yes, i know....there've been topics started discussed about ebay.. i've had an absolute blast with it as of recent.. what have i bought lately?.
a yellow dial telephone in excellent condition (from manitoba).
several 45's (vinyl records).. i'm amazed at what you can find on there.
Oh, shoot, I forgot these......incense, soap, shampoo and other toiletries, jewelry, videotapes, blankets, sheets, comforters, duvet covers, dog beds, paperweights, paintings, horse halters, lead ropes, various medical supplies for the animals--including frontline flea medication and heartworm medication, ID tags, cat and dog collars, dog leashes, pet toys.....
And I'm sure I've still forgotten something.
yes, i know....there've been topics started discussed about ebay.. i've had an absolute blast with it as of recent.. what have i bought lately?.
a yellow dial telephone in excellent condition (from manitoba).
several 45's (vinyl records).. i'm amazed at what you can find on there.
I think perhaps that the appropriate question would be, what HAVEN'T I bought on eBay?
I always check there first when I need something. I've purchased multiple small appliances, signed lithographs (framed and unframed), craft kits, yarn, underwear (new), shoes, various items of clothing, pet supplies, plants for the garden, decorative items for the garden, computer equipment (old Bernoulli drives, photo printers), software, telephones, rugs, exercise equipment, and my husband just purchased a console electric piano.
.
many skeptics assert that the bible must be wrong, because they claim that the ark could not possibly have carried all the different types of animals.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/cen_v19n2_animals_ark.asp
For your review, Hooberus.....excellent facts here....not conjecture and fantasy:
.
many skeptics assert that the bible must be wrong, because they claim that the ark could not possibly have carried all the different types of animals.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/cen_v19n2_animals_ark.asp
One other question, Hooberus. If, as you state, God had to use thousands of miraculous acts and suspend thousands of His own laws to enable the global flood to be a reality....and then went and hid ALL evidence of that flood and its aftermath....then why couldn't He have just suspended one small natural law and outright vaporized all of the "evil" people that He went through so much trouble to eliminate? And why was it necessary to kill billions of innocent animals?
.
many skeptics assert that the bible must be wrong, because they claim that the ark could not possibly have carried all the different types of animals.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/cen_v19n2_animals_ark.asp
G, quit playing with your hosies all the time and play here a little more.
Been playing on Beliefnet, Dave.....lots of work to do there....aren't near as many apostates there as are needed, and I have to work to keep the JWs in line there....(sigh) Thankless work it is, too. LOL
.
many skeptics assert that the bible must be wrong, because they claim that the ark could not possibly have carried all the different types of animals.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/cen_v19n2_animals_ark.asp
Who says that each animal must be fed daily? Many animals do fine with feedeing every few days or given larger portions for them to eat in later days. Also hybernating animals do not need much care.
Are you serious? Exactly which animals are in the class of "many animals" that don't need daily feeding? Which animals are you aware of that would not trample their food and make it inedible if a large amount was thrown in their enclosures. Hibernating animals also need specific conditions in which to hibernate, and barring the provision of those conditions (which is highly unlikely) the animals would NOT be in total hibernation and would still need to be fed. Hibernating animals also lose condition during their period of hibernation. Exactly how do you suppose that these half-starved animals would be able to survive after getting off the Ark if they had spent over a year without food or water.....well, actually that point is moot, since NO animal could survive in hibernation for over a year without food or water.
I think that most creationists would proposed that the food was aquired and loaded within a reasonably short time before the flood. Though hay may loose nutritional value over time, it should still possess sufficient nutitional value even after a year, grains can be held for many years.
Of course they would "propose" it, but how would it be carried out logistically? Have you considered the amount of food needed by these animals? Have you considered how long it takes to process hay alone...not even considering the specialized diets that many of these animals would have? We're talking TONS of hay...thousands of TONS of hay. Have you ever loaded hay? I have, and I can assure you that it is NOT an easy job. Hay also needs to be cured properly or it will mold. Moldy hay will kill an animal....if they will even eat it.
Is they would have been healthy. Also God remembered Noah and those with him. One would expect that the animals health was sustained by God in line with this purpose.
Of course the animals would have been healthy when they first entered the Ark. However, you have proposed that these initially healthy animals would not be fed every day, and most likely would not have had their quarters cleaned on a regular basis, nor would they have received the proper exercise, which for a horse alone requires several hours minimum and the opportunity to roll, stretch and run ro remain healthy.
Cleaning animal enclosures alone (not considering feeding those animals or exercising them) would break down roughly as follows.....
WoodMorappe estimated that there would be 16,000 animals. If they were penned together in pairs, you would have 8,000 enclosures. Size really doesn't matter, since some small animals can produce massive amounts of offal in a day....they are like tiny poop conveyor belts....food in....food out. Let's give the really conservative estimate of 10 minutes per cage or enclosure per day for 8,000 enclosures. That comes to 80,000 minutes, which equates to 1334 hours per day, which gives each of the 8 people on board 167 hours per DAY of cleaning chores. Hmmm....there seems to be a problem here, so let's give them a little more leeway and say that they allow the animals to live in filth for a week, and rotate the cleaning chores. Well, that makes it a little more reasonable, since each person would need to devote ONLY 23.8 hours per DAY to cleaning.
Oh, wait, they still need to occasionally feed the animals and occasionally exercise the animals, and occasionally prepare food for themselves....and occasionally sleep.
Exactly HOW do you propose that they managed this?
Most of the water probably came from the fountains being broken up not a vapor canopy . The water was probably around 9,000 feet deep. the following discusses the sources of the water as well as water canopys.
I've heard this argument before, and if you read my previous post, it has already been addressed. We cut back most of the water canopy depth to give you some leeway, remember? Even at a much lesser depth than the several miles of water vapor needed to cover the earth completely by water canopy alone, we still have the problem of immense atmospheric pressure, as well as a surface temperature on the earth of 800 degrees. Can't get around it.....parboiled Noah and family....just like turnips in a stew.
And exactly WHAT are these "fountains" and where are they now?
i'm so nervous!.
i just started grad school this year, and had a teaching assistantship this last fall.
it paid a few thousand dollars for 20 hours work per week, but the important thing was that it came with a waiver of out-of-state tuition and part of in-state tuition.
Fingers crossed? No need.....I'm SURE.....POSITIVE....really, really hoping....that things work out for you.
.
many skeptics assert that the bible must be wrong, because they claim that the ark could not possibly have carried all the different types of animals.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/cen_v19n2_animals_ark.asp
Woodmorappe does present some interesting ideas. However, his presentation has lots of holes around which he attempts to side step. I purchased his book so that I could check out some of his ideas. I haven't read the entire thing, but browsing through it indicated that it, in reality, is a work of fiction rather than a "feasibility study."
For instance, he speaks about "deeply bedding" the stalls wherein the animals were kept, and then he mentions that they would, therefore, not need to be stripped daily, but just have the manure cleaned out on a daily basis.
Have you ever mucked out a stall? I have and even if you work very fast, you need to devote at least 10 minutes to each stall to pick out the manure and remove the wet straw. If you do not do this on a daily basis, you are going to have some very sick animals.
As Dave has pointed out, just feeding the 16,000 animals would take most of the day for Noah and his family. Add to that the necessity of cleaning stalls and exercising the animals, and you simply run out of time.
Additionally, the logistics of procuring food for all of the animals presents a major problem. While creationists will state that Noah had over 100 years to put food away for the animals, this argument does not hold up when considered factually. Hay does not retain its nutritional value indefinitely. Any fresh hay that was loaded just prior to the flood's onset would be close to a year old by the end of the voyage, and already losing much of its nutritional value. Hay that was loaded onto the Ark years before the voyage would be utterly useless as feed, and animals eating it would receive no nutrition whatsoever and would, therefore, die before they ever got off the ark.
Considering that the loss of ANY animal would mean the loss of an entire "kind" (equine, canine, feline,) Noah couldn't afford to have any animals die. Remember, Woodmorappe did not state that species or types of animals went on board, but only two representatives of an entire kind. Talk about putting all of your eggs in one basket!
Then, too, we need to consider the "water canopy" covering the earth which presumably produced most of the rain. A canopy containing sufficient water vapor to produce enough rain to cover the earth to a uniform depth of over 15,000 feet (15 cubits above the highest mountain) would be miles thick, and the earth would receive absolutely no light at all. No light means no life....of any kind...animal, human, or plant....so the "flood" issue would really be moot, since the earth would have been a dead planet.
Even if the depth of the canopy was considerably reduced, it would still need to be extremely thick and the pressure on the earth's surface would be greater than that found on the floor of the ocean. Additionally, the trapped heat from the sun would cause surface temperatures in excess of 800 degrees. No need for a flood, since all life would have been parboiled long before.
i attended a notorious congregation as a child, the infamous winter gardens congregation!
my cousin and his best friend, both named joe, were elders, my cousin was the po and the other joe was a total loser suck up who wanted to be just like my cousin, joe.
what was even funnier, as i get off point a bit, is that "suck up" joe's wife, cathy, did everything she could do to get her pudgy lil self to dress, look, walk, and talk like my cousin joe's wife, clementine.
Scandals? Well, we had a few. There was the pioneer sister who really did give credence to the theory of a missing link.....beetle brows, coke-bottle glasses, hairy back, plus the broken front teeth from a childhood mishap that looked like fangs....who married a brother who informed her that he was gay, that she repulsed him, and that their marriage was just for show. This self-same brother just loved to go camping with the young, teenage brothers at the Hall, until the young brothers began warning others that they really didn't want to go "camping" with Brother X because Brother X liked to "do" things while they were camping.
We had the regular fornication episodes, as do most congregations. However, we also had the MS, married to an elder's daughter who was arrested for and convicted of murdering an elderly woman when he attempted to rob her to get money to support his cocaine habit. Seems that instead of spending time on his construction jobs, he was spending most of his time in strip clubs getting high.
Then there was the sister who established a booming chiropractic practice made up mainly of JWs from the congregation. She encouraged the welfare mothers (there were many such mothers in our congregation) to bring their children in for adjustments any time they even had a sniffle....it was all "free" after all. She was eventually cited for welfare fraud.
She also discovered a technique for adjusting skull plates, which she called aligning the magnetics, and which were presumably a means of strengthening the person against demon attacks. Ended up on reproof for this one and was forbidden to align any more magnetics.
We also had our reigning pioneer sister who had just a tiny, little problem with alcohol and would repeatedly get arrested for drunk driving and hit and run accidents. The elders, of course, bailed her out of jail more than once and covered up for her. Some of the sisters were a bit uncomfortable around this pioneer, however, since she frequently, while drunk, engaged in some pretty lewd behavior with the unbelieving husbands of the sisters when at parties.
I'm sure that there's more, but these are the major ones.
below is a review left on barnes & noble about diane wilson's book.
i, too, am one of jehovah's witnesses.
but jehovah's witnesses do no do that.
Does this "non-cult" member realize how many Watchtower catch phrases she used in her review? Duh.....total giveaway for the JW cult mindset.
Somehow, I think that a review like this from an acknowledged active JW just might cause more people to look into the book. Whenever someone is so adamantly against something, it tends to pique curiosity as to what is being said that got them so hot and bothered.
