of kinds in a way that the Israelites could easily recognize without the need for tests of reproductive isolation.
For example, horses, zebras and donkeys are probably descended from an equine (horse-like) kind, since they can interbreed, although the offspring are sterile. Dogs, wolves, coyotes and jackals are probably from a canine (dog-like) kind. All different types of domestic cattle (which are clean animals) are descended from the Aurochs, so there were probably at most seven (or fourteen) domestic cattle aboard. The Aurochs itself may have been descended from a cattle kind including bisons and water buffaloes. We know that tigers and lions can produce hybrids called tigons and ligers, so it is likely that they are descended from the same original kind.
Woodmorappe totals about 8000 genera, including extinct genera, thus about 16,000 individual animals which had to be aboard. With extinct genera, there is a tendency among some paleontologists to give each of their new finds a new genus name. But this is arbitrary, so the number of extinct genera is probably highly overstated. Consider the sauropods, which were the largest dinosaurs - the group of huge plant-eaters like Brachiosaurus, Diplodocus, Apatosaurus, etc. There are 87 sauropod genera commonly cited, but only 12 are 'firmly established' and another 12 are considered 'fairly well established'.[5]
One commonly raised problem is 'How could you fit all those huge dinosaurs on the Ark?' First, of the 668 supposed dinosaur genera, only 106 weighed more than ten tons when fully grown. Second, as said above, the number of dinosaur genera is probably greatly exaggerated. But these numbers are granted by Woodmorappe to be generous to skeptics. Third, the Bible does not say that the animals had to be fully grown. The largest animals were probably represented by 'teenage' or even younger specimens. The median size of all animals on the ark would actually have been that of a small rat, according to Woodmorappe's up-to-date tabulations, while only about 11 % would have been much larger than a sheep.
Another problem often raised by atheists and theistic evolutionists is 'how did disease germs survive the flood?' This is a leading question - it presumes that germs were as specialized and infectious as they are now, so all the Ark's inhabitants must have been infected with every disease on earth. But germs were probably more robust in the past, and have only fairly recently lost the ability to survive in different hosts or independently of a host. In fact, even now many germs can survive in insect vectors or corpses, or in the dried or frozen state, or be carried by a host without causing disease. Finally, loss of resistance to disease is consistent with the general degeneration of life since the Fall.[6]
Was the ark large enough to hold all the required animals?
The Ark measured 300x50x30 cubits (Genesis 6:15) which is about 140x23x13.5 metres or 459x75x44 feet, so its volume was 43,500 m3 (cubic metres) or 1.54 million cubic feet. To put this in perspective, this is the equivalent volume of 522 standard American railroad stock cars, each of which can hold 240 sheep.
If the animals were kept in cages with an average size of 50x50x30 centimetres (20x20x12 inches), that is 75,000 cm3 (cubic centimetres) or 4800 cubic inches, the 16,000 animals would only occupy 1200 m3 (42,000 cubic feet) or 14.4 stock cars. Even if a million insect species had to be on board, it would not be a problem, because they require little space. If each pair was kept in cages of 10 cm (four inches) per side, or 1000 cm3, all the insect species would occupy a total volume of only 1000 m3, or another 12 cars. This would leave room for five trains of 99 cars each for food, Noah's family and 'range' for the animals. However, insects are not included in the meaning of behemah or remes in Genesis 6:19-20, so Noah probably would not have taken them on board as passengers anyway.
Tabulating the total volume is fair enough, since this shows that there would be plenty of room on the Ark for the animals with plenty left over for food, range etc. It would be possible to stack cages, with food on top or nearby (to minimize the amount of food carrying the humans had to do), to fill up more of the Ark space, while still allowing plenty of room for gaps for air circulation. We are discussing an emergency situation, not necessarily luxury accommodation. Although there is plenty of room for exercise, skeptics have overstated animals' needs for exercise anyway.
Even if we don't allow stacking one cage on top of another to save floor space, there would be no problem. Woodmorappe shows from standard recommended floor space requirements for animals that all of them together would have needed less than half the available floor space of the Ark's three decks. This arrangement allows for the maximum amount of food and water storage on top of the cages close to the animals.
FOOD REQUIREMENTS
The Ark would probably have carried compressed and dried foodstuffs, and probably a lot of concentrated food. Perhaps Noah fed the cattle mainly on grain, plus some hay for fibre. Woodmorappe calculated that the volume of foodstuffs would have been only about 15 % of the Ark's total volume. Drinking water would only have taken up 9.4 % of the volume. This volume would be reduced further if rainwater was collected and piped into troughs.
(If you won't consider this basic outline do the calculations on your own. I'va already given you a source in which you can find all the calculations. If you expect me to calculate it all on my own to cite to you you're crazy. If you don't trust Woodmorappe's calculations, which clearly stand up to scrutiny because otherwise he wouldn't be so bold as to publish his work, then you can do the calculating on your own. Besides, if you don't trust his calculations, how can you trust mine?)
About HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS of dragons/dinosaurs. I put these(below) together but I am still looking more in-depth so I will tell you as I find out more. These accounts aren't from Romans or Egyptians but the are accounts.
Here is an account of a huge beast from WWI, made by a german submarine:
"On July 30, 1915, our U28 torpedoed the British steamer Iberian carrying a rich cargo in the North Atlantic. The steamer sank quickly, the bow sticking almost vertically into the air. When it had gone for about twenty-five seconds there was a violent explosion. A little later pieces of wreckage, and among them a gigantic sea animal (writhing and struggling wildly), was shot out of the water to a height of 60 to 100-feet. At that moment I had with me in the conning tower my officers of the watch, the chief engineer, the navigator, and the helmsman. Simultaneously we all drew one another's attention to this wonder of the seas...we were unable to identify it. We did not have time to take a photograph, for the animal sank out of sight after ten or fifteen seconds. It was about 60-feet long, was like a crocodile in shape and had four limbs with powerful webbed feet and a long tail tapering to a point."
In Africa, a scientist once found evidence that a few might still be alive. Natives living in northern Zimbabwe described a strange flying animal which they called the "kongamato." It was not a bird but more like a reddish-colored lizard with bare, bat-like wings. The distance between its wing tips was four to seven feet. The scientist showed the natives pictures of various animals, both living and extinct. Each person interviewed said the Pterodactyl was most like the Kongamoto. These animals are supposed to live mainly in a huge, dense area called the Jiunda Swamp. Researchers have heard of animals like this in other places, too.
Flying reptiles were also reported in Europe in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. And an authority reported sighting a flying reptile near Mt. Pilatus, in Switzerland, as late as 1649. The folklore of the Sioux Indian tribe also tells the story of a flying reptile, named the "Thunderbird", that was seen falling from the sky after being struck by lightning. It has appeared in Indian tales ever since.
Evolutionists believe that Dinosaurs died millions of years ago. But there is a great amount of evidence that dinosaurs lived only a few thousand years ago.
One of these pieces of evidence is a blood report from a t-rex with intact hemoglobin. Hemoglobin breaks down rapidly and could not last millions of years.
One species of dinosaur, tanystropheus, were said to have died out millions of years ago. But on May 13,1572 one may have been killed by a peasant farmer in Italy (pg 41 "The Great Dinosaur Mystery" by Paul Taylor ISBN 0-89636-264-7).
The creatures body was taken to a local, but well known scientist named Ulysses Aldrovandus. A series of in depth pictures were drawn of the creatures body. It was then dissected, and more pictures of it were drawn.
For over 2 hundred years there have been reports of a living dinosaur in Africa. This creature, which the natives call “Mokele-Mbembe” is believed to be a sauropod type of dinosaur.
Sauropod means "Lizard-Footed" dinosaur. Sauropods are four-legged, herbivorous dinosaurs
These incidents were reported long before the word "dinosaur" was coined, and long before anyone (in this century) knew they existed. If Mokele-Mbembe is a living dinosaur, then it makes the claim of total dinosaur extinction unfounded.
The Congolese people are very familiar with the aquatic dinosaur living in the Likoula swamp region. They call this Apatosaurus-like creature "Mokele-Mbembe" which means: “one who stops the flow of rivers”.
From the size of this awesome beast this name is sure fitting!
They believe this animal (which they greatly fear) is sacred.
This belief is due to the illness and death of many in the pygmy tribe after one was killed with a spear and eaten by the people.
Of course, the deaths and illness were probably more likely due to spoilage of its meat. An animal this large could have been eaten for several weeks.
"Persistent reports of strange creatures in remote, swampy jungles of western Africa has led two scientists to believe that dinosaurs still may walk the Earth. Both historical reports from Westerners and firsthand accounts from natives indicate dinosaur-like creatures may exist today in a virtually unexplored jungle in the People’s Republic of the Congo, the researchers said yesterday. Dr. Roy Mackal, a research associate at the University of Chicago, said he believes the animals may be elephant-sized dinosaurs...
“In an article in Science magazine, published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the researchers say natives call the creature‘Mokele-Mbembe.’
“The researchers say they believe it actually may be a dinosaur that looks like a smaller version of the brontosaurus, a giant plant-eater that died out 70 million years ago. Natives shown pictures of many kinds of animals picked illustrations of the brontosaurus as most closely resembling the creatures they say they saw, Mackal said.”
Source: Warren E. Leary "Dinosaurs May Inhabit Remote Jungle." San Diego Union Tribune, Oct 18, 1980 (Washington date Line).(as quoted in “That their words may be used against them” by Henry Morris, pg. 258) Roy Mackal, an American Biochemist (and evolutionist) has headed several expeditions since 1980 to the Likouala swamp. Mackal has collected numerous eyewitness accounts from the Congo natives. Many live in different locations, yet their descriptions of the creature are the same despite lack of communication with each other.
Descriptions of the dinosaurs physical appearance and behavioral traits are consistent with each other. Marcellin Agnagna a Congolese Biologist saw the creature in 1983.
He has no doubt that what he saw was a living dinosaur.
Mokele-Mbembe is most often seen eating the lush vegetation along the riverbanks. A Congolese Army Officer even reports coming as close as 30 feet to the dinosaur. The swamp region is in part of the Peoples Republic of the Congo. The forest and swamp area where Mokele-Mbembe lives is so heavily wooded that humans rarely penetrate its borders. People often ask: "If this creature exists, then why doesn't someone just go over there and get it?" or “Why doesn’t someone take its picture?” And those are good questions. But catching the creature is not that simple. First, there is currently a Civil War going on there, making traveling permits almost impossible to obtain. And second, it is often hard for them to find animals they know are living there. For instance the lowland gorillas are equally elusive, yet no one denies their existence.
I will stop there for now because it is getting a little long and I don't know how long you guys can stay awake. But about the quetion one of you asked me. I believe you asked about how the salt and fresh water creatures survived during the flood. I have evidence of rapid post-flood adaptation. I will post it tomorrow when I have time.
Larc, I do believe that before the fall of man no animals ate meat.
Jason.
Farkel,
Whos level of intelligence is in question. I am not trying to be cruel to you and say you are stupid. While you didn't call me stupid, on your first post you called me a "dummy." Which I already pointed out was uncalled for since YOU were the one who made a mistake by saying the animal in question was a whale. I'm not going to insult you I just want to know why you won't admit your mistake instead of trying to make friends and enemies.
If you were right in your post to call me a "dummy" and if you are right that the animal that eats grass is a whale, please at least defend your position.
I am sorry if you made a mistake but it wasn't my fault. Please either come up with something to say that is relevent to the discussion or simply admit you were wrong. I am hear to discuss and I am tired of playing games with people who just want to point the finger.
And about whales eating grass. THAT WAS A SARCASTIC STATEMENT TO POINT OUT YOUR MISTAKE. Did you catch it this time around? YOU said that the biggest animal IS A WHALE. I said that the animal we are talking about IS A LAND ANIMAL. Since the Bible describes it as an animal that(as I said in the last post) "eats grass like an ox." Thus it obviously WAS NOT A WHALE. I wrote SARCASTICALLY that I had seen many whales do that. This was to show you that it COULD NOT HAVE BEEN A WHALE SINCE WHALES DON'T EAT GRASS. So don't tell me about what whales in the sea eat. If you don't understand what I mean I'm sorry about that.
Jason.
Jason,
I am not going to read all this right now, I just skimmed it. First of all, I knew the dimensions of the Ark when I asked you. I wanted you to put some time in this. Why should I?
Now, what I did read of your extensive post indicates that not only did four adult males with hand tools build this large barge like structure, but they also built thousands of cages to stack up on the three levels of the Ark.
Besides all this construction and the hand carrying of all this food, they had to round up all the animals. How long do you think all this took?
Larc,
I have been doing quite abit of work to try to answer all of your questions. So if you want the numbers YOU can calculate them or you can look up the book I refered to you. Posting messages is not my full-time job. I am a bust person. I KNOW the dimensions of the Ark.
And yes, Noah and his sons(four men) built the ark as well as ALL the cages and stalls inside. they also had to carry all of the food on to the ark. though I doubt by hand. A wheelbarrel isn't exactly complicated. But about rounding up the animals. Remember, i'm defending the Biblical account of Noah's Ark. God brought the animals to Noah once he had finished building the Ark.
How long did it take? The Bible mentions Noah being 500 years old when God commanded him to build the Ark. He was 600 when the flood waters came. So Noah had approximately one 100 years to get organized. It's not like he was working on a tight schedule.
Jason.
Jason,
We all have other things to do besides posting here. However, you were the one coming here claiming that you had "real truth". Therefore, it is incumbent on you to prove it. I also, have other things to do, but I will read your long post later, and then ask further questions and make some calculations.
One side note: for you to point that they may have used aids to move stuff is an insult to my intelligence. Of course, I know that. What I meant was that they didn't have things like fork lift trucks and other motorized devices. I thought that my comment would be patently obvious to you.
Before I leave, I see some other obvious problems. All these animals are confined to a small cage for 11 months. Now, we can do that today with domesticated chickens, but for wild animals, I think they would die from that kind of treatment. Another problem is with the stacked up cages. There would be huge amounts of exrament flowing down through the cages. Which leads me to another question. How would 8 people have time to feed thousands of animals each day and get rid of all the crap that they produced?
What make matters more difficult is the stacked up cages. It takes more time to go up ladders to feed and clean up after animals than it does to go from stall to stall.
It might be in your essay above, but how many animals do you figure were in the ark? We can take this number and divide it my 8 to determine the number of animals per hour per person per day were being cared for assuming a 16 hour work day.
You see, the logistics of all of this is mind boggling.
