Posts by Jason

50

Evolution Anyone???

by Steve Josef in

i read alot of posts and it seems that though you all (or most) have left the kh, you still believe in a "father" or a "jesus" that created everything.

since i too and one that left the kh, i have delved into science and have come the conculsion that god does not exist in a spirit form, but is life itself.

the "creator" of all things is evolution.

Jason

Evolution is the biggest lie of our time.

175

Do you want the real truth or not?

by Jason in

jw
friends

on this website there seems to be so many lies and so little actual truth.

is this supposed to be a place to get answers or confuse the hell out of truth seekers?

well, for you seekers out there, if you find the truth on this site it'll be a major fluke.

Jason

RHW,

"You "know" you have the "truth" and anything that does not fit with your concept of "truth" is automatically a lie. Is this not correct?"

No, my dear, this is not correct. I said I knew the truth. I was telling the truth when I said this. But obviously when I said it you totally blew it out of proportion as if I had said "I know everything." By the truth i mean the truth about God. You forget I am not a borg following a mass collection because mommy and daddy taught me to. I came to Christ myself. I prayed to God to show me truth before I even believed He existed. He opened my eyes. On the contrary to your statement I think you believe that anything contrary to what you think is a lie. When someone shows me that I am wrong I admit it and change my mind. You want to overstate everything to prove a point with a completely biased and ignorant attitude toward something that you don't believe. But these overstated comments would never apply to your beliefs. Not even evolution. I have provided plenty of evidence against evolution. But it is ignored. Simply because you seem to be too afraid to put your beliefs to the test. About the calculations. I will do them myself. But unlike you when I calculate something I get all the facts beforehand. Take other things into consideration. Once I have gathered all of the facts I need (since I clearly need to learn about the majority of animals, how much they eat, etc, etc). I don't just assume things like this. I believe the Bible literally because all of the evidence supports it. Scientifically, archeologically, and circumstantially. It is also nice to know that all of you have your own little sect of friends.

When you were JWs couldn't you see that you were living a sick, twisted version of an actual truth?
I am not like you. I believed in evolution very strongly. I thought it was a fact. But I searched for truth and whether you believe me or not I know it. This, as I said, doesn't mean I know everything. One can never know everything.

I never asked for a pat on the back either. I simply noted that you critisize where you can but when you come to an answer you can't refute the subject isn't mentioned again. You say you used to believe the same thing as me (pretty much). You weren't even close. I wasn't brain washed in a huge cult. I hardly ever even go to Church. As Christ teaches, Seek and you will find.

You have challenged me to do the calculations so I will. But I know it will take time. There are tons of things that must be taken into consideration when calculating an event such as this. But I think you are afraid of my challenge. I challenge you to do the same. Last time I said this all I got back was a "Why should I?" I think this is fear to find out that it is feasible. And I don't mean, "well, my horse could eat this much hay in one day if it was really hungry so let's times this by 16,000 and then..." Why can't you even be honest with yourselves?

And I haven't convinced myself that you are trying to promote your beliefs. I just pointed out that whether you tell me what you believe or not it is altogether obvious by what you say. And you believe that what you believe is true. Otherwise you wouldn't believe it.

About hay:"horses will refuse to eat it unless there is absolutely nothing else available." Interesting. It may have been a last resort near the end of the trip.

"I also know that hay distributors don't maintain stocks from year to year--it loses nutritional value after one season." How long is one season?

"Questions and facts prove nothing if you refuse to consider them."
Another interesting comment. Sounds like something I said. And I have considered your words but they don't stand up to scrutiny.

"Believe me, Jason, I was once in your position. I KNEW everything because I had the "truth" from the Bible, and no amount of factual evidence to the contrary could prove otherwise."

There is no factual evidence on the contrary. It is the other way around. The evidence FOR the Bible is what is overwhelming. Not the evidence against it.

"Similarly, believing that Noah could have managed to fit everything into the confines of the Ark, AND maintain it all for a year on the water and for who knows how long on Mt. Ararat while waiting for the water to subside and vegetation to grow, is naive in the extreme. Couldn't happen, Jason.....simply couldn't happen."

Who is naive? You simply overwhelm yourself by making it impossible in your own mind. Why won't you at least read Woodmorappe's book to see what he has to say? If it is bogus it won't make a difference. And he does provide alternatives for food immediately following the flood. I haven't recieved the book yet so I don't know what these are. And about evolution. Couldn't happen...simply couldn't happen.

"Your hypotheses so far are desperate attempts to explain away actual physical laws. Better to look at the facts first, then see if your "belief" fits, rather than trying to change factual evidence to fit your beliefs."

This in itself is a false statement. my attempt to explain are not desparate in the least. So show me the "physical laws." And I never change evidence to fit anything. Facts are facts.

If you think I am full of it why don't we discuss some beliefs you have that are contrary to mine. I don't wish to get off this topic but if you'd like we can see how well your beliefs stand against a good argument. We don't have to but it is a suggestion.

Jason.

175

Do you want the real truth or not?

by Jason in

jw
friends

on this website there seems to be so many lies and so little actual truth.

is this supposed to be a place to get answers or confuse the hell out of truth seekers?

well, for you seekers out there, if you find the truth on this site it'll be a major fluke.

Jason

farkel,

Yes, it is true. Busts are much more exciting than arks but that is not the center of discussion at the moment. We will discuss busts later when the ark topic cools off a bit. So far I have provided no evidence whatsoever for the theory on the ark. Not even circumstancial evidence.

About the giant critter poop. Since you didn't notice the few times I mentioned slanted floors this cannot be a possibility.

And the only explanation for getting rid of all the pee pee, as you pointed out so cleverly, would be to pull the plug at the bottom of the ark. There was also a high tech reverse flow system built in so no water could get in.

Oh! Good news. Discovery channel has a special on tomorrow night with evidence to support your theory that whales eat grass.

Jason.

175

Do you want the real truth or not?

by Jason in

jw
friends

on this website there seems to be so many lies and so little actual truth.

is this supposed to be a place to get answers or confuse the hell out of truth seekers?

well, for you seekers out there, if you find the truth on this site it'll be a major fluke.

Jason

Ianao,

"The very "law" that defines "muck to human" is what you said was violated by inference of what it theorizes. But, I do understand that what you and I consider to be law in science are no doubt two different things."

Now THIS is a rediculous statement. Can you rewrite this in english? Probably not.

You said that what you and I consider scientific law are two different things. I was wonder just what you consider scientific law to be? You don't consider the second law of thermodynamics to be a law? Well, why don't we throw out the law of gravity too?
If you don't consider thermodynamics to be law then what do you consider scientific?

Larc, for someone who wasn't there you seem pretty certain about how much work Noah could do in x amount of time. Obviously I can't answer every question in detail at the moment. To go through all the calculations you expect me to go through to answer your questions would take a rediculous amount of time. Since none of you seem to want to give J.Woodmorappe's book a chance I will be ordering a copy shortly. Then I can answer much more in depth.

"Shaky foundations lead to crumbling blah blah blah." You act like you think you're a pretty holy person. I am not chastising anyone for disagreeing. I am not whining about anything. I wouldn't be writing posts if I thought everyone would agree with me. But I never said anyone had to agree. I just don't understand why you have to be a prick about the whole thing. If it offends you too bad. But stop acting like you're better than me. And HOW is any "defending" me? They are defending their beliefs. Which they don't claim are true in the first place.

And yes, I DO understand that RHW doesn't believe I have the truth. What would you ask a stupid question like that? You think that because she doesn't believe me I should stop arguing. But you don't seem to want to turn the argument on her since I'm the enemy. In case you haven't realized it yet, she is arguing as well and neither do I believe her. She asks good questions but they don't prove anything. If you don't like the discussion no one said you have to stay.

It must make you feel good inside to say that I am always whining. But I haven't whined once. And when did it bother me that anyone was arguing? That is what I expect to happen.

I think you are the only one whining about anything. And what are you talking about? You asked if I am going to drop the discussion. Does it look like I'm going to back down? This discussion may continue until all of you give up. I never once said you and you pal RHW couldn't believe what you want. That doesn't mean what you believe is true and it doesn't mean I can't argue about it. You call yourselves ex-witnesses but you still think the same way. If anyone challenges your beliefs you get all rude and start putting people down. JWs act the same way. can't you see I'm not trying to start a fight. You have no reason to act hostile. All I want is to have a friendly discussion. But that's clearly not possible with people who have trouble being friendly.

And no, I don't need to be reminded about my previous posts. I know what I wrote.

And about everyone having to agree with me. As you said "Bullpucky." Whatever the hell that means. I already told you that I don't expect you to agree. I expect the same from you as I would expect from a JW. Actually hear what I am saying and at the least consider the possibility that it might be true. But I doubt you can do that. Just because you left KH doesn't mean you found truth. And you don't really seem to care if you ever do. If you don't look for it, you won't find it.

"In other words, you want to preach instead of discuss. Ok, fine. Please proceed to your nearest street corner and preach away."

I'm not sure what prescription of specs your reading through but obviously you made something up that had nothing to do with what I wrote.

"Looks to me like they feel YOU have been the one mislead."

Don't we all feel that way about each other? So what you're saying is if I feel THEY have been misled I am wrong. But if they think I have been misled, they are right. That's a narrow way to think.

Of course I am a fallable human being. I never said or even thought for a moment that I wasn't.

Jason.

175

Do you want the real truth or not?

by Jason in

jw
friends

on this website there seems to be so many lies and so little actual truth.

is this supposed to be a place to get answers or confuse the hell out of truth seekers?

well, for you seekers out there, if you find the truth on this site it'll be a major fluke.

Jason

Ianao,

My statement wasn't rediculous at all. My question about defending something you don't believe is true is valid. I never started "screaming" anything. It doesn't matter who started the discussion or how. The statements made in the middle matter too. If RHW doesn't claim to know the truth yet argues thing as though they are truth then she seems to believe they are true. Questions about anything are fine. But I don't see why people have to be so snarly about it. I do see that how I started the discussion and some of the things I said would piss people off. I made a mistake and we're past that now. I don't need to be reminded every second post of what I originally wrote. But thanks for your input.

You told me to get over the fact that no one will agree with me 100%. I don't expect anyone to. I do expect someone who claims they want to learn to at least consider my statements. And consider the fact that it is POSSIBLE they have been misled. I can do the same. But we can all do it in a respectful and polite environment.

I post many arguments. I think it is strange that a few of them are criticized but no one ever says, Hey that's not a bad point. Anyway, I'm just babbling.

Jason.

175

Do you want the real truth or not?

by Jason in

jw
friends

on this website there seems to be so many lies and so little actual truth.

is this supposed to be a place to get answers or confuse the hell out of truth seekers?

well, for you seekers out there, if you find the truth on this site it'll be a major fluke.

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.

175

Do you want the real truth or not?

by Jason in

jw
friends

on this website there seems to be so many lies and so little actual truth.

is this supposed to be a place to get answers or confuse the hell out of truth seekers?

well, for you seekers out there, if you find the truth on this site it'll be a major fluke.

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.

175

Do you want the real truth or not?

by Jason in

jw
friends

on this website there seems to be so many lies and so little actual truth.

is this supposed to be a place to get answers or confuse the hell out of truth seekers?

well, for you seekers out there, if you find the truth on this site it'll be a major fluke.

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.

175

Do you want the real truth or not?

by Jason in

jw
friends

on this website there seems to be so many lies and so little actual truth.

is this supposed to be a place to get answers or confuse the hell out of truth seekers?

well, for you seekers out there, if you find the truth on this site it'll be a major fluke.

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.

175

Do you want the real truth or not?

by Jason in

jw
friends

on this website there seems to be so many lies and so little actual truth.

is this supposed to be a place to get answers or confuse the hell out of truth seekers?

well, for you seekers out there, if you find the truth on this site it'll be a major fluke.

Jason

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.