Noah’s “special” problem

[Timmothy]

Actually, at this point, I'm less interested about the floorspace, and more interested as to how a 600 year old man built something the size of an Arleigh Burke class destroyer.

Vikings built huge boats in the day. Why cant Noah, and Noah had God on his side.

 

[LittleNipper]

In other words, you are not aware of any biological mechanism preventing mutations from accumulating to the point of whatever you would like to call change between kinds?

In other words, I am not aware of any experimentation, either through artificial (not natural breeding /selection), DNA tampering, or mutation producing radiation exposure, that has demonstrated evolutionary theory to be anything but an impractical impossible dream. Plants remain plants, flies remain flies, and sheep remain sheep. The very fact that there seems to be no way to speed up an evolutionary process brings into question the very logic of evolution. If man is essentually the very same he was 5000 years ago, if Aborigines are just as intelligent and apparently no closer to a gorilla then an African native or a Western accountant, then the realization is that projected back another 5000 years-----the very same would hold true. Projected back again the very same would again hold true. Since there is no way to either digress any species nor advance it with all the intelligent evolutionists and doctors working hand in hand, There is absolutely no proof that such was the case at any time in the past nudged along by extreemly slow natural instigation (if such a thing even exists). This is what Christians should observe and what some seem bent on conveniently ignoring. And yet Creationism is ridiculed. What would creationism prove? What would evolution prove? What do you want to prove, and should your imagination be promoted over that of mine in a public educational setting?

 

[michabo]

Vikings built huge boats in the day. Why cant Noah, and Noah had God on his side.

"Huge" doesn't cover it. It's bigger than any wooden boat ever built because boats that size aren't stable, they leak too much, and it takes too much effort preventing and fixing the rotting timbers.


But hey, if you're just going to use the goddidit defense for everything (and why not - magic can fix anything, right?) then we should be asking why bother with the flood in the first place if God could just magic everything away without having to kill all the animals.

 

[michabo]

Plants remain plants, flies remain flies, and sheep remain sheep.

And this, a prediction of evolution, is a problem how?

*sigh* Why bother...

 

[Timmothy]

And this, a prediction of evolution, is a problem how?

*sigh* Why bother...

 

[Garnett]

As I said - In the end faithful believers do not need proof of the flood and any proof offered of a flood would not offer evidence of God to the non-believers.

Firstly there is no proof of the flood. You are being shown reasons why the whole episode is impossible.

Secondly you say "faithful believers do not need proof". If this is the case then why do they try and write false science books about it.

I wholeheartedly agree that faithful believers don't require proof: there isn't any. What a "faithful believer" requires, it would appear, is indoctrination from a very young age, or to succumb at a vulnerable time in their lives?

Is there any Christian on the board who was not either raised christian or converted at a difficult point in their lives?

 

[Timmothy]

Firstly there is no proof of the flood. You are being shown reasons why the whole episode is impossible.

Secondly you say "faithful believers do not need proof". If this is the case then why do they try and write false science books about it.

I wholeheartedly agree that faithful believers don't require proof: there isn't any. What a "faithful believer" requires, it would appear, is indoctrination from a very young age, or to succumb at a vulnerable time in their lives?

Is there any Christian on the board who was not either raised christian or converted at a difficult point in their lives?

My parents where Christians while i grew up. But they never pushed the religion on me and my older borthers or sisters. They gave us a choice. I recently just accept Jesus in my hart, since I have been in college. I feel I have know about Jesus my whole life, but didnt know him until here lately. I was never forced to go to church or read the Bible at any point of my life. I choose to now. I have not found a church to go to yet, but I read the Bible, and believe what the Bible states to be facts. I can not wait to find a nice church to go to.

 

[jad123]

Firstly there is no proof of the flood. You are being shown reasons why the whole episode is impossible.

Secondly you say "faithful believers do not need proof". If this is the case then why do they try and write false science books about it.

I wholeheartedly agree that faithful believers don't require proof: there isn't any. What a "faithful believer" requires, it would appear, is indoctrination from a very young age, or to succumb at a vulnerable time in their lives?

Is there any Christian on the board who was not either raised christian or converted at a difficult point in their lives?

Sure, me. While I was raised Catholic we were definately not practicing. Went to church 1 or 2 times a year at most. My early adult years were spent as an atheist. My questions about God and search led me to the belief of a Creator. I do not believe is chance and the mathmatical probability that everything that has occurred by freak chances is ridiculous. The odds of surviving a jump from 30,000 ft. is better than the odds of there being no Creator.

 

[michabo]

I do not believe is chance and the mathmatical probability that everything that has occurred by freak chances is ridiculous.

Fortunately things don't happen by freak chances. You should learn that in your chemistry and physics classes.

I hope that this misunderstanding was not, as it appears to be, an important consideration for you.

 

[TeddyKGB]

The odds of surviving a jump from 30,000 ft. is better than the odds of there being no Creator.

And you got that from where? Your portable Odds-O-Matic 3000?

 

[Timmothy]

Sure, me. While I was raised Catholic we were definately not practicing. Went to church 1 or 2 times a year at most. My early adult years were spent as an atheist. My questions about God and search led me to the belief of a Creator. I do not believe is chance and the mathmatical probability that everything that has occurred by freak chances is ridiculous. The odds of surviving a jump from 30,000 ft. is better than the odds of there being no Creator.

Dont worry man their so called knowledge is way over are heads, they assume we never took any classes of any kind. Poor them

 

[dad]

No, there was no (physical only) physically impossible cause it didn't exist. Since it (only) came to be when men made up magical factually impossible fables of what it was like when their (present) rules did not apply. This is why they have no proof and never will.

Wow. Just wow. Something quite quite special there.

Yes there is.

 

[jad123]

And you got that from where? Your portable Odds-O-Matic 3000?

No it was from:

B.S. Biology - Penn State Univ.
M.S. Marine and Atmospheric Science - Univ. of Miami
and 11 years of research working for the Perry Institute for Marine Science.



God Bless you my friend.

 

[michabo]

B.S. Biology - Penn State Univ.

Ahh, the old "Deistic Probability 121" in the Statistical Theology department. Remind me again how they determined the odds for god existing.

I spoken to a ton of atheists and no matter how much scientific evidence is placed before them, it is never enough. It is about Faith.

Never enough evidence for faith?

Well, if you want to get into a genuine scientific discussion (you know, with evidence), I think you'll get a much better reception that if you come here and make claims based on misunderstandings of basic chemistry and physics.

If you start from the position that there are fundamental flaws in evolution which any grade ten student could spot, then I think you'll get the ridicule you deserve. Fair warning.

 

[jad123]

Dont worry man their so called knowledge is way over are heads, they assume we never took any classes of any kind. Poor them

Believe me, there are no worries here.

 

[llDayo]

In the end faithful believers do not need proof of the flood and any proof offered of a flood would not offer evidence of God to the non-believers.

The Ark is said to be 450ft. long, 75 ft. wide, and 45 ft. high. by many Hebrew scholars. This would have provided over 100,000sq. ft. of floor space.

How did you derive the amount of floor space?

There are over 1 million of species in the world but when you subtract out any life that could be capable of surviving in water (fish, tunicates, echinoderms, mollusks, coelenterates, sponges, protozoans, some mammals like seals and porpoises, some reptiles like sea turtles and alligators) you end up with somewhere between 35,000 - 50,000 animals required on the ark. Using the above measurements would have easily accomodated the animals.

Using your logic, and doubling the animals on board so we have a pair of each, then factoring in room for people, thickness of the wood, food storage, air to breathe, pathways to walk, separation between the animals (cages), and ramps to each floor you'll have MUCH less room than that. This also doesn't include extinct species (like dinosaurs) or undiscovered species (which most likely numbers more than the discovered).

For a much more thorough defudging, go here: RIGHT HERE

 

[llDayo]

No it was from:

B.S. Biology - Penn State Univ.
M.S. Marine and Atmospheric Science - Univ. of Miami
and 11 years of research working for the Perry Institute for Marine Science.



God Bless you my friend.

Ah, a fellow Lion
I took a Biology class there, I must have been hungover during the discussion on the existence of God and how everything was brought about by "freak chances". How did you manage a B.S. in Biology while referring to the abundance of species in the world as freak chances? Last I heard, natural selection isn't something random.

 

[TheInstant]

As I said - In the end faithful believers do not need proof of the flood and any proof offered of a flood would not offer evidence of God to the non-believers.

Maybe proof of a global flood would not offer evidence of God to a non-believer, but it would offer evidence of a global flood. Wouldn't that be something, at least? So let's see some of this proof, unless what you said was just a long way of saying that there isn't any.

 

[Dannager]

In other words, I am not aware of any experimentation, either through artificial (not natural breeding /selection), DNA tampering, or mutation producing radiation exposure, that has demonstrated evolutionary theory to be anything but an impractical impossible dream. Plants remain plants, flies remain flies, and sheep remain sheep. The very fact that there seems to be no way to speed up an evolutionary process brings into question the very logic of evolution. If man is essentually the very same he was 5000 years ago, if Aborigines are just as intelligent and apparently no closer to a gorilla then an African native or a Western accountant, then the realization is that projected back another 5000 years-----the very same would hold true. Projected back again the very same would again hold true. Since there is no way to either digress any species nor advance it with all the intelligent evolutionists and doctors working hand in hand, There is absolutely no proof that such was the case at any time in the past nudged along by extreemly slow natural instigation (if such a thing even exists). This is what Christians should observe and what some seem bent on conveniently ignoring. And yet Creationism is ridiculed. What would creationism prove? What would evolution prove? What do you want to prove, and should your imagination be promoted over that of mine in a public educational setting?

So you're not aware of any biological mechanism inherent in the replication process preventing mutations from accumulating to the point of greater and greater change?

 

[outlaw]

In the end faithful believers do not need proof of the flood and any proof offered of a flood would not offer evidence of God to the non-believers.

Which is great….as proof of the flood does not exist.

The Ark is said to be 450ft. long, 75 ft. wide, and 45 ft. high. by many Hebrew scholars. This would have provided over 100,000sq. ft. of floor space.

Only if you pretend that every square inch of ark interior was devoted to animal space.

Wood is not the best material for shipbuilding. It is not enough that a ship be built to hold together; it must also be sturdy enough that the changing stresses don't open gaps in its hull. Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered. The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped.

John Woodmorappe (Woodmorappe, John, 1996. Noah's ark: A feasibility study. Institute for Creation Research, Santee, California.) analyzed the biblical ark and found that the animals would take up 47% of the ark. In addition, he dedicated that about 10% of the ark was needed for food (compacted to take as little space as possible) and about the same amount of space for water for water. At least 25% of the space would have been needed for corridors and bracing.
This would have left 47000 square feet of room for all the animals

There are over 1 million of species in the world but when you subtract out any life that could be capable of surviving in water (fish, tunicates, echinoderms, mollusks, coelenterates, sponges, protozoans, some mammals like seals and porpoises, some reptiles like sea turtles and alligators) you end up with somewhere between 35,000 - 50,000 animals required on the ark. Using the above measurements would have easily accomodated the animals.

There are 4,675 species of mammals, 9,800 species of birds, 4,800 species of amphibian, 6,700 species of reptile, 1.5 million species of insects. And this does not include extinct species.
If we just look at the vertebrates that means there were 26,000 species of vertebrates on the ark. Meaning each vertebrate got about 10 square inches of ark space…about the size of a television remote control.
And that does not include insect space.