XPost: alt.religion.jehovahs-witn, alt.bible, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: talk.atheism
From: tiffirgREVERSE@ctc.net
prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com wrote:
> In talk.atheism JISTASKKIN wrote:
>
>
>>"Finza Flowin" wrote in message
>>news:K-6dnSC3lpHPoFfdRVn-hA@heartoftn.net...
>>
>>>"Grendel" wrote in message
>>>news:L4kyc.8483$lN.5578@edtnps84...
>>>
>>>>If an Egyptian pyramid was described in the same manner as the Ark and
>>>>we had no physical remains to examine, you could attempt the exact
>>>>argument
>>>
>>>** WRONG! A pyramid wasn't given credit for carrying millions of living
>>>creatures for months,
>
>
>>Estimates place the number of animals to about ~50,000, the average size of
>>a sheep.
>
>
> And 8 people are going to care for, feed, clean up after 50,000 animals with
> no modern equipment, etc? Yeah, right.
>
>
>>over stormy seas with enough food and water, including
>>
>>>their specialized diets
>
>
>>No reason to think the conditions were stormy all the time and in every
>>location, besides, the Ark was built to float, not sail around. It's a
>>proven fact animals can make do with what is available.
>
>
> Do you know how much food and water an animal the size of a sheep takes in a
> year? A herbavore like a sheep can eat 10-15 pounds of hay a day. That's a
> volume of around 1/2 cubic foot or there-abouts. So that means you'd need
> 180 cubic feet of feed per animal. So now you have a cube almost 6 foot
> square per animal just for the feed. so we've got 50,000 animals that need a
> cage about 2'x5'x3' (and that's EXTREMELY cramped) as well as 6'x6'x6' of
> feed. Also water would be around 2 quarts a day min. So that's about another
> 24 cubic feet per animal. Thus far we've got each animal taking up 30+180+24
> or 234 cubic feet. That's a total of 11,700,000 cubic feet or a space
> 227'x227'x227' in size. Now the ark was in cubits, which we aren't sure the
> exact size of but it's around 1-1/2 feet. So the ark would have been
> 450'x75'x45' which is only 1,518,750 cubic feet (or about 1/10 the size
> needed.) Even if you leave out the need for food and water, you barely have
> the 30 cubic feet just for the animal itself.
>
>
>>- then landing in stinking muck, rotting vegetation
>>
>>>and corpses,... and everything going back to "normal." It's absurd to
>>
>>even
>>
>>>make the comparison.
>
>
>>Not really, the analogy is quite good. The mechanics of how the pyramids
>>were built is a mystery. Clearly that ancient civilization possessed a
>>number of advanced skills to build them. We still don't know how it was
>>done. The same could be said of the Ark.
>
>
> So they had advanced skills that let them feed the animals after landing
> when there was no food available but rotting corpses and plants?
>
>
>>> to try and explain why they were just a myth and never existed.
>>>
>>>>Evidence found in many cultures throughout the world strongly indicate
>>>>some form of the Biblical account of the Flood and Ark did occur.
>>>
>>>** No one ever claimed a flood didn't happen in ancient times. Floods
>>
>>have
>>
>>>always occurred. You can be sure a certain number of people loaded their
>>>livestock in whatever boat, raft, ark or ship was available to save
>>>themselves - every time there was a bad flood.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Anyone who equates the account to mythology has not done their homework.
>>>
>>>** And those of us who did do our homework realize how impossible the
>>>biblical story of Noah and his ark are.
>
>
>>Considering the planet is 70% covered by water, it's not a stretch at all.
>>And mounds of evidence is available to back it, starting with huge mixed
>>fossils deposits found in what could only be described by rapid burial.
>>Evidence like that is found all over the earth.
>
>
> There IS? You've found places where there's modern man mixed with dinosaur
> fossils? Have you reported this to the press? This is amazing
> news!!!!!
>
>> "A week's study of the Grand Canyon should be a good cure for Evolutionary
>>geologists as it is a perfect example of Flood geology with its
>>paraconformities and striking parallelisms of the under strata.
>>The whole area was obviously laid down quickly, then uplifted and then the
>>whole sedimentary area split open like a rotten watermelon."
>
>
>> Albert W. Mehlert,
>>Paleoanthropology researcher "Diluviology & Uniformitarian Geology -- A
>>Review"
>
>
> The author obviously doesn't know what in the hell he's talking about.
>
I wouldn't expect that he would. Please note that he is not accorded a
title, like "Dr.", but is simply a "Paleoanthropology researcher".
*ANYBODY* could be a paleoanthropology researcher if they researched the
topic.
Also please note that the publication is conveniently left out. Mehlert
publishes in creationist papers, like the CRS Quarterly (Creation
Research Science).
Of course, in one place I looked him up he was titled "Former
Evolutionist" -- but that means nothing. Anyone can claim that sort of
thing.
I would say that those who believe in a world flood are sincere -- but
have probably not studied the topic sufficiently to understand the
difficulties involved. Those Creation "scientists" who have a good
understanding of science -- but fudge, distort, or lie about it to fit
their religious viewpoints are guilty of fraud.
Unfortunately, fraud is not the sole province of the leaders of the
movement. I would suggest that, in the quote-mining business, that
failure to disclose the source of publication is an example of
intellectual dishonesty. After all, trying to make your sources appear
somehow better than they really are is fraudulent. It would merit a
failing grade on a paper at my school.
Raymond E. Griffith
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
