That Boat Don't Float!!

Levopoly · Apr 28, 2010

I'm sorry, can a hypothetical ship of approximately 500 feet in length and 150 feet in width carry 1,589,361 species (Inclusive of plants, bacteria, fungi and varying fish species)
Mammals 5,416
Birds 9,956
Reptiles 8,240
Amphibians 6,199
Fishes 30,000
Total Vertebrates
59,811
Invertebrate Animals

Insects 950,000
Molluscs 81,000
Crustaceans 40,000
Corals 2,175
Others 130,200
Total Invertebrates
1,203,375

These are the animals that we know of TODAY. We, as a species, have only documented 2-20% of all life on Earth.

Please, if there is a ship large enough to carry all the creatures on Earth, regardless of Geographical position of all the animals, it would most definitely be more than 500 by 150 feet, let alone made of wood.

Look up the epic of Gilgamesh and see the correlation between it and the Great flood. It is simply a myth created by people who knew no better at the time, no more.

AV1611VET · Apr 28, 2010

Hi, Levopoly --

Welcome to CF!

Levopoly said:
Please, if there is a ship large enough to carry all the creatures on Earth, regardless of Geographical position of all the animals, it would most definitely be more than 500 by 150 feet, let alone made of wood.

The Ark was 450 x 75 x 45 feet and made of gopher wood.

It did not carry every animal species on earth -- just their federal representatives -- ("kinds").

Levopoly said:
Look up the epic of Gilgamesh and see the correlation between it and the Great flood. It is simply a myth created by people who knew no better at the time, no more.

The Epic of Gilgamesh, in my opinion, was written to mock the Flood story; and was written well after the Flood.

Levopoly · Apr 29, 2010

AV1611VET said:
Hi, Levopoly --

Welcome to CF!

The Ark was 450 x 75 x 45 feet and made of gopher wood.

It did not carry every animal species on earth -- just their federal representatives -- ("kinds").

The Epic of Gilgamesh, in my opinion, was written to mock the Flood story; and was written well after the Flood.

Hi, its nice to have a forum that hosts open debate about issues like these.

The Epic of Gilgamesh predates any copy of the Hebrew bible that currently exists. The earliest copy of the Hebrew Bible (When I say this, I mean the Old Testament) is from around the second century BCE and Literary criticism has placed it to be written within 1000 years before common era.

The Epic of Gilgamesh's earliest copy is from around 2000 years BCE and is among the earliest texts ever written.

Surely this predates the Hebrew Bible by over one thousand years, and seeing as the Jews were within an area not too far away from Mesopotamia, its not unlikely that they adapted the text for their own uses.

SkyWriting · Apr 29, 2010

dingdong said:
Making a person think and believe like this is what indoctrination can do, it makes people fit the facts to the story instead of making the story fit the facts, if they encountered any problems they got the god to fix it,
in this story the god was called on to fix it all because the facts destroyed the story, also the fact that the story makes their god look like a bumbling incompetent slips right past them.

I'm sure that could happen, except I don't attend church.
Nor did I bring any new facts to the story except the
likely hood that the animals closed in the dark hold of a boat, slept.
It's what animals do.
The rest follows the scriptures with nothing added.

The rest of your criticism is the normal whining with no specific details or complaints.

SkyWriting · Apr 29, 2010

Levopoly said:
I'm sorry, can a hypothetical ship of approximately 500 feet in length and 150 feet in width carry 1,589,361 species (Inclusive of plants, bacteria, fungi and varying fish species)
Mammals 5,416
Birds 9,956
Reptiles 8,240
Amphibians 6,199
Fishes 30,000
Total Vertebrates
59,811
Invertebrate Animals

Insects 950,000
Molluscs 81,000
Crustaceans 40,000
Corals 2,175
Others 130,200
Total Invertebrates
1,203,375

These are the animals that we know of TODAY. We, as a species, have only documented 2-20% of all life on Earth.

Please, if there is a ship large enough to carry all the creatures on Earth, regardless of Geographical position of all the animals, it would most definitely be more than 500 by 150 feet, let alone made of wood.

Look up the epic of Gilgamesh and see the correlation between it and the Great flood. It is simply a myth created by people who knew no better at the time, no more.

The scriptures state either 7 or 2 of each kind. Even if "kind" were an accurate Scientific statement, the science of the time would not correspond with 21st century jargon. 2 of each kind is not the same as 2 of each species.

So if we create an example parallel between your facts and the writings, then you listed 10 "Kinds" of animals.

You need to read what you are being critical of, because only land animals and birds are on the ark.
You are incorrect to include:
plants
bacteria,
fungi
Amphibians 6,199
Fishes 30,000
Insects 950,000
Molluscs 81,000
Crustaceans 40,000
Corals 2,175

Genetic representatives from each type of land animal and bird would fit on the ark. Remember that God picked each of these animals and called them to the Ark. He had also designed their DNA from scratch, without pencil and paper. So picking the base genetic stock needed for all future animals to branch off of is a piece of cake.

That solves your problem. Most of which you could have figured out if you'd read the text.

SkyWriting · Apr 29, 2010

Levopoly said:
...Surely this predates the Hebrew Bible by over one thousand years, and seeing as the Jews were within an area not too far away from Mesopotamia, its not unlikely that they adapted the text for their own uses.

Or that both are writing about the same event. I don't know why people don't seem to get that....

SkyWriting · Apr 29, 2010

USincognito said:
When there's no evidence of the hyper-speciation that would have to result after the "kinds" were brought on the Ark. When there's no evidence of genetic bottlenecks 4,000 years ago that would have to result from populations being reduced to 2, 7 or 8. When all of the geological, archaeological and paleontological evidence screams the Flood didn't happen, I think discussions about the dimensions of the Ark are basically nit picking.

Researchers fudge numbers to fit what they are looking for.

Levopoly · Apr 29, 2010

SkyWriting said:
The scriptures state either 7 or 2 of each kind. Even if "kind" were an accurate Scientific statement, the science of the time would not correspond with 21st century jargon. 2 of each kind is not the same as 2 of each species.

So if we create an example parallel between your facts and the writings, then you listed 10 "Kinds" of animals.

You need to read what you are being critical of, because only land animals and birds are on the ark
You are incorrect to include:
plants
bacteria,
fungi
Amphibians 6,199
Fishes 30,000
Insects 950,000
Molluscs 81,000
Crustaceans 40,000
Corals 2,175

Genetic representatives from each type of land animal and bird would fit on the ark. Remember that God picked each of these animals and called them to the Ark. He had also designed their DNA from scratch, without pencil and paper. So picking the base genetic stock needed for all future animals to branch off of is a piece of cake.

That solves your problem. Most of which you could have figured out if you'd read the text.

Ok, Since LAND animals and BIRDS are only there, we can cut out the fish and Molluscs and plants.

So that means that
Mammals 5,416
Birds 9,956
Reptiles 8,240
Amphibians 6,199
Insects 950,000
= 979,991 Species of animal

The word "kind" is far to ambiguous to be applied to this argument. A creationist can make the assumption that a "Kind" can apply to any taxonomic rank, be it a Kingdom to a subspecies.

What do you mean by the term "Genetic Representatives", and surely if "Genetic Representatives" can be taken for each species, then why not do it for humans. Oh wait, that is done as Noah takes his family and ONLY his family upon the ark.

So apparently, like the Judeo/Christian myth of Adam and eve, his children are invariably inbred as they go on to form civilization.

That seems extremely far fetched.

This concept of a "Fresh start" by wiping out all living things except "Noah ...his family, seven pairs of the birds and the clean animals, and one pair of the unclean animals" is not only foolish, but purely a waste of time on God's behalf.

Not only that, it contradicts the statements in the bible that condemn incest. Unless of course God made *more* humans just before Noah got off this ark.

Sorry, but this vague language of "kinds" and the contradictory language inside this account of creation removes any credibility that it has.

USincognito · Apr 29, 2010

SkyWriting said:
Researchers fudge numbers to fit what they are looking for.

A value and evidence free comment. Care to pony up some support for this assertion and show how it applies to what I wrote?

Catherineanne · Apr 29, 2010

BananaSlug said:
Why? Why do you think we need to believe in something to survive? You don't need a complex belief system or faith of any sort to get by day to day.

Who said anything about complex? You can believe in something complex, or you can believe in something simple. That really makes no difference. The point is, without belief in something we could not survive.

So you would consider those to be gods?

Of course they are. Anything which people worship becomes their god.

Family. Considering all humans are 99.9% identical every person is a part of our family. Altruism has a biological foundation, as does every other behavior of ours.

Did I say otherwise? I do not see any contradiction of God in science.

I agree that most people have beliefs. I disagree with the statement that everybody believes in something. Belief is not important to survival.

In which case, you do not yet understand anthropology.

AV1611VET · Apr 29, 2010

Levopoly said:
The Epic of Gilgamesh predates any copy of the Hebrew bible that currently exists.

If you want to talk about "copies", then your point doesn't apply.

Let's say I type a memo on Monday, and you type a memo on Friday.

Now follow this closely please:

On the following Monday, your memo is photocopied.
On Wednesday, my memo is photocopied.

Which copy came first: yours or mine?

Levopoly said:
Surely this predates the Hebrew Bible by over one thousand years, and seeing as the Jews were within an area not too far away from Mesopotamia, its not unlikely that they adapted the text for their own uses.

Take a look at this chart:

Notice that Shem, Noah's son, lived right up to the time of the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob), and would have provided eyewitness testimony of the Flood.

I would venture to say that Shem and Nimrod had one doosey of an argument at one point in time.

AV1611VET · Apr 29, 2010

Levopoly said:
The word "kind" is far to ambiguous to be applied to this argument.

"Kind" is a word that, in my opinion, doesn't have a definition this side of Heaven.

It is like the word "trinity", there's no definition this side of Heaven, but the word is effective in making its point.

Levopoly said:
Oh wait, that is done as Noah takes his family and ONLY his family upon the ark.

Noah preached for 120 years; that was plenty of time for them to repent.

Levopoly said:
So apparently, like the Judeo/Christian myth of Adam and eve, his children are invariably inbred as they go on to form civilization.

Not exactly.

Barring you calling it a "myth" -- Adam and Eve's children were brothers and sisters marrying; whereas Noah's generation had cousins marrying.

Both were sanctioned by God, as the gene pool back then was much purer than it is today.

Later, in Moses' time, God had to prohibit such close marriages, and the crime of "incest" was placed on the books.

Levopoly said:
This concept of a "Fresh start" by wiping out all living things except "Noah ...his family, seven pairs of the birds and the clean animals, and one pair of the unclean animals" is not only foolish, but purely a waste of time on God's behalf.

Again, not exactly.

I'm often asked why God didn't just zap everyone but Noah off the face of the planet.

Had He done that, then there would have been no chance for those outside of the Ark to repent and be born again before drowning.

We call those "deathbed conversions".

Tomatoman · Apr 29, 2010

CA:

Who said anything about complex?

You can believe in something complex, or you can believe in something simple. That really makes no difference. The point is, without belief in something we could not survive.

Chimpanzees are conscious. They survive. What do they believe in?

I think it would be better to say that everyone needs something worth living for, however banal. It certainly doesn't have to be anything to do with religion.

CA:

Anything which people worship becomes their god.

In that case I'm in thrall to the Great Tube Of Pringles in The Sky:

Hespera · Apr 29, 2010

SkyWriting said:
Researchers fudge numbers to fit what they are looking for.

Cool! Hand wave the work of the entire scientific community of planet earth with one simple line.

You didnt uh, fudge the facts to fit the prejudice did you?

You must have some data on this assertion? No?

SkyWriting · Apr 29, 2010

Hespera said:
Cool! Hand wave the work of the entire scientific community of planet earth with one simple line.

You didnt uh, fudge the facts to fit the prejudice did you?

You must have some data on this assertion? No?

Sure. You could have checked first.
I must confess though, only 1/3 of researchers admit to fudging the facts.
Note that in 3 months, no one has disputed the 30% cheat/liars/frauds figure.

SkyWriting · Apr 29, 2010

Very nice charts. Good Data plotting.

SkyWriting · Apr 29, 2010

Levopoly said:
Ok, Since LAND animals and BIRDS are only there, we can cut out the fish and Molluscs and plants.

So that means that...

...That you didn't research the premise for your argument first.

Levopoly said:
The word "kind" is

.....The only word we have to use for this discussion.
Given the over all premise of the entire story, "Kind" is defined as
"The animals which had the DNA needed to repopulate the globe after they got off the ARK."

Levopoly said:
far to ambiguous to be applied to this argument. A creationist can make the assumption that a "Kind" can apply to any taxonomic rank, be it a Kingdom to a subspecies. What do you mean by the term "Genetic Representatives", and surely if "Genetic Representatives" can be taken for each species, then why not do it for humans. Oh wait, that is done as Noah takes his family and ONLY his family upon the ark. So apparently, like the Judeo/Christian myth of Adam and eve, his children are invariably inbred as they go on to form civilization. That seems extremely far fetched. This concept of a "Fresh start" by wiping out all living things except "Noah ...his family, seven pairs of the birds and the clean animals, and one pair of the unclean animals" is not only foolish, but purely a waste of time on God's behalf. Not only that, it contradicts the statements in the bible that condemn incest. Unless of course God made *more* humans just before Noah got off this ark. Sorry, but this vague language of "kinds" and the contradictory language inside this account of creation removes any credibility that it has.

You didn't present any "contradictory language" so we can drop that comment. First cousins can marry, so that's not something we are critically concerned with even in this age.

Adam and Eve were the first persons. So they didn't have Genetic errors that are the reason for the taboos that each society creates to reduce problems. Any taboos mentioned in the Bible are for the persons being spoken to, not amendments to the Ten Commandments tablet. You'll note that it's not listed.

Noah may not have been genetically perfect.
So more than 2 were saved from the flood.

Whatever God does that you feel is a waste of time...We can just chalk up to
"lack of preparation before making an argument."

Frumious Bandersnatch · Apr 29, 2010

SkyWriting said:
Sure. You could have checked first.
I must confess though, only 1/3 of researchers admit to fudging the facts.
Note that in 3 months, no one has disputed the 30% cheat/liars/frauds figure.

I have worked as a researcher for nearly 40 years and I will dispute it.

If you look at the table in the reference the number who admit to falsifying or cooking reseach data is 0.3% not 30%.

Table[wash my mouth]1 : Scientists behaving badly : Nature

Some of the other "behaviors" amount to short cuts around human subjects protection which is troubling but not fraud and less than stellar record keeping. The "changing design, methodoly or results in response to a funding agency" is a terrible question. We often change designs and methodologies as a result of grant reviews and these things should not be lumped together. I am a bit surprised by 15% dropping observations based on gut feeling answer. I have had some disagreement once with one of my many co-authors on dropping outliers but we only drop outlier data points based on valid statistical criteria and then disclose that we have done so.

F.B.

Hespera · Apr 29, 2010

Of 3,247 early- and mid-career researchers who responded, less than 1.5% admitted to falsification or plagiarism, the most serious types of misconduct listed. But 15.5% said they had changed the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressure from a funding source; 12.5% admitted overlooking others' use of flawed data; and 7.6% said they had circumvented minor aspects of requirements regarding the use of human subjects.

ok lets see....

falsification. that ranges from the mildest white lie such as we all do most every day, to legal fraud. With nothing to indicate the severity of the "falsification", then you have nowhere to go with this.

plagiarism. bit of a moral / ethical issue, nothing to do with the accuracy of the statement involved.

change of design, methodology or results. Nothing unusual about changing design and methodology! if you do it will of course, tend to change the results. Nothing the about whether the results were made inaccurate by the first or subsequent methods.
And changing method or design in response to what the funding agency wanted is kind of reasonable, you expect that of the guy fixing your house, too.

"Admitting" to overlooking others' flawed data. Good grief. Every researcher is supposed to check ever single last piece of data that he uses in good faith? There is a lot to possibly overlook. its not the same as deliberately ignoring bad data.

oh and this is just terrible ! "circumvented minor aspects of requirements regarding the use of human subjects". oh my. a circumventer of the minor aspect. shame!

Polls-
Now, of course we all know that we like polls that agree and dislike ones that dont agree with what we want. And most of us know that polls dont mean a whole lot. From the sound of this one, it was a certain group of researchers who were asked, and they hardly represent the ethics of say, people at the U of Beijing, say, or the world scientific community which you were attempting to criticize.

More to the point tho, this does not in any way support your blanket statement that
researchers fudge their results to make it come out the way they want.

Certainly this bit of "research" doesnt fit your conclusion without a LOT of fudging.

maybe that is where you got the idea that them awful scientists were doing it?
(project much?)

SkyWriting · Apr 29, 2010

Frumious Bandersnatch said:
I have worked as a researcher for nearly 40 years and I will dispute it. If you look at the table in the reference the number who admit to falsifying or cooking reseach data is 0.3% not 30%.

So that's 1 out of 300 that admit that they falsify data.
I wonder what the real number is for all the figures.
I'll be cold hearted and say 10 times that.

The there is the influence on results that people don't even admit
to themselves, much less to a written poll.

And we can't know the figures for the people who choose not to respond.
And we can't know why they choose not to respond.

I've been in R&D for 30 years myself. When people are working on projects that are
for their own gain and advancement, I put the number at 100% for "significant influence"
on the results of a research project. Meaning, they don't let the facts get in the way
of moving the project forward if they can possibly help it.

That Boat Don't Float!!

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

The Librarian

The Librarian

The Librarian

The Librarian

Newbie

a post by Alan Smithee

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

The Librarian

The Librarian

The Librarian

Contributor

Junior Member

The Librarian

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency