|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
 Posted - 02/18/2005 : 18:27:21 [Permalink]
|
Hi pspano58 and welcome.
I have to disagree with a couple of things that you posted.
quote:
You're all a bunch of morons.
I am not sure how you are defining morons but if you are using IQ, I think that you are wrong. If you think we are morons because we do not agree with your religious beliefs then I think you are incorrectly using the term moron.
quote:
There is no hard evidence that proves evolution.
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The evidence for evolution comes from geology, biology, physics, and just about all of the sciences. The only questions are what are the exact mechanisms and which mechanisms are the most dominate.
As this thread grows I am sure many of us 'morons' will help to educate you on the facts.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2005 : 19:32:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pspano58
It is a theory, at best.
It's a theory at it's best.
The sad thing is that you lack understanding about what makes a theory, as in "scientific theory". That, I believe, is the cause of (most of) your confusion. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2005 : 20:16:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pspano58
There is no hard evidence that proves evolution, yet so many embrace the theory because if it is true, then it discredits the bible.
No, it doesn't. And only a "moron" would accept evolution just to spit on the Bible.
And do you often insult the millions of Christians who also accpet evolution, or was this your first time?quote:
And if the bible is discredited, then that means that we don't have to listen to what it says and we can then lead our lives exactly the way we want to lead it, and there are no consequences in the future.
Go ahead and try it, for a short time: drive 100 MPH on the freeway until you either run headlong into the laws of physics or the laws of man. In neither case do the consequences have anything to do with God or evolution. And no matter how much or how little faith you have in the Bible, rear-ending the Volvo in front of you at such a speed is going to leave a mark.quote:
Kind of a convenient little theory, isn't it?
Not at all. It's complex - a real bitch to understand - and it's not nearly so convenient as "God did it." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
tkster
Skeptic Friend
USA
193 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2005 : 20:44:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pspano58
You're all a bunch of morons.
Logic fallacy of ad hominem.
quote:
How anyone can believe in evolution (macro, not micro) is beyond me. What a crock!
I'm going to say you committed the logic fallacy of strawman here because you used the term "believe." I don't believe the Earth is round, I accept it. I don't "believe" in evolution, I accept it. And whether I accept it or not, doesn't make it any less true.
Evolution is not a religion.
quote:
They (the atheistic scientific and academic community)
Last time I had checked over 45% of scientists were of various religions.
quote:
...actually have you believing that you evolved from a rock 4.5 billion years ago!
Logic fallay of strawman in two areas: Again evolution is not a belief, and evolution does not say we came from a rock (is this Hovind out of curiosity?).
Abiogenesis, the origin of life, has nothing to do with evolution.
quote:
Take a dog and try to mate it with a cat. You can't.
Logic fallacy of non-sequitur and red herring. You are way off topic here. You think evolution would say they could mate? No.
quote:
Take 2 species of dog and mate them. You may get a new species, but you always get a dog or a deformed dog. You never get a new type of animal. It always is a dog-type of creature.
And you think evolution would say otherwise? Do you know what mutations are? Do you know what natural selection is? Put both together. Just "mating" isn't going to give you something new, there has to be some alterations occuring.
quote:
It's never a cat and it's never a frog.
Logic fallacy of non-sequitur. Great line, but has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
quote:
Yet you actually believe
Logic fallacy of strawman; see above.
quote:
that it rained on rocks
Logic fallacy of strawman; I have never said I accept that idea anywhere.
quote:
and the rocks "came to life"
Logic fallacy of strawman; abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.
quote:
and then it "became" a new type of creature
Logic fallacy of strawman; evolution says no such thing. You are trying to simply things to make evolution look stupid, however, this doesn't work. For an example, if I said "scientists are so retarded, they believe that humans at one time were a single cell!" Sure, it makes the scientists sound stupid, but it's true. Simplifying things can make your opponent look dumb, but without evidence, it means nothing.
quote:
and then it"became" another new type of creature and then finally we have mankind.
Logic fallacy of strawman; not only are you continuously over simplifying, you are continuing to skip all kinds of information.
quote:
Sounds like a fairytale to me.
Logic fallacy of ad ignorantiam; saying "it doesn't sound true to me" is just an argument from personal incredulity.
quote:
I'm not saying evolution is "proven" incorrect.
Obviously, I mean you proposed no evidence except fallacies all over the place.
quote:
It's not proven incorrect and it's not proven right.
"The only thing I know is that I know nothing." ~Socrates
quote:
It is a theory, at best.
Evolution is a change in gene frequencies over a period of time among a population, and that my friend, is actually a Law.
quote:
There is no hard evidence that proves evolution, yet so many embrace the theory because if it is true, then it discredits the bible.
The Bible discredits itself when it says the Earth is flat in phrases like "four corners of the Earth" or "ends of the Earth," etcetera.
quote:
And if the bible is discredited, then that means that we don't have to listen to what it says and we can then lead our lives exactly the way we want to lead it, and there are no consequences in the future.
Kind of a convenient little theory, isn't it?
Kent Hovind is that you?
tk |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2005 : 21:05:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tkster
quote:
Originally posted by pspano58
You're all a bunch of morons.
Logic fallacy of ad hominem.
No, it's not. It's just an insult. pspano58 didn't say "You're all a bunch of morons, therefore you're wrong." That would have been a fallacy of logic. He made no argument at all, much less a "logical" one.quote:
quote:
It's never a cat and it's never a frog.
Logic fallacy of non-sequitur.
No, it's another strawman. pspano58 is suggesting that the theory of evolution says that dogs can evolve into cats and/or frogs, which it doesn't.quote:
Evolution is a change in gene frequencies over a period of time among a population, and that my friend, is actually a Law.
No, it's not. It's a definition. The theory of evolution is an explanation of the diversity of life we see today. Sheesh, tk, learn some science before trying to teach it.quote:
The Bible discredits itself when it says the Earth is flat in phrases like "four corners of the Earth" or "ends of the Earth," etcetera.
Red herring. Whether or not the Bible discredits itself has no bearing on the question of evolution being a solid scientific theory.quote:
Kent Hovind is that you?
Ad hominem. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a very useful ethic, tk, no matter its source. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
pspano58
New Member
USA
13 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2005 : 22:45:44 [Permalink]
|
To Ricky:
Q: Can you explain the difference between macro and mirco evolution and how micro does not lead into macro?
A: There has never been and is not now ANY evidence that an amimal such as a dog ever evolved into a totally different kind of animal.
If there is, show me.
I don't need to explain the difference, you obviously know what I am talking about.
Q: Who ever said that we believe we evolved from a rock? This is certainly not the case. I personally think life started from inorganic matter, but this is a far cry from a "rock."
A: Evolutionists believe that it rained on the earth for millions of years on the rocks and from this, life was first formed. If you don't believe this, fine, but that's what is being taught.
Q: Does evolution say a dog evolved into a cat?
A: Yes it does, doesn't it? Evolution says an amoeba became a fish which became a frog which became lizard which became another animal, etc., until they became apes and then humans. Isn't this the case???
Q: There have been experiments such as dealing with plants where there was a genetic mutation and the resulting plant was not the same species as the parent.
A: Did it ever become anything else besides a plant? How about a cow?
Q: It is only a theory that planets revolve around the Sun, and gravity is only a theory. What does that say about evolution only being a theory?
A: What you are saying is that if we all believe in certain theories, such as the first two you mentioned, then the other theory, evolution, must also be true. With that logic, every theory that exists must also be true because you mentioned two theories that we all agree with. Bad logic.
There is no hard evidence that proves evolution:
Q: Genetics, fossils, age of the earth, astronomy (organic compounds exist in space), examples of natural selection in nature, beneficial mutations, examples of mutations in the lab, and the list goes on.
A: Genetics: this proves evolution of an amoeba to a human?
God gave us all the genes from the beginning.
Fossils: Fossils prove that certain types of animals, such as dinosaurs existed. They don't prove WHEN they existed, and they certainly don't prove evolution. All fossils prove is that an animal died and that it got buried rapidly, usually in mud. (The Flood)
Age of the Earth: What are you talking about? Do you still think the earth is billions of years old? Prove it. The earth is 6000 years old in my opinion and there is nothing alive today such as a tree or anything else that is older than 5000 years old. Why not?
Why isn't there a tree standing today that is 10,000 or 1,000,000 years old, much less 4 billion years old?
Natural selection proves that micro-evolution is true. Not macro.
Beneficial Mutations??? where?
Mutations in the lab: what about them? they made a fly worse off???
Organic compounds exist in space: This proves evolution? How about God put them there?
The list goes on: since I haven't seen any conclusive evidence for evolution yet, the list seems smaller and smaller.
|
|
|
|
pspano58
New Member
USA
13 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2005 : 22:58:28 [Permalink]
|
To Filthy:
Q: Ah, but what a theory it is! Supported by all of the available evidence, it elegently explains the progression of life on earth.
Can you produce emperical evidence proving otherwise?
A: All of the available evidence is used and abused to try to make the silly evolution theory work out. Can you produce empirical evidence proving evoltion? I haven't seen it yet. And I'll bet you can't.
To: H. Humbert
It's obvious to me, simply by looking at the video you portray along with your screen name, that I am not dealing with a rational human being, but someone who loves violence. You are the perfect believer in evolution, because in your life, God has no place.
I also am very impressed (not!) that whenever someone disagrees with what you believe in, instead of arguing about it intelligently, you resort to name calling and personally bashing. This is usually because you cannot argue intellectually with the points I am making. You simply don't like the points, so you go on the attack.
And I have news for you, the more "educated" people get, the more common sense they seem to lose.
Someone might be more formally educated than I, but I'll bet I'm probably a lot smarter than they are. I started with nothing and with a few years of intelligence and savvy became a millionaire.
I'm not smart? You don't know who you are talking to, my friend. |
|
|
|
pspano58
New Member
USA
13 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2005 : 23:09:28 [Permalink]
|
listen everyone:
I cannot answer every single point that someone makes, I'll never leave the computer!
By the way, you are right that I should not have called everyone a bunch of morons. I was just disgusted when I was reading evryone's responses on the topic and I got emotional. I apologize.
My point is this: Evolution is a theory. Creation is a theory. I believe in the latter. Everything science has to offer only supports my theory, it certainly does not disprove it. The only things that appear to "disprove" it are carbon dating, potassium-argon etc., all of which have been shown to be very unreliable when tested on things that we actually know the age of; yet we are supposed to believe and accept it when we test it on something that we do NOT know the age of. That is not science and it is not logical. I sound like a Vulcan.
Can someone prove creation is not true?
Can someone prove there is no God?
Can someone prove the bible is not true? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2005 : 23:37:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pspano58
Someone might be more formally educated than I, but I'll bet I'm probably a lot smarter than they are. I started with nothing and with a few years of intelligence and savvy became a millionaire.
Still haven't figured out the "be humble" edict in the Bible, though, have you?quote:
My point is this: Evolution is a theory. Creation is a theory.
But that's incorrect. A scientific theory is an explanation which covers all of the available data, and allows us to make predictions we can test. How does "God did it" satisfy the latter part of the definition of a theory? We can't use creationism to predict anything. And testing such predictions is the same as testing God, which is strictly prohibited.quote:
I believe in the latter. Everything science has to offer only supports my theory, it certainly does not disprove it.
Really? Science tells us that the universe is about 15 billion years old. How does that support your "theory" that the Earth is only 6,000 years old?quote:
The only things that appear to "disprove" it are carbon dating, potassium-argon etc., all of which have been shown to be very unreliable when tested on things that we actually know the age of; yet we are supposed to believe and accept it when we test it on something that we do NOT know the age of. That is not science and it is not logical.
No, your understanding of what's going on is what isn't scientific or logical. We know that carbon-dating marine snails will provide an age far too old. We know that isochron dating certain other things also provides an incorrect date. We also know that many dating methods, when applied to the right kinds of samples, produce perfectly good dates. That you refuse to accept them because you don't understand the methodology is not a fault of the methods themselves.quote:
I sound like a Vulcan.
No, you sound like someone who's learned "creation science" from Kent Hovind, actually.quote:
Can someone prove creation is not true?
It's your claim that creation is true, so you prove that. It's not our job to disprove your claims, it's your job to support them rigorously.quote:
Can someone prove there is no God?
It isn't necessary to disprove God in order to understand and accept evolution and the rest of the major sciences. There are millions of people for whom the two subjects present no conflict at all. Perhaps billions.quote:
Can someone prove the bible is not true?
Unless you can provide evidence that grasshoppers once had only four legs, it's wrong on at least one point. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2005 : 23:57:52 [Permalink]
|
Good grief.
Somebody tell this joker that willfull ignorance is a sin. Lying, even to yourself, is still a lie.
No evidence for evolution.... give it a rest. You know the evidenece is overwhelming, you're just afraid to exit your little bubble and look at reality.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2005 : 03:28:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pspano58
To Filthy:
Q: Ah, but what a theory it is! Supported by all of the available evidence, it elegently explains the progression of life on earth.
Can you produce emperical evidence proving otherwise?
A: All of the available evidence is used and abused to try to make the silly evolution theory work out. Can you produce empirical evidence proving evoltion? I haven't seen it yet. And I'll bet you can't.
To: H. Humbert
It's obvious to me, simply by looking at the video you portray along with your screen name, that I am not dealing with a rational human being, but someone who loves violence. You are the perfect believer in evolution, because in your life, God has no place.
I also am very impressed (not!) that whenever someone disagrees with what you believe in, instead of arguing about it intelligently, you resort to name calling and personally bashing. This is usually because you cannot argue intellectually with the points I am making. You simply don't like the points, so you go on the attack.
And I have news for you, the more "educated" people get, the more common sense they seem to lose.
Someone might be more formally educated than I, but I'll bet I'm probably a lot smarter than they are. I started with nothing and with a few years of intelligence and savvy became a millionaire.
I'm not smart? You don't know who you are talking to, my friend.
Look here, here, and here for information on the ToE.
But, as it was you who made the original claims, it is you that should be offering evidence supporting them.
Say, I'll bet you even believe in the Flood folderol. Establish that turkey and show that the 'ark' was seaworthy and could hold all those animals, and you'll have more than made your point.
Gotta go look something up... back in a few
Here wa are; 'macro' evolution.
quote:
The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Version 2.85
Copyright © 1999-2004 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
[Last Update: September 23, 2004]
Permission is granted to copy and print these pages in total for non-profit personal, educational, research, or critical purposes.
Introduction
volution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).
Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.
This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.
You can spend a lot of time browsing these.
Now, show me your evidence debunking the Theory of Evolution, remembering that it does not deal with origins, but rather the changing of species over time.
I would also like to see evidence in favor of a less than 10,000 year old earth as well as support for the afore-mentioned Flood, and any other un-natural occurances mentioned in the Bible that you think might bolster your case.
Thus far, all we have is unsupported claims, and that won't cut it.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
pspano58
New Member
USA
13 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2005 : 09:14:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Still haven't figured out the "be humble" edict in the Bible, though, have you?
I was defending myself. This is irrelevant to the point again. A "be humble" edict??? Have you read the bible?
[/quote]But that's incorrect. A scientific theory is an explanation which covers all of the available data, and allows us to make predictions we can test.
What predictions can you test?
How does "God did it" satisfy the latter part of the definition of a theory? We can't use creationism to predict anything. And testing such predictions is the same as testing God, which is strictly prohibited.
What?????????????????????????????
If creationism IS true, you can predict alot, such as the rest of the bible is probably also true. So we best read it.
[/quote]Really? Science tells us that the universe is about 15 billion years old. How does that support your "theory" that the Earth is only 6,000 years old?
How did "science" arrive at that conclusion?
They used to say it was 10,000 years old, then it was 70,000 years old, then it was 1 billion, 3 billion and now 5 billion. Yet I am supposed to accept today's science at it's word when it has been "wrong" so many times in the past? In 100 years, science will be saying the earth is 10 trillion years old and yet they will not have any "scientific" data to back it up, just some testing mechanism that they are using at the time which will probably be just as unreliable as the ones used today.
[/quote]No, your understanding of what's going on is what isn't scientific or logical. We know that carbon-dating marine snails will provide an age far too old. We know that isochron dating certain other things also provides an incorrect date. We also know that many dating methods, when applied to the right kinds of samples, produce perfectly good dates.
You mean perfectly good dates which support your theory, therefore they must be good dates.
[/quote]It's your claim that creation is true, so you prove that. It's not our job to disprove your claims, it's your job to support them rigorously.
I'm not claiming that creation can be "proven" scientifically, but you are claiming that evolution can be proven scientifically. I disagree entirely and am still awaiting proof. All the "evidence" shows alot of things, but it certainly doesn't "prove" macro-evolution.
[/quote]It isn't necessary to disprove God in order to understand and accept evolution and the rest of the major sciences. There are millions of people for whom the two subjects present no conflict at all. Perhaps billions.
That's their problem. It doesn't mean they are right.
[/quote]Unless you can provide evidence that grasshoppers once had only four legs, it's wrong on at least one point.
[/quote]
So unless something in the bible can be "proven" it must not be true?
Really scientific.
Can you prove that grasshoppers NEVER had 4 legs? No, you can't, therefore the bible MUST be true, based on your logic.
|
|
|
|
pspano58
New Member
USA
13 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2005 : 09:19:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Good grief.
Somebody tell this joker that willfull ignorance is a sin. Lying, even to yourself, is still a lie.
No evidence for evolution.... give it a rest. You know the evidenece is overwhelming, you're just afraid to exit your little bubble and look at reality.
So now I am a joker. That proves evolution must be true I guess.
The evidence is overwhelming, yet I still haven't heard any conclusive scientiific evidence that "proves" macro-evolution.
Apparently you are in a bubble, the evolution bubble. You believe it to be true, so any evidence that comes out to the contrary cannot and will not be accepted or looked at. |
|
|
|
pspano58
New Member
USA
13 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2005 : 09:47:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
But, as it was you who made the original claims, it is you that should be offering evidence supporting them.
So now I have to "prove" creation, yet you can't "prove" evolution?
That's convenient for you. I don't need to prove creation. This forum has been discussing the "fact" of evolution and I am disputing it, using good-ole common sense. So far, anything I have said has not been satisfactorily explained.
Say, I'll bet you even believe in the Flood folderol. Establish that turkey and show that the 'ark' was seaworthy and could hold all those animals, and you'll have more than made your point.
I can't prove the ark was seaworthy because I don't know enough about physics and how that all works. However, many experts disagree on whether or not it was seaworthy. If you assume that the instructions were actually given by God, I would have to assume as well that God knew enough how to make it seaworthy. Can you prove that it was NOT seaworthy?
The animals are easy. There were no insects and there were no fish.
There were 2 of each SORT, not 2 of each species. 2 dog sorts, 2 cat sorts, 2 horse sorts, 2 dinosaur sorts, etc., And they were all babies, not gigantic adults. Based on this logic, they EASILY fit in the ark.
Have I more than made my point???
Now, show me your evidence debunking the Theory of Evolution, remembering that it does not deal with origins, but rather the changing of species over time.
Sure, easy: The changing of species over time. Scientifically we can prove that species change over time. I agree. But the changes are minor, not major. A species, or sort, or whatever, can adapt to environments and maybe add or lose a leg, etc., or change color, or grow teeth. But it has NEVER, EVER been scientifically proven that a horse sort of animal such as a zebra, horse, donkey, etc., changes into a different sort of animal such as a wolf, dog, coyote, etc.,
Can you prove the changing of one sort of animal into another sort of animal?
I would also like to see evidence in favor of a less than 10,000 year old earth as well as support for the afore-mentioned Flood, and any other un-natural occurances mentioned in the Bible that you think might bolster your case.
Sure. The oldest living thing on the earth today is less than 4400 years old, when the Flood supposedly hit. Why isn;t there something alive today that is 1 billion years old?
Fossils and the geologic column are great evidence for the support of the flood. If the flood came, the results to the earth's surface would have been catastrophic, burying instantly (and fossilizing) millions of animals. Why do we have so many fossils? It takes certain conditions to allow something to fossilize. If these animals died, why didn't they just rot and turn to dust like evrything else does?
It was because they were buried in mud rapidly.
Again, I can't "prove" it, but I still don't see "scientific proof" of macro-evolution, just assumptions made in order to support a pre-existing theory.
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2005 : 10:24:57 [Permalink]
|
If you had opened and studied the links I provided eariler, you might experience some enlightenment.
quote:
The animals are easy. There were no insects and there were no fish.
There were 2 of each SORT, not 2 of each species. 2 dog sorts, 2 cat sorts, 2 horse sorts, 2 dinosaur sorts, etc., And they were all babies, not gigantic adults. Based on this logic, they EASILY fit in the ark.
Have I more than made my point???
Say what?! No insects or fish?!
Perhaps I'd best forget you wrote that, lest I laugh nyself into a case of colic...hehehehaha... Stop that!
I am a state licensed, wildlife rehabilitator and believe me, caring for an infant or a juvenile animal of any sort is one hell of a lot harder than for an adult.
And, as there was only one, small window ventilating the alledged ark, the stench would have been horrific and the sanitary conditions about the same as you might find in a charnel pit.
And the question arises; how did eight terrified, seasick people mamage to care for all these animals for something like a year?
And no, the ark as describes would not have been seaworthy. Wooden ships, especally of a barge-type, hull design cannot be built strong enough to withstand heavy seas.
And what dinosaurs? I don't recall any mention of them in the Bible. And if there were dinos, were there also such species as Dimetrodon, an earlier, very large reptile but not a dinosaur? Must we strech the meaning of 'kind', or 'sort' if you prefer, yet again?
But it's all moot, anyway. There is no geological evidence that the Big Fat Flood ever occured, and even the math shows that it's not possible as described.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 02/19/2005 10:32:37 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
