Do you want the real truth or not?

by Jason 175 Replies latest jw friends

Farkel

Jason,
You said:
: I am a bust person.
Is that a fact?
Farkel
RedhorseWoman

(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.

I am referring to methods of dating artifacts, Jason. Fossil bones and layers, as well as artifacts left by ancient humans (as well as Neandertals) have been dated thousands, if not millions of years prior to the Flood. You refuse to accept any dating methods as valid; therefore, it is impossible to discuss or prove anything with you or to you.
Yet, you blithely assert that fossil layers were neatly laid down with only specific species ensconced therein, by random Flood waters. This doesn't bother you in the least, even though the probability of such an ordered layering resulting from a chaotic event such as a Flood is highly unlikely. The more likely scenario if this were true would be to have jumbles of bones from every "period" just mashed together. This is generally not the case.
"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.
No, Jesus didn't speak of elephants, but other peoples living at that time certainly did. No one seems to mention any of these multitudinous dinosaurs flitting around.
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.
Do you honestly feel that publishing a theory means that it can stand up to scrutiny? Oh, please. Anyone can publish anything they want....publishing something doesn't make it true.
At one time I accepted these same theories and calculations (except for the dinosaur part). Then, I acquired horses of my own, and these calculations and theories just made no sense.
First of all, Noah wouldn't have had access to modern bailing equipment. Therefore, the hay would have had to be put in stacks, which take up a LOT of space. Secondly, hay has to be fresh, or it loses its nutritional value. An herbivore being fed on old, possibly moldly hay, would become very ill, and would possibly die. There's also a major problem with compressed hay...namely, spontaneous combustion. If the hay is not sufficiently dry and is compressed too tightly, it will heat up and fire will result. Many barns and livestock have been lost due to this. I would think that a place such as the Ark during an extended rainy period with "compressed feed" as your "expert" suggested would be just the right conditions for spontaneous combustion to be a major problem.
Horses and other herbivores cannot just stand around all day. In order to thrive, they need to be able to keep moving. Ever seen a horse founder because of improper care and lack of exercise? It's not pretty and it can happen pretty quickly....especially standing around on hard wooden planking. Of course that would be ameliorated with deep bedding in the stall, but now you need to accommodate the storage of straw (which is totally non-nutritious) for bedding the animals. Figure a minimum of 100 cubic feet of bedding per animal per day (since they would be confined to a stall). I am basing this on what we use for our run-in shed, and what others use for stall bedding for those horses kept with minimum turnout of two to four hours a day. Of course, optimum stall size per horse would be 12 feet by 12 feet--and again, several hours of turnout would be needed per day.
You say that there were NO pre-Flood cave paintings and artifacts? Well, that once again brings us back to the Neandertals, since they have found caves with Neandertal artifacts (of course, archaeologists have used those--according to you--bogus dating methods, which put them WELL before the time of the Flood). In order for your "truth" to be true, you are now saying that Neandertals were on the Ark with Noah. How did he accomplish this one?
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.
Now, here you are doing a total about-face. I asked you specifically in a previous post if you believed that Eohippus, the proto-horse, from which modern horses are said to have descended was on the Ark. You said unequivocally, "yes". You also said that Aurochs and Sabre-toothed cats ALL lived at the same time with dinosaurs and modern animals. NOW you saying that only their modern counterparts were included and that these modern counterparts "descended" from earlier animals. You are NOW stating that you believe in evolution.
So Noah had approximately one 100 years to get organized. It's
not like he was working on a tight schedule.
As far as food is concerned, I'm afraid he was working on a VERY tight schedule. Hay needs to grow, and then it needs to be cut, after which it must stay in the field for several days to cure properly. THEN it could be loaded onto the Ark, but as I've already pointed out, hay that is more than a few months old is useless as forage--it loses ALL nutritional value. So, let's see--our three horses use (between hay and grain) five TONS of forage per winter. Multiply that by three for the year on the Ark, plus forage to hold them until vegetation began to regrow after the Flood, and you have 12 TONS of forage. Now this amount is minimal, since it could have been months after the waters receded before vegetation was available again.
Now, this is for THREE, half-ton animals. Let's figure the amount of food needed acccording to your expert, where he says there would be approximately 16,000 animals (some of these animals would eat considerably more than my horses, but let's be conservative here). We are now talking 80,000 TONS of forage--minimum--for these animals. Remember, this 80,000 TONS of forage would have to be loaded on the Ark within a few weeks of the cutoff time so that it would retain sufficient nutritional value throughout the voyage.
I don't think Noah was able to call his local feed store to have the stuff delivered. Then, too, you need to consider that certain animals could not have survived on hay. Pandas eat only Bamboo. Koalas eat only Eucalyptus leaves. Giraffes exist mainly on Acacia leaves. The logistics of this whole thing just boggle the mind.
And, once again, you have never asked me what I believe--nor have I told you. So, don't start getting bent out of shape about what you THINK I'm saying. I'm not claiming to have "truth"--I'm simply stating things from my own experiences. I used to believe your "experts", but after putting their theories to the test, I find that their theories are flat-out wrong.
Jason

Farkel,
This is a very important topic and I am glad you could point out this intersting new evidence to me. My only explanation, sadly, is that I mistakenly pressed the "t" button on my keyboard when I meant to press the "y." This may be because "t" is right beside the "y" and I was typing fast. However, if any new knowledge on this topic comes to my attention I will notify you immediately. Keep up the good work.
Jason.
Naeblis

A bust person? I'm more of an ass man myself.
larc

Jason,
I looked at your posts with the numbers. Based on 16,000 animals and 1.54 million cubic feet, that comes out to less than 100 cubic feet per animal. This would be a cube of about four and a half feet per animal. This space would have to contain the animal and all the food that it would eat for ll months. I don't think the numbers work.
Now, if there were only 8,000 generic species about 4,000 years ago, the rate of evolution within species must have been extremely rapid ever since then for there to be hundreds of thousand of species today.
Question: you said that Noah may not have taken the insects. If he didn't how did they survive?
Question: if all the animals were vegetarians back then, when did carnivors develope their strutural difference as contrasted with herbavors. Are not these structural changes an example of evolution?
If there were 16,000 animals and 8 people, it would mean that they had less than 30 seconds per animal per day for the feeding and removal off manure, assuming that they were working a 16 hour day. No wonder Noah got drunk when he got off the boat.
Francois

I've been away in San Francisco on vacation.
This thread was started by yet another person who has THE truth?
(YAWN!)
Will someone recap this thread for me, and perhaps point out where someone here cut off this arrogant piss-ant at the ankles? Who did it this time, btw, JanH? Fark? Tina? Who?
Good to be back.
Franc
Where it is a duty to worship the Sun you can be sure that a study of the laws of heat is a crime.
Jigrigger

FUCK OFF, DORK!!!
Jason

Larc,
Four and a half feet per animal isn't enough for every animal. But it is enough for all the animals if you are using the AVERAGE size for all the animals. The average animal alive today is the size of a rat. The average dinosaur, as I mentioned is the size of a sheep. Some cages would be very small while others would be large enough for animals like the larger dino's or horses. But the average cage is only, as you said, about four and a half feet. You said this would not be enough for the animal and its food supply for 11 months. You're right. The animals food wouldn't be in it's cage. It would have been stored elsewhere on the ark.
You said that there would not be enough time each day to clean the cages and feed the animals. That's also true. But they wouldn't have to. The animals could be fed every few days. They would just be given more food than they can eat in one day. They may have fed some animals on tuesday. Some more animals on wednesday, etc. And animals cages don't need to be cleaned every day either. They may never have had to clean them. The floors could have been slanted to allow excrement to roll out of the ark into the water. Or the cages could be cleaned once in a while and not everyday, like the feeding. They may also have used methods of vermicomposting.
You asked, "if there were only 8,000 generic species about 4,000 years ago, the rate of evolution within species must have been extremely rapid ever since then for there to be hundreds of thousand of species today."
Actually, the speciation would have been rapid. Not evolution. "A commonly heard objection is that, surely, speciation is evolution, and that the creationists are postulating even more rapid post-Flood evolution than evolutionists do! In reply, it should be pointed out that the difference is all about genetic information. The 'big picture' of evolution is that protozoa have become pelicans, palm trees and people. Thus it must have involved processes which, via natural causes, increased the genetic information in the biosphere.
The creationist assumes that real, substantive increases in information (that is, specifying for an increase in what might be called 'functional complexity') will never arise without intelligent cause. Speciation within the creationist model will therefore be expected to occur in the absence of any increases in the information within the biosphere, and thus can properly be classified as non-evolutionary.
Of course, such changes (for example, speciation as a result of horizontal changes in information, or as a result of a mutational defect with a loss of information) do not in themselves offer evidence against 'big picture' evolution, since they can easily be assigned a place within the overall model. However, one needs to emphatically point out that they do not suffice to demonstrate the validity of such evolutionary belief, since they can be just as easily assigned a place within a creationist model. Note also that some anti-creationists have mockingly claimed that for a number of species to descend from one pair would require that pair to have huge super-chromosomes to carry all the information needed. While one cannot say dogmatically that existing knowledge of genetic mechanisms is definitely sufficient to provide for all the post-Flood variation needed (and in fact, some creationist thinkers have postulated that there might have been as-yet-undiscovered mechanisms as well), I suggest that the converse has not yet been demonstrated. Maximum heterozygosity would surely give a massive variation potential. Normal selectionist/adaptationist pressures, via Mendelian reshuffling and sorting of that information could presumably see substantial diversity arise within subsets of that information, just as artificial selection has shown itself capable of generating many different dog varieties, for example, in a few generations.
However, the reality is that, in the case of postulated post-Flood variation in the creation model, the subgroups have the status of separate species. That is, even though they may in some instances interbreed in captivity, they generally do not do so in the wild. Thus mechanisms of speciation, particularly rapid speciation, far from causing creationists to shudder, are actually of great interest." (taken from www.answersingenesis.org)
There probably would not have been pairs of wolves, foxes and other types of dog-like animals all on the ark. But there would have been a pair of an origional kind of dog that went through rapid speciation after the flood mainly due to pressure to survive in the new environment. That's why we can breed a camel with a llama and make a cama. There is also a dolphin that mated with a killer whale and made a "wholphin." Showing that these may have both descended from one original "kind." (Though these were not present on the ark.)
You asked how the insects could have survived if Noah didn't take them on the ark. Clearly many species didn't survive but the ones that did could have hitched a ride on the ark on their own even if they were not invited. Many others would have lived on floating debris throughout the flood.
The carnivores did not evolve into carnivores. They probably looked exactly the same before they ate meat. But once they began eating meat only the animals that had the means to do so (sharp claws and teeth) would have caught on to the new trend. Some animals today have teeth they could very well use to eat meat. Like a panda bear for example. But these animals are stricly vegetarian. There is a lion is the US in captivity. It's entire life it would not touch meat. If there was a drop of blood in her milk she wouldn't drink it. Her owners had to hire people to teach her to like meat. But to this day she won't touch it. She is a vegetarian. A zoologist examined her and said she is the healthiest of her kind he has ever seen. Proof that carnivores don't necessarily need to eat meat.
You wrote that "If there were 16,000 animals and 8 people, it would mean that they had less than 30 seconds per animal per day for the feeding and removal off manure, assuming that they were working a 16 hour day."
You are right. If they fed the animals everyday they wouldn't have enough time. But who says they need to be fed every day? Or have their cages cleaned every day? They may have very well been fed every few days. They would simply be given more food than they could eat in one day. There is a possiblity that God made the animals hibernate but that is not necessary. The cages may have been cleaned only when they became very dirty. Or the floor behind the animals could have been slanted so the excrement could just fall out into the water. There was most likely straw bedding to absorb a lot of it so this would give Noah even more time.
Jason.
Jason

RedhorseWoman,(another long one)
About the fossil layers:(From answers in Genesis. Visit their site to read the entire article).
The reality of the geologic column is predicated on the belief that fossils have restricted ranges in rock strata. In actuality, as more and more fossils are found, the ranges of fossils keep increasing. The constant extension of ranges simultaneously reduces the credibility of the geologic column and organic evolution, and makes it easier for the Genesis Flood to explain an increasingly-random fossil record.
For approximately the last two hundred years, this succession of fossils in sedimentary rock has been used to argue that the earth has undergone successive events. For instance, trilobite-bearing beds are supposed to reflect a time when trilobites were the dominant life form on earth, and dinosaur-bearing beds are supposed to reflect a time when dinosaurs were dominant on the earth. However this view is weakened because the range of fossils from one supposed time period keeps extending and overlapping fossils ostensibly typical of another period of time in the past. In this article, I will examine some examples of increases of overlap of fossils that are assigned to different geologic periods of time.
Creationists, including myself,1 have provided a variety of alternative explanations for fossil succession. These include such mechanisms as the sorting of organisms during the Flood, differential escape of organisms during the same, ecological zonation of life-forms in the antediluvian world (such that different life-forms in different strata reflect the serial burial of ecological life-zones during the Flood), and TABs (Tectonically-Associated Biological Provinces -- wherein different life forms occur in successive horizons of rock as a reflection of successive crustal downwarp of different life-bearing biogeographic communities).
All of these mechanisms do away with the notion that horizons of fossils demand successive passages of time during which the organisms lived. In other words, they allow for there to have been only one set of mutually-contemporaneous living things on a young earth, instead of a repetitive replacement of living things over vast periods of time. Most of the earth's sedimentary record is viewed as being deposited by the Noachian Deluge, and not over successive depositional events in analogues of modern sedimentary environments on an evolving earth.
For example, although trilobites and dinosaurs were contemporaries of each other, there is no basis for believing that trilobite-bearing and dinosaur-bearing rocks were necessarily deposited at the same time all over the world. During the Flood, trilobite-bearing beds at one point on earth were probably being deposited at the same time as dinosaur-bearing beds at another place on earth.
Nor can it be said that, when dinosaur-bearing beds locally overlie trilobite-bearing beds, the former are significantly younger than the latter. This, of course, excepts the small amount of difference in time, within the Flood, that elapsed between the burial of the trilobites and the burial of the overlying dinosaurs.
When we consider the fact that fossil succession is limited in overall extent, it is another way of stating that there are many fossils which are found at many stratigraphic intervals. In fact, only a minority are confined to rocks attributed to only one geologic period.2
Since the early days of the acceptance of the standard geologic column, fossils have been turning up in 'wrong' places as more and more fossils have been collected, and this process continues to this very day. 3, 4,5 And even this does not include the numerous instances where fossils are supposed to be reworked from older strata, often with no independent supporting evidence.
-About the "million year old" artifacts. Tell me exactly which dating methods we are taking about. Carbon 14? Radiometric dating?
-"No one seems to mention any of these multitudinous dinosaurs."
What history books have you been reading? If you can't show me that there is no record of it than don't assert there is no record of it. I have given you some fairly modern examples already. Including a siting in England in 1405. I told you I would look further in to history if you give me tha chance to do so.
-"Do you honestly feel that publishing a theory means that it can stand up to scrutiny? Oh, please. Anyone can publish anything they want....publishing something doesn't make it true." You obviously don't understand what the book is. It is not just a theory. He doesn't simply write, "yeah. I think it's possible."
He PROVES the feasibility. He shows you that it is very possible by refuting virtually every argument there is against Noah's Ark. All of the arguments you are using on me, he answers all those questions in his book. And much more thoroughly than I can. He has spent years researching it. At least read his book. And I never said it was true because he published it. He just proves that it COULD happen.
-"Secondly, hay has to be fresh, or it loses its nutritional value."
Who said all he fed the animals was hay? I'm sure he took hay but I doubt that was all he had. As was in my earlier post, Noah probably fed a lot of the animals mainly on grain, plus SOME hay for fibre.
There was enough room for the animals to get exersize on the ark. As Woodmorappe points out in his calculations. And there was most likely straw bedding for the animals. But remember, this was an emergency situation. Not a holiday cruise. They didn't need to "thrive", they needed to survive. They may have had to put up with harsher conditions on the ark. But as long as they can recieve their minimum requirments, they can survive. And what do you mean 100 cubic feet of bedding per animal per day? Why would the bedding have to be changed every day. And it's not like we're talking about 16,000 horses. We are talking about some larger animals among a WHOLE BUNCH of very small animals. I don't think a rodent would have much trouble surviving in a small cage. If you've ever owned a rabbit or hamster that isn't hard to see. You seem to want to place rules on the ark that apply to keeping animals happy and healthy on a farm. But much less is needed for one year of survival alone.
-"You say that there were NO pre-Flood cave paintings and artifacts? Well, that once again brings us back to the Neandertals, since they have found caves with Neandertal artifacts (of course, archaeologists have used those--according to you--bogus dating methods, which put them WELL before the time of the Flood). In order for your "truth" to be true, you are now saying that Neandertals were on the Ark with Noah. How did he accomplish this one?"
First off, neandertals weren't animals. They were like you and me. So unless Noah himself was one they weren't on the ark. You say that I don't know what you believe but you treat modern dating methods like gospel truth. I will give evidence against them in a minute. But first let me explain something. IF the dating methods are accurate, then these so-called "pre-flood artifacts" would be older than Noah's flood. But if these dating methods are not accurate, it is a different story. Perhaps they are older. Many artifacts could have survived the flood by being buried in the mud. Like all the fossils that were preserved as a result of it. The man who found the titanic has actually found ancient artifacts buried beneath the Black Sea.
-"Now, here you are doing a total about-face...You are NOW stating that you believe in evolution."
Actually, I am not stating I believe in "evolution" at all.(By evolution I am talking about macro/uphill evolution. Where there is new information present in the animals genes to create a new kind of animal.) Now I said that I believed that eohippus and sabretooth ere on the ark with all the other animals. Perhaps I should have reworded it. I believe that a pair of each "kind" of animal were on the ark. So maybe it wasn't exactly an "eohippus" or a "sabre-tooth" but one of their kind. i didn't once say that only modern counterparts were included because I doubt any of the modern "counterparts" we have today were on the ark. And it is not evolution when an animal adapts.
As I wrote in my post to Larc it is proven that many changes can occur without any "evolution" taking place. Micro-evolution is a fact of life. This is "horizontal" changes that occur to an animal in order to help it adapt to a new environment. Such as a horse kind becoming zebras, donkeys, etc. They will always be of the horse kind (not like eohippus who was mush different) but modifications can be made with the existing information in the animals genes. No informed creationist doubts this. It actually helps their cause.
It is proven that in nature these changes happen very rapidly when a creature is subjected to a new environment. If you want examples I have some. This shows that we can get a very large diversity of species from just one pair of animals. And it doesn't do much for the evolutionists cause because their theory says these changes happen progressively over millions of years. But in many cases it doesn't take more that a few hundred years. And not even evolutionist know this is not "evolution" as their theory defines it.
-"We are now talking 80,000 TONS of forage--minimum--for these animals."

How do you come up with a number like this. In case you didn't notice before we are not talking about 16,000 half-ton animals. We are talking about 16,000 animals that are probably on average the size of a dog. Not the size of a horse. There were very few large animals and even these could have been very young. You don't need TONS of forage for a rat or a dog. If you want every animal on the ark to be half a ton then of course it wouldn't work. As calculated the total amount of food would have taken up about 15% of the arks total volume. And 100 years isn't a tight schedule for growing and cutting hay. especially since he had three sons to help him. And though it is not mentioned it is also possible that Noah had hired hands. But this isn't necessary.
-"Pandas eat only Bamboo. Koalas eat only Eucalyptus leaves. Giraffes exist mainly on Acacia leaves. The logistics of this whole thing just boggle the mind."
The logistics may boggle YOUR mind. About the Panda eating only bamboo. A Panda can survive on rice porridge and other dried food as long as they are high in fibre. They don't naturally do this on their own, but they will eat it if it is available. Especially if that is all that is available. But then again we don't know for sure that pandas were present since they are probably descended from an original bear-kind. These go for the other animals too.
-"I used to believe your "experts", but after putting their theories to the test, I find that their theories are flat-out wrong."
You say this but it is all too obvious it is not true. I'm not flat out calling you a liar. But if you knew all the answers to these questions before, why are you asking them now? If you knew all of "my" experts theories I doubt you would ask so many questions. Tell me how you "put their theories to the test" and proved them wrong. You ask very good questions but you won't accept the answers as valid. But the answers are true. If they aren't true show me where they are wrong.
Jason.
larc

Jason,
I have several comments to make and questions to ask, but it is late and I have to go to sleep, so I will check in again tommorow.

Do you want the real truth or not?

Share this