Do you want the real truth or not?

by Jason 175 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Francois

  As noted elsewhere, each time religion has taken on science, religion departs the sceen with its tail between its legs. Such will be the eventual outcome in connection with this "creationism" nonsense. It perfectly reflects the spirit of the name of one of its defenders: jigrigger, to wit - carelessly and hastily thrown together; cheaply and unsubstantially built with little evidence of intelligent planning.

  One trip through a museum of natural history should be enough to convince an intelligent person of the fact of evolution. To say that God couldn't use evolution is to say that God is limited. And a limited God isn't God at all. Being limited to human imagination would be an outright handicap.

  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.
• 

  FreePeace

  Jason,

  I don't usually reply to futile posts such as yours, but I am making an exception for you.

  You are interested in the "truth?" Join the club. Here is the only "truth" that exists on the planet: "We don't know, and may likely never know "the truth." The data is simply not available."

  However, there is one BIG step you can take towards finding "truth": Shitcan the Bible--it is one of the greatest sources of "untruth" in existence.

  TO THE REST OF THE GROUP:
  Good job of keeping Jason on his toes! He has been "chasing the ball" no matter where it goes. He has posted more than anyone else. As you all know, many times, new ones come on to the board with a whirlwind until they begin to "get it." Hopefully, Jason will start to "get it" soon.

  Doug

  "The World is my country, and to do good, my religion." --Thomas Paine

  Visit my Websites:
  TruthQuest: http://www.geocities.com/freepeace2000/Truthquest/TruthQuestx.html

  Empower the Spirit: http://www.EmpowerTheSpirit.com

  Edited for clarity by FP
• 

  LDH

  Francoise,

  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?

  Actually, I think it was me. I hope. I don't get riled TOO easily, but man oh man did Jason set me off.

  I won't even go into how Larc and RHW (and JanH, I think) debunked his 'truth' which was no more than cut and paste young earth creationism.

  I stopped responding to his posts because my 11 y.o. can argue better than he can, and he bored me.

  Lisa
• 

  RedhorseWoman

  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.

  Jason, you obviously know nothing about herbivores, do you? Hay is NOT just for fiber. Hay is the dried equivalent of grass, which is what herbivores are designed to eat. Today there are pelleted forms of forage which are nutritionally complete. Back in Noah's day, the grain would have been in the form of oats most likely. Grain is NOT nutritionally adequate for herbivores. In fact, it is a VERY POOR substitute for hay.

  Herbivores fed almost totally on grain will not only be anemic, but they will also colic and die. Especially if they were fed more than they could possibly eat in a single day as you suggested as a way to cut down the time necessary to care for the animals. A horse, for example, given a three-day supply of grain will eat the three-day supply of grain within a few hours. At that point, severe founder and/or colic will set in and the animal will die.

  Grain also takes up a lot of space--and just like hay, it will lose it's nutritional value after a short time and be totally worthless. It also becomes easily contaminated by rodent droppings and grain moth larvae--making it unsuitable for forage.

  And let's consider the "trample factor". A large herbivore confined to a small stall with dirty bedding will NOT be thinking that he/she should "save" some of his feed for tomorrow, or the day after, or the day after that. He will eat his fill and trample/pee on/poop on the rest....especially if the bedding is dirty. Therefore, if Noah and his family were in the habit of feeding only "once in a while" as you stated, they'd have to have much, much more than the minimum feed requirements I mentioned previously, since now they would have half-starved animals trashing most of the feed provided.

  You also stated that the cages/stalls would not have to be cleaned every day. WRONGO!! Animals standing in their own waste will become very ill very quickly. This includes even small animals in cages. We're talking wood floors here, Jason. Wood absorbs urine very easily. Urine not only rots wood fairly quickly, but the ammonia from the urine soaked into a wood floor will cause severe lung damage within a short time.

  The bedding SHOULD be changed every day just to keep them comfortable and healthy. Additionally, straw is a horrible bedding material, which is why it is almost never used today. It easily becomes soaked with urine and slippery for the animals to stand on--especially on a lurching barge.

  Not keeping up with proper sanitation would result in a lot of dead and ill animals. Noah couldn't afford to lose half his "cargo" due to poor husbandry practices. It's a little difficult to repopulate the Earth with animals that are either dead or so crippled and sick that they can't walk off the Ark.

  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.

  This is one of the most absurd statements you have come out with in quite awhile, Jason. Even YOU should realize that one CANNOT "prove" a negative. How could anyone possibly "show you that there is no record of it"? Do you honestly think that there would be historical records stating, "we have not seen a dinosaur, therefore, they are not here?" If there is NO record of a dinosaur, it is usually because that dinosaur was NOT there.

  And once again, I challenge your modern sightings as proof that dinosaurs were on the Ark. I have repeatedly asked you why there have been no verifiable "sightings" recorded in the 4000-some-odd years prior to 1405 since their supposed debarkation from the Ark.

  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.

  It's true, Jason, we're not talking about 16,000 horses. However, we ARE including animals such as Aurochs, Elephants, Mastodons, T-Rex, Triceratops, Brachiosaurus, Duck-billed dinosaurs, Rhinos, Hippos, Cattle, Giraffes, Wildebeasts, etc. All of these animals far outweigh horses, and ALL of these animals would require MORE bedding and feed than the horses.

  And 100 years isn't a tight schedule for growing and cutting hay. especially since he had three sons to help him.

  Jason, the TIME PERIOD is NOT the issue here. What IS at issue is the viability of the foodstuffs. Hay and/or grain that is more than a year old is worthless. For that matter, how long do you keep your food around if it is not refrigerated? Do you keep it and eat it after a year or two? Let's try a little experiment, okay? Go buy a bag of potatoes and stick them in a closet for 10 years....then try eating them.

  First off, neandertals weren't animals. They were like you and me. So unless Noah himself was one they weren't on the ark.

  Thank you, Jason, this was my point entirely. Therefore, you agree that any Neandertal bones, artifacts, or cave paintings were created prior to the Flood, correct? I asked you several times how fragile artifacts such as those created by Neandertals could survive in caves that were submersed in brackish water for over a year. YOU stated that there WERE NO pre-flood artifacts or drawings. NOW you are saying that the Neandertals did NOT survive the Flood, and they were NOT on the Ark. Therefore, anything related to them was pre-Flood, correct? Once again--how did these things survive submersion for over a year?

  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.

  Well, obviously from the comments you've received, your guru hasn't answered ALL the questions. I still want to know how Noah managed to get sufficient land for haying and get all of it cut, cured and loaded within a couple of weeks of departure. Hundred-year-old hay just doesn't cut it, Jason, so stop using THAT argument. Grain is also a very labor intensive commodity. Processing all this animal feed in a couple of weeks would require one HELL of a workforce.

  Do you honestly think that Noah could have hired enough people to do this? They already thought he was crazy.

  Have you read "Chariots of the Gods"? This book lays out some very good "proofs" that aliens built the pyramids. Does this mean that it is true? Do YOU believe that book, Jason? After all, the author answers all the arguments presented to him. Actually, he could probably prove that Noah's Ark was actually a spaceship.
• 

  larc

  Jason,

  RedHorseWoman has shown the vast difficuly of the food problem. Now, I am going to further address the space problem.

  The average amount of space per animal is 96.25 cubic feet. You wrote to RHW that the average size was that of a dog. Let us assume that the average size cage was 3 feet on each side. Take a look at a yard stick to visualize this. It is a pretty small cage. It would take up 27 square feet. Now these cages could not be packed together, because there would be no way for Noah to get to the cages several layers in. Therefore, there would have to be aisle ways between the cages. Let us assume each aisleway is 2 feet wide, which is pretty narrow. This would tie up another 18 cubic feet per cage. This leaves us with 51 cubic feet left for all the food, water, and bedding. RHW pointed out that bedding needs to be changed every day, but let us go with your assumption that it can be changed less frequently. Let us assmue that each cage has one and one third inch of bedding and it is only changed once a week. That is one cubic foot per week or 45 cubic feet for the duration of the voyage. Now, we are down to 6 cubit feet. Jason, we are running out of room.

  The logistics: I pointed out that the people only had 30 seconds per animal per day for the care and feeding of the animals assuming a 16 hour work schedule. You asserted that they would have to visit each animal every few days. RHW demonstrated that for many animals, this won't work. I will assume that even if it could, there is not enough time. Let us assume, that they only tended each animal once per week. That still only gives them 3 1/2 minutes to feed, water, and replace the old bedding. There is time involved in transporting the food and water and transporting the new and old bedding. Also, since your theory has the animals stacked in cages from floor to ceiling, there would be a lot of time time tied up in climbing up and down ladders. As I said before, Jason, I don't think the numbers work.
• 

  Jason

  RedhorseWoman,

  I never said grain was a SUBSTITUE for hay. I said hay wasn't the only thing Noah would have used to feed the animals. And maybe you haven't noticed but grass isn't the only thing herbivores eat. If it was they would be called Grassivores. And how do you know how "poor" the grain was 4500 years ago? It isn't nutritionally adequate if that's all you feed the animals. But that wouldn't be all he fed them. They probably would have had lots of concentrated food. The cattle would have been fed mainly on grain. But it could have been different for each animal. For the two horses I'm sure they wouldn't have had any problem providing the necessary diet. If horses and other species can't figure out when they are full then Noah could simply have had a schedule for feeding those animals everyday. And he could feed the other animals that wouldn't over-eat every few days. You keep talking like every animal on the ark is exactly the same as a horse or that there were many horses. This wasn't the case.

  -"Herbivores fed almost totally on grain will not only be anemic, but they will also colic and die."

  If you are going to make this claim please provide some evidence. How much actual grain would you have to feed an animal to kill it? Does this rula apply to every species of herbivore or just your horses?

  -"Grain also takes up a lot of space--and just like hay, it will lose it's nutritional value after a short time and be totally worthless. It also becomes easily contaminated by rodent droppings and grain moth larvae--making it unsuitable for forage."

  Okay. Exactly how long does it take for grain and hay to lose their nutrition. And don't give me the fastest time ever recorded. What causes it to lose nutrition? Taking up a lot of space on the ark is not a problem is you look at the emense size of it. There also doesn't need to be any rodents in the hay or moth larvae. The way you talk about these things it would seem near impossible just keep a farm. How do you do it? How do you keep the forage from becoming unnutritious? Do you just throw away the hay that the horses don't eat?

  -"You also stated that the cages/stalls would not have to be cleaned every day. WRONGO!! Animals standing in their own waste will become very ill very quickly. This includes even small animals in cages. We're talking wood floors here, Jason. Wood absorbs urine very easily. Urine not only rots wood fairly quickly, but the ammonia from the urine soaked into a wood floor will cause severe lung damage within a short time."

  You said that stalls have to be cleaned every day. WRONGO!! Like I said, with deep bedding added a stall can sometimes be left for months without being changed. If the straw or sawdust bedding absobed the urine then not much of it would reach the would. On the ark they probably used VERY DEEP bedding. This also reduces the smell. There would also have been good air circulation.You say urine rots wood very quickly. How quick? I guess urine would completely rot an entire ship in just a year. I guess it's not possible after all. You keep saying "very quickly" "in a VERY short time." Why don't you give some actual times for these things. Very quickly can mean anywhere from one day to one year in this case.

  Yes, for super healthy comfortable animals on a well kept farm the bedding SHOULD (key word) be changed every day. But we are not talking about whether or not the animals would be comfortable. This I said previously, this was an emergency situation where survival was the task. Not being comfortable. And the bedding didn't HAVE to be straw. It may have been saw dust. It may have been a mixture. But being very thick it would absorb a lot of urine and could thus go without changing for an extended period. I also mentioned slanted floors.

  And I mentioned before that some cages sould have been stacked on top of each other. But this isn't even necessary. There would be plenty of room if they were all side by side.

  -"How could anyone possibly "show you that there is no record of it"? Do you honestly think that there would be historical records stating, "we have not seen a dinosaur, therefore, they are not here?" If there is NO record of a dinosaur, it is usually because that dinosaur was NOT there."

  My point exactly. If you can't prove there is no record of it why do you say it with such confidence?

  -"And once again, I challenge your modern sightings as proof that dinosaurs were on the Ark. I have repeatedly asked you why there have been no verifiable "sightings" recorded in the 4000-some-odd years prior to 1405 since their supposedly debarkation from the Ark."

  You assume that because I mention a siting in 1405 that that is the only siting in 4000 years. There would have been tons of sightings. And I already said I am currently studying these sightings and I will post a message on that topic alone as soon as I get a chance to read up on it.

  -"We're not talking about 16,000 horses. However, we ARE including animals such as Aurochs, Elephants, Mastodons, T-Rex, Triceratops, Brachiosaurus, Duck-billed dinosaurs, Rhinos, Hippos, Cattle, Giraffes, Wildebeasts, etc. All of these animals far outweigh horses, and ALL of these animals would require MORE bedding and feed than the horses."

  We are talking about all of these animals which outweigh horses. But like I said, even the biggest animals were once small animals. Are you saying that it would be out of the question for Noah to take young animals instead of full grown animals. This would make more sense because they would take up less space, eat less food, and have plenty of time to repopulate after the flood so that they didn't become extinct too fast.

  -"Do you keep it and eat it after a year or two? Let's try a little experiment, okay? Go buy a bag of potatoes and stick them in a closet for 10 years....then try eating them."

  We're not talking about a ten year old bag of potatoes. We're talking about hay. I asked you earlier, exactly how long does it take for hay and grain to go bad or be unedible? Give me the facts.
  -"Once again--how did these things survive submersion for over a year?"

  First off, who cares HOW they survived? The important thing is that they DID survive. Tell me, how does a ship survive underwater for a hundred years. Give me some reasons why nothing could survive the flood. I already gave you an example of neandertal artifacts that were found buried under the black sea. So burial is one way. Others may have been kept in air pockets in caves. Some could have survived under water for a year. Why wouldn't they? Exactly what artifacts are we discussing here?

  -"Well, obviously from the comments you've received, your guru hasn't answered ALL the questions. I still want to know how Noah managed to get sufficient land for haying and get all of it cut, cured and loaded within a couple of weeks of departure. Hundred-year-old hay just doesn't cut it, Jason, so stop using THAT argument. Grain is also a very labor intensive commodity. Processing all this animal feed in a couple of weeks would required one HELL of a workforce."

  How do "the comments I've recieved" show that "my guru" hasn't answered all the questions? You don't make any sense, RedhorseWoman. So far not one person who has mad a comment to me has actuallt read the book to see his answers. So just because you don't know his answer means there isn't one? And I didn't say he spent 100 years cutting hay. I said he had a hundred years to build the ark and get organized.He may have gathered hay and other food over a period of a few months. He could have then fed the animals with the oldest food first so it wouldn't have time to go bad. We don't know how much time he spent or if he had any hired help. Yes, it would have taked a lot of hard work. But it is not impossible. And whether or not people thought he was crazy, he still probably had friends and family who would have helped him. Some may have thought he was crazy but that doesn't mean they won't work for money, food, a place to stay, etc.

  -"Have you read "Chariots of the Gods"? This book lays out some very good "proofs" that aliens built the pyramids. Does this mean that it is true? Do YOU believe that book, Jason? After all, the author answers all the arguments presented to him. Actually, he could probably prove that Noah's Ark was actually a spaceship."

  Boy, you really got me that time. Tell me some of the "proofs" that aliens built the pyramids. If you believe that it is possible for a puddle of muck to transform into a human being over millions of years going against the laws of science then perhaps this alien book isn't so far fetched. The author may answer the questions but he does not prove these answers. Proof is undeniable evidence. Don't be so insulting. Just because I don't believe the same thing as you doesn't make your belief more valid or less rediculous. You just see from a different angle. Your tone toward me is obviously hostile. Isn't that right, RedhorseWoman? Were not talking about aliens here are we Redhorsewoman? Stick to the subject. Once again. If you don't know the truth then why do you try so hard to defend it?

  Jason.
• 

  mommy

  I am just the cheerleading squad don't mind little ole me

  Sizz Boom Bah
  Ho RAh RAh
  Red Horse Go!
  Make Jason Show!
  He is SLOW!
  Time is changing
  Minds are debating
  More important things!
  YAh! Yah! hahah

  sorry I am loving this thread, and learning alot! Rhyming is not on my "I can do well" lists...lol RHW, thanks you for your patience. And Larc, You know I love ya too
  wendy(quietly sitting back down on the sidelines)
• 

  ianao

  Jason:

  If you believe that it is possible for a puddle of muck to transform into a human being over millions of years going against the laws of science then perhaps this alien book isn't so far fetched.

  What an absolutely ridiculous statement.

  If you don't know the truth then why do you try so hard to defend it?

  Jason, you are the one who started this thread screaming "do you want the real truth or not?", not RedHorseWoman. You also did it to former JWs. What the hell do you expect?

  If you went into a room of American red-neck bikers and said: "Why don't you all ride a REAL bike instead of those stupid Harleys", then they would pulverise you. Who really had the better bikes? It was a matter of opinion.

  I don't see RHW doing anything but disagreeing with you, AND telling you why. I also see that you disagree with her, and you know why. Fine. It's not the end of the world man! Everyone has the right to their respective illusion, let RHW have hers, and you can have yours. You're never going to find anyone who agrees with you 100% on almost anything. Get over it.

  Then again, if you are here because you DOUBT your beliefs and are here to see them properly scrutinized, then have fun I guess.

  Edited for grammatical error.
• 

  ianao

  No fair Mommy!

  You posted before I did.
• 

  RedhorseWoman

  Okay. Exactly how long does it take for grain and hay to lose their nutrition. And don't give me the fastest time ever recorded. What causes it to lose nutrition?

  Well, Jason, I will repeat this for probably the fourth time in this thread. Under optimum conditions of storage, hay and grain will last a maximum of a year. Under poor conditions such as might be present on an ark with dampness within and without, I'd give it less than that. What causes it to lose nutrition? Pretty much everything, Jason....exposure to sunlight, dampness and air are the prime nutrition destroyers. If there is dampness (oh, gee, do you think it might be damp on an ark in the rain floating on the water?) you will assuredly develop mold, which will not only cause the hay to lose nutrition, but will also make it toxic.

  Taking up a lot of space on the ark is not a problem is you look at the emense size of it.

  Well, of course it's not aproblem if you eliminate all the animals, silly.....but we're talking LOTS of animals here.

  There also doesn't need to be any rodents in the hay or moth larvae.

  There is NEVER a "need" for rodents or grain moths, Jason; but they do somehow seem to find stored grain. We usually can't keep extra grain around unless we store it in metal or heavy plastic bins. Rodents chew right through walls to get to the grain sacks, and they can go through quite a few bags of grain in a very short time. If Noah was storing things up for years, I doubt he would have anything usuable after a very short while.

  The way you talk about these things it would seem near impossible just keep a farm. How do you do it? How do you keep the forage from becoming unnutritious? Do you just throw away the hay that the horses don't eat?

  First of all, Jason, we try to plan our hay needs pretty closely, because, yes, we discard the hay from last season and buy fresh. During the Spring and Summer the horses are grazing on fresh grass, and we buy our Winter's supply just before the cold sets in. In fact, by the end of the Winter, when the hay is probably no more than eight months old, the horses aren't really thrilled about eating it.

  And how do you know how "poor" the grain was 4500 years ago? It isn't nutritionally adequate if that's all you feed the animals. But that wouldn't be all he fed them. They probably would have had lots of concentrated food. The cattle would have been fed mainly on grain.

  And how do you know how "good" the grain was 4500 years ago? What exactly is this "concentrated food" of which you speak? Mind explaining? Why would Noah feed the cattle mainly on grain? Cattle need hay as much as, if not more so, than equines. Why do you think that you see dairy herds out grazing? Do you suppose that the farmer throws out sacks of grain for them in the field?

  And he could feed the other animals that wouldn't over-eat every few days.

  Most animals will overeat if there is a large supply of food available. Even if they don't eat too much at one sitting, the food would be trampled and wasted because of the cramped conditions in which they would have been forced to live. Perhaps each animal was provided with a Tupperware bowl so they could put their leftovers in there to keep them fresh and tasty for the next day?

  If you are going to make this claim please provide some evidence. How much actual grain would you have to feed an animal to kill it? Does this rula apply to every species of herbivore or just your horses?

  Grain is a very dense feed. If animals are forced to be sedentary without proper exercize or roughage, it doesn't take an awful lot of grain to overload an herbivore's gut and cause severe bloating and colic. Herbivore's are made to be on the move almost constantly.

  I also keep thinking about your statement in a previous post, where you stated that one Brachiosaurus would consume 30 TONS of forage a day, which somehow proved that they couldn't have existed prior to man's being on the Earth. Even if the Brachiosaurs taken on the Ark were younger specimens, we're still talking at least 15 TONS of forage per DAY for these guys. For just a couple of herbivorous dinos for the period of a little over a year, we're talking about 8,000 TONS of forage--by YOUR own estimate. The feed for just these two dinos alone dwarfs my initial estimate by a large margin.

  You said that stalls have to be cleaned every day. WRONGO!! Like I said, with deep bedding added a stall can sometimes be left for months without being changed. If the straw or sawdust bedding absobed the urine then not much of it would reach the would. On the ark they probably used VERY DEEP bedding.

  Exactly how many stalls have you ever maintained, Jason? Have you ever seen a facility where stalls are not cleaned for months at a time? Do you realize how bad it is for an animal to stand on wet, urine-soaked bedding 24/7 for months at a time? Exactly how deep do you consider to be efficient? Are you aware that animals need to lay down to sleep? Are you aware of the fact that bedding gets kicked up the sides of a stall very quickly? How do you suppose Noah got tons of sawdust to use as stall bedding? Do you honestly think that the amount obtained from building the ark would be sufficient? Are you aware that shavings or sawdust from certain types of trees is poisonous? The more you try to explain the flaws in your scenario, the deeper becomes the hole you're digging.

  -"How could anyone possibly "show you that there is no record of it"? Do you honestly think that there would be historical records stating, "we have not seen a dinosaur, therefore, they are not here?" If there is NO record of a dinosaur, it is usually because that dinosaur was NOT there."

  My point exactly. If you can't prove there is no record of it why do you say it with such confidence?

  Uh, Jason....YOU are the one trying to prove something here. If there are NO records of something, then that DISPROVES YOUR contention. If you can't PROVE that these records exist, then why do YOU say it with such confidence?

  Yes, for super healthy comfortable animals on a well kept farm the bedding SHOULD (key word) be changed every day. But we are not talking about whether or not the animals would be comfortable. This I said previously, this was an emergency situation where survival was the task. Not being comfortable. And the bedding didn't HAVE to be straw. It may have been saw dust. It may have been a mixture. But being very thick it would absorb a lot of urine and could thus go without changing for an extended period. I also mentioned slanted floors.

  Jason, Noah was carrying breeding stock on his ark. He was not transporting the family pet to a new home. He needed to have these animals super-healthy and in prime breeding condition so that they could quickly begin to repopulate the Earth. You seem to feel that it was sufficient that Noah be able to pull a half-dead, barely breathing carcass off the Ark and consider that a job well done.

  And, as you have yourself pointed out, this was NOT an emergency situation. It was a long-planned event. Noah was given a job to do, and from what you've pointed out, he did it very badly. If people were transporting valuable breeding stock in this way today, they would be out of a job very quickly.....especially if these animals were the ONLY ones in existence. Noah had a divine imperative to bring these animals through in prime condition.....and considering the facts, there is no way this could have been accomplished.

  First off, who cares HOW they survived? The important thing is that they DID survive. Tell me, how does a ship survive underwater for a hundred years. Give me some reasons why nothing could survive the flood. I already gave you an example of neandertal artifacts that were found buried under the black sea. So burial is one way. Others may have been kept in air pockets in caves. Some could have survived under water for a year. Why wouldn't they? Exactly what artifacts are we discussing here?

  Interesting, Jason. When I first asked this question, you stated unequivocally that there WERE no pre-Flood cave paintings or artifacts. NOW you say that they just survived...that's all. I pointed out that there are caves with pre-Flood cave paintings that have been closed to the public for some time now because they were being destroyed simply due to excess carbon dioxide breathed out by the tourists. Now you say that these fragile artifacts somehow were all preserved by "air pockets". Of course, the caves in question show no evidence of ever having been filled with seawater....guess there must have been some REALLY HUGE airpockets, huh?

  We're not talking about a ten year old bag of potatoes. We're talking about hay. I asked you earlier, exactly how long does it take for hay and grain to go bad or be unedible? Give me the facts

  I will close with this one even though I answered this in the beginning of my post (as well as at least three times previously). I want to be sure that you understand this this time. Hay and grain under optimal storage conditions will lose their nutritional value in just about a year. Under poor storage conditions (such as on an ark with dampness and mold present) probably half that time.

  And, yes.....once again.....we discard last year's hay.