"The Whole Silly Flood Story"

reply to post by dusty1

Dusty, despite the fact that much of the bible does not make sense as factual history, it certainly makes more sense than the ridiculous theories postulated by creationists to convince gullible suckers that it is 100% factual in the creation and flood accounts. Instead of reading the ever-changing words of charlatans who are out to fool you, why not read the bible itself for a change? There is actually much in it that is interesting, wise, beautiful and even funny. Quite seriously, I'm sad that you, as a believer, seem to know so little of the bible that you most likely get less out of it than I do as an unbeliever.

Do you even know how long the bible says Noah etcetera spent in the ark?
Do you know how many of each animal Noah was told to take?
Have you ever stopped to add up how many animals must have been on the ark?
Have you ever worked out the food requirements of each animal, including the humans, and how much the ark would have had to carry to feed them all for that time?
Have you tried working out the size of the ark, and seeing where all that food would fit?

Dusty, do you have any idea what causes scurvy and what effect it has on people?

Dusty, do you have any idea what being covered with brackish water for that length of time would do to the vegetation?

Dusty, do you have any idea what the mixing of all the salt and fresh waters on earth would do to the fish?

Genesis 1:9-10
And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas.

Dusty, if the earth was flat at this time, what force kept the water in the seas?

Genesis 2:10-14
A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers. The name of the first is Pishon; it is the one which flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; and the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there. The name of the second river is Gihon; it is the one which flows around the whole land of Cush. And the name of the third river is Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

Dusty, if the Earth was flat, how were waters collected to feed these rivers, and what caused the rivers flow?

Genesis 7:19-20
And the waters prevailed so mightily upon the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered; the waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep.

Mountains? What mountains?
Dusty, I thought you said there were no mountains before the flood. Yet the flood account not only mentions mountains, it specifies they were high!
And no, it does not say god suddenly made these mountains, they are mentioned in the context of having already been there.
And later, there is no mention of mountains rising above the waters, although, from the point of view of those on the ark, that is how it would appear. Instead, it specifically says the mountains were revealed by the waters subsiding.


In fact, Dusty, with your attempt at writing extra bits into the story to make it work, you are guilty of adding to the bible, just as you are when adding a huge volume of waters in the sky to the creation account to make it work.

Science disproves your theories, Dusty, but I've given up hoping you might understand that.
But at least open your eyes to the fact that your own precious bible disproves your theories too.

Now Dusty, how about you actually answer each of the above questions, instead of your usual trick of ignoring things unless you can find an easy, prewritten creationist answer.

the whole flood story is overblown myth.

About 5600 BC a land locked lake now known as the black sea as the water of the mediterranean sea breached the Bosporus Strait.
Some people may have used crude boats to go from flooding islands to the dry shoreline.

There is also the theory that shorty before that the Mediterranean Sea may have been blocked at the Strait of Gibraltar do to low sea levels at the ending of the last ice age.

Once the glaciers started melting do to global warming first the Mediterranean Sea started refilling then as the glaciers continued to melt and the sea levels went up it broke through into the Black Sea.

After 1000s of years of retelling of the story it became a story of the whole world flooding and Noah's ark.
en.wikipedia.org...
www.nationalgeographic.com...
www.black-sea-atlantis.com...
www.msnbc.msn.com...

reply to post by Kailassa

Now Dusty, how about you actually answer each of the above questions, instead of your usual trick of ignoring things unless you can find an easy, prewritten creationist answer.

Interesting, I thought that is what your side does.

In this thread I have already debunked two of madnesses assertions.

Population after the flood.

The volume of water that exists on the earth.

You guys really don't like getting beat.

Do you even know how long the bible says Noah etcetera spent in the ark?

About one year.

Do you know how many of each animal Noah was told to take?

Every sort of animal, two of each. Of clean beasts and fowls, seven of each kind were to be taken. I am guessing the were probably very young (small elephants eat less, and poop less too).

Have you ever stopped to add up how many animals must have been on the ark?

According to the Encyclopedia Americana there are upwards of 1.700,000 species of animals. However, over 60 percent of these are insects, of the 24,000 amphibians,reptiles,birds and mammals, 10,000 are birds, 9,000 are reptiles and amphibians, many of which could have survived outside the ark, and only 5,000 are mammals, including whales and porpoises, which would have also remained outside the ark. It is estimated that there a4re only about 290 species of land mammals larger than sheep and about 1,360 smaller than rats.

Have you ever worked out the food requirements of each animal, including the humans, and how much the ark would have had to carry to feed them all for that time?

No.

Have you tried working out the size of the ark, and seeing where all that food would fit?

The ark was 300cubits long, 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high. Some think the ancient cubit was 44.5 cm (17.5) others think it was nearer 56 to 61 cm, the ark measured 437 ft 6 inches X 72 ft 11 in. X43 ft 9 in.. The proportion length to width is 6 to 1, which is used by modern naval architects. The ark had three decks which gave it a total of 8,900 sq m or 96,000 sq ft.

Dusty, do you have any idea what causes scurvy and what effect it has on people?

Lack of vitamin C. What is interesting is that I did a Master Cleanse and went 7 days only ingesting a drink that included water, lemon, maple syrup, and cayenne pepper. By day 4 my weight stabilized. I have heard of people living on that "diet" for over a year. Yuck.

Oh, and limes work too.

Dusty, do you have any idea what being covered with brackish water for that length of time would do to the vegetation?

Fortunately there is something called a seed.

Some plant seeds can survive in seawater and float from one continent to another. Birds may also carry seeds in their beak, feet, or stomach (to be expelled later) as they fly from continent to continent. Even icebergs may transport seeds to different locations.

SparkNotes

Hey it works for evolutionists, how about creationists?

Dusty, do you have any idea what the mixing of all the salt and fresh waters on earth would do to the fish?

The fresh water fish would have to stay in fresh water pockets, which would have been millions of gallons.

How about fish eggs?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


I think the most damning part of the whole flood story is how evil it makes God out to be. I'm aware that according to the story humanity was very sinful but let's no forget the billions of animals, who certainly could not have been sinners, who also drowned in the flood. Could you worship a God who drowns kittens and puppies for the sins of man? In order for a God to do this sort of thing he has to WANT to, it has to be his express desire to drown everything which means he has declined an infinite amount of other possibilities (if he is indeed All Powerful) in favor of this one. Why exactly would a God who is meant to be good and merciful resort to such atrocities so readily rather than find a method that does not involve the death of nearly every organism on the planet and the destruction of human beings he claims to love unconditionally?

Good post Madness, S+F

reply to post by dusty1

You appear to have overlooked the fact that your argument for the biblical account depended on a smooth bowling-ball earth.
The Bible itself disagrees with your smooth earth hypothesis.
So which part is wrong, the bible's story of the flood, or the bible's stories of pre-existing oceans, rivers and mountains?

Next you admit the bible says it was nearly a year before Noah and Co. could disembark, but can't be bothered checking up on how much food would be needed. That's not surprising when it's obvious the ark would not have had a hope of carrying the amount of food needed.

Originally posted by dusty1
According to the Encyclopedia Americana there are upwards of 1.700,000 species of animals. However, over 60 percent of these are insects, of the 24,000 amphibians,reptiles,birds and mammals, 10,000 are birds, 9,000 are reptiles and amphibians, many of which could have survived outside the ark, and only 5,000 are mammals, including whales and porpoises, which would have also remained outside the ark. It is estimated that there a4re only about 290 species of land mammals larger than sheep and about 1,360 smaller than rats.

Please tell me how these 900,000 species of insects could survive with nothing to eat and nowhere to land.
Birds: of course they could not survive for a year without landing . . .
Even the writer of Genesis understood that much, and said all the birds were present on the ark.

So that's 20,000 birdies on the ark. - Even feeding them for a year would be impossible.
Reptiles need dry land. There were going to nearly 6,000 snakes on that ark. - before they start breeding.
You forgot to mention the arachnids. There are over 40,000 species of spiders alone. A lot of insects are going to be needed to feed all them.
There are also 60,000 to 80,000 snail and slug species.
The three modern orders of amphibians are Anura (frogs and toads), Caudata (salamanders and newts), and Gymnophiona (caecilians, limbless amphibians that resemble snakes).
Frogs and toads need dry land, as do most newts.

There are about 5,400 mammals, almost all of which would drown when deprived of dry land.

The ark was 300cubits long, 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high. Some think the ancient cubit was 44.5 cm (17.5) others think it was nearer 56 to 61 cm, the ark measured 437 ft 6 inches X 72 ft 11 in. X43 ft 9 in.. The proportion length to width is 6 to 1, which is used by modern naval architects. The ark had three decks which gave it a total of 8,900 sq m or 96,000 sq ft.

Oh no!
You've multiplied 32,000 by 3 to find the total floor size for a 3 storey cube!
Don't you realise the bottom deck will be far smaller than the top deck?

Fortunately there is something called a seed.

Some plant seeds can survive in seawater and float from one continent to another. Birds may also carry seeds in their beak, feet, or stomach (to be expelled later) as they fly from continent to continent. Even icebergs may transport seeds to different locations.

Ahh, the birds are going to be carrying seeds between continents, holding them for a year as they flutter patiently waiting t be able to eat or land!
And SOME seeds can float . . .

I'm loving this. Do you realise the arguments of creationists are only beaten by the Marx Brothers for humour?

The fresh water fish would have to stay in fresh water pockets, which would have been millions of gallons.
How about fish eggs?

Ah, how convenient. There were fresh-water pockets available to enable the survival of the fresh water fish. - sure . . .
And "How about fish eggs?" really? They would hatch. The hatched baby fish would die if the environment had the wrong salinity for them.

Hey it (spark notes) works for evolutionists, how about creationists?

"Evolutionists" don't need spark notes. Spark notes obviously don't work for evolutionists.

Originally posted by dusty1

According to the Encyclopedia Americana there are upwards of 1.700,000 species of animals. However, over 60 percent of these are insects, of the 24,000 amphibians,reptiles,birds and mammals, 10,000 are birds, 9,000 are reptiles and amphibians, many of which could have survived outside the ark, and only 5,000 are mammals, including whales and porpoises, which would have also remained outside the ark. It is estimated that there a4re only about 290 species of land mammals larger than sheep and about 1,360 smaller than rats.

Excuse me a second while I laugh myself to death.

1) so, you think that most birds could stay aloft WITHOUT ANY FOOD for forty days and forty nights?
2) So you think that most reptiles could survive in the rising water, which near the sea would be brackish, inland would be not fresh but DISTILLED? As much as a lot of reptiles can swim FOR A WHILE, they all have to breathe air and can you imagine a human, even an olympic swimmer, treading water for forty days and forty nights without being able to drink?

(just a quick lesson for you: while humans can survive drinking slightly brackish water, the mammalian kidney is somewhat more efficient at removing salt from the bloodstream than reptilian - including bird - kidneys are. Birds and the few species of reptile that can drink brackish/salty water have specific adaptations which allow them to do so, AND ARE NOT COMMON TO THE REPTILIA. As for distilled water, it is bad enough keeping your skin in it for a significant period of time, and, with a cheap microscope, a needle, a needle and a petri dish, you can see for yourself what distilled water (collect fresh rainwater or buy it) does to cells. They swell up and pop after a fairly short time).

3) so far as I know, there is only a single species of amphibian that has the adaptations necessary to cope with long term survival in brackish water - the crab-eating frog Rana cancrivora, which I think copes with the osmotic gradient between its innards and its outards by having elevated urea in the bloodstream. In all other species that I am aware of, keeping them in brackish water dehydrates them to death, keeping them in distilled water inflates and ruptures their cells, as previously discussed. This is especially relevent in the case of amphibians, as most have highly permeable skin.

4) the comment about insects remaining outside the ark is laughable. Most species, although not all, do have wings, but remaining aloft on these wings is extremely energy demanding, and without regular food, most die. In some insects, the adult lifespan is a lot less than 40 days, so remaining aloft before landing to breed is FAR out of the question. A lot - but not all - of the larvae of these are aquatic, but the same distilled/brackish water concepts apply to them as to the reptiles and amphibians.

Fortunately there is something called a seed.

Dusty, I have an experiment for you. Find as many acorns as you can, and put a third of them in a large vat of distilled water for forty days, put another third in a large vat of brackish water for forty days, and in a third vat - of similar size, to remove confounding variable - on autumn earth for forty days.

When the forty days are up, make a note of what condition each one was kept in, and when the time comes for little acorns to start on their journey to great oaks, make a note of what percentage of each, from the respective conditions, grow.

I'd be surprised if you get many from either of the wet conditions.

A seed contains an embryo, much as an egg does, and this embryo is alive, and thus vulnerable to osmotic gradients. Some seeds, certainly, can be carried around on the ocean currents and survive, but such seeds tend to belong to mangroves, coconut palms and other shoreline plants which do not, notably, make up the bulk of earth's vegetation.

I'm not particularly great at botany, but I do know enough to be able to add that a lot of the more primitive plants do not produce seeds - many of the extant ferns being notable exampled. Instead, they rely on rainwater (in the relatively small volumes that it naturally occurs, which, by their small volume, tend to have their solute content rather higher than an earth-covering of rainwater would) to allow sperm and ova to mix, giving way - then and there, most of the time - to the next generation of ferns. Even if seeds COULD survive the sudden sweeping in of brackish and/or distilled water, we'd still be without ferns.

The fresh water fish would have to stay in fresh water pockets, which would have been millions of gallons.

How about fish eggs?

Fish - phylogenetically including ourselves but here, for convenience sake, discussing only the pre-tetrapod sarcopterygians, the actinopterygii and the chondroicthys, lack the amniotic membrane which gives the eggs of reptiles (including birds) and egg-laying mammals a certain - small - level of water resistance. Most of these water resistant (think of it as the difference between water-resistant and water-proof watches. You can splash either, but you can only submerge one) eggs would not survive being submerged for long, although some species are exceptional. Most fish eggs, lacking any real barrier to solutes, are as sensitive, if not more so, as their parents to changes in the osmotic potential of their environment. That is to say, if water gets saltier, they dehydrate, and if water gets less salty, they pop. The same concepts applied above to amphibians, then, apply to fish eggs, and equally to fish.

Many bodies of fresh water would have received an unprecedented influx of not fresh, but distilled water, which is even more of an issue for fish than it is for amphibians, because they breathe it. If you really want to see how this works, take a goldfish and put it in a large vat of distilled water - separate to the acorns, otherwise it will be poisoned and die the wrong way - and come back to check on it 40 days later.

It will not be happy because it will be dead.

Oh, and a little aside - there are a number of species of fish that drown if you put them in water. Any water. Not to mention what happens when you suddenly move salt-water invertebrates to brackish water which, as many marine invertebrates live in and around shallow water coral reefs, would happen with that much rain. Just to let you know, it doesn't take more than a few minutes. So they wouldn't suffer for long.



EDIT: Darn, Kailissa said everything while I was typing.


EDIT: it was a YEAR? HOW could anyone think that it was even REMOTELY possible? Dusty, change all above experiments to a year. Although it probably won't make much difference.


EDIT: Dusty, Encyclopedia Americana lied to you. There's more than 10,000 amphibian and reptile species - I think it's close to 13,000 in total. How old is your encyclopedia?

reply to post by dusty1


...no, you misread it. There isn't enough water to cover the Earth. There's enough water for us to put all land mass underwater treating the ocean floor as what would currently be called sea level.

Yes, if we lowered all land so that what is currently at sea level would be on the ocean floor, there is enough water to cover all land on Earth, but there's no way to make it so that we have enough water to cover the Earth as it is now.

I'm going to take a snippet from your source

the elevated land could be hidden under the oceans and the Earth reduced to a smooth sphere that would be completely covered by a continuous layer of seawater 2,686 metres deep.

(emphasis mine)

Now, speaking the English language as my native tongue, I can realize that this means that we could take elevated land and hide it under the ocean, not that we could suddenly cover the entirety of the Earth with water and achieve a sphere of water.

Yes, if we treat the ocean floor as sea level and lower all land accordingly, we achieve sphere depth. Of course, that doesn't account for the reality of the situation we're in.

reply to post by dusty1

Originally posted by dusty1
Interesting, I thought that is what your side does.

In this thread I have already debunked two of madnesses assertions.

No you haven't.

Population after the flood.

Wasn't my assertion. Also, it was from a source that I cited three years ago. When I was less rigorous in checking my sources and more naive.

The volume of water that exists on the earth.

Nope, I've already shown that your 'refutation' is silly. Instead of listening to my reasonable debunking of your claim you simply repeated it. So I debunked it again.

You guys really don't like getting beat.

No, we don't mind it as long as the people who beat us are telling the truth.

Do you even know how long the bible says Noah etcetera spent in the ark?

About one year.

Yes, and where is the evidence of the whole world being submerged for a year?

Do you know how many of each animal Noah was told to take?

Every sort of animal, two of each. Of clean beasts and fowls, seven of each kind were to be taken. I am guessing the were probably very young (small elephants eat less, and poop less too).

...and a lot of species grow a lot in one year. Also, how the hell did Noah get two kangaroos? How did he get two of each species of finch? How'd he get them all into an ark without them dying and starving?

And a baby elephant is still quite big. They reach the age of maturity at around 15 years and are already between 2-4 feet tall at birth. (I got that info from that San Diego Zoo

And what about predators? What are you going to feed the lions and tigers and bears (oh my!)?

And were there two of each species of bear or just two bears? How did we get all the species of bears if there were only two bears?

Have you ever stopped to add up how many animals must have been on the ark?

According to the Encyclopedia Americana there are upwards of 1.700,000 species of animals. However, over 60 percent of these are insects, of the 24,000 amphibians,reptiles,birds and mammals, 10,000 are birds, 9,000 are reptiles and amphibians, many of which could have survived outside the ark, and only 5,000 are mammals, including whales and porpoises, which would have also remained outside the ark. It is estimated that there a4re only about 290 species of land mammals larger than sheep and about 1,360 smaller than rats.

Ok, aside from the fact that citation is needed on the numbers....

How could reptiles and amphibians have survived outside of the ark? They wouldn't have had any food for a year and would have had to swim around doing nothing...

And rats...that's interesting to bring up. They reach sexual maturity at 5 weeks old. Females go into heat at least once a week. They have a gestation period of around 21 days and produce between 7-14 offspring a litter.
...do I need to run the population numbers on that one?

Have you ever worked out the food requirements of each animal, including the humans, and how much the ark would have had to carry to feed them all for that time?

No.

Which is why you accept such a silly story. It would be impossible to feed all of those animals (aside from the amount of food needed) and clear out everything for all of them.

Have you tried working out the size of the ark, and seeing where all that food would fit?

The ark was 300cubits long, 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high. Some think the ancient cubit was 44.5 cm (17.5) others think it was nearer 56 to 61 cm, the ark measured 437 ft 6 inches X 72 ft 11 in. X43 ft 9 in.. The proportion length to width is 6 to 1, which is used by modern naval architects. The ark had three decks which gave it a total of 8,900 sq m or 96,000 sq ft.

Which works out to not enough room.

Dusty, do you have any idea what causes scurvy and what effect it has on people?

Lack of vitamin C. What is interesting is that I did a Master Cleanse and went 7 days only ingesting a drink that included water, lemon, maple syrup, and cayenne pepper. By day 4 my weight stabilized. I have heard of people living on that "diet" for over a year. Yuck.

Oh, and limes work too.

Yep...and how would you get enough vitamin C for a family on year's voyage without refrigeration?

Dusty, do you have any idea what being covered with brackish water for that length of time would do to the vegetation?

Fortunately there is something called a seed.

Noah wasn't told to bring seeds.

Oh, and there's something Kal forgot to mention.

God salted the Earth. Covering all the soil in the world with saltwater for a year? Yeah, nothing is going to grow after that for a long, long time.

Burn the crops and salt the fields.

Some plant seeds can survive in seawater and float from one continent to another.

Some
Not "most"
Not even a quantifier on that one. Just some

Birds may also carry seeds in their beak, feet, or stomach (to be expelled later) as they fly from continent to continent. Even icebergs may transport seeds to different locations.

Still doesn't make it plausible for a year long immersion in salt water

SparkNotes

Thank you for providing citations. Just an honest thanks.

Dusty, do you have any idea what the mixing of all the salt and fresh waters on earth would do to the fish?

The fresh water fish would have to stay in fresh water pockets, which would have been millions of gallons.

...a global cataclysmic flood wouldn't really great very big 'fresh water pockets', especially if it lasted for a whole year. Salinity levels would change.

How about fish eggs?

How about them?

reply to post by TheWill


Very nice post!!

It will not be happy because it will be dead.

I can't believe people take this global flood serious given that we have ZERO evidence that it happened at all. No global sediments, not enough water to submerge all land, and for crying out loud no evidence for a giant space daddy who told only a select few to build a giant boat so he can store all species.

I feel like I'm talking to people who take Harry Potter to seriously...

reply to post by MrXYZ


Don't joke - I knew a (creationist) girl whose parents forbade her from reading Harry Potter because, they said, Hogwarts and similar schools were real places where children got indoctrinated into worshipping the devil.

What's worse is that a) she believed it and b) she thought that witch hunts/trials/burnings were a GOOD thing.

While the flood story may not ring true with you, there are archeological evidence as well as stories from many different cultures that describe similar catastrophies. Now while I'm very new to ATS, I am attempting to post a National Geographic news article that backs up this view. I hope I got it right. Just because something may or may not reflect your views shouldn't mean that it is entirely incorrect.
www.nationalgeographic.com...

reply to post by rcanem


I can't speak for the others, but the major focus of MY post was that the concept of the entire world flooding and the sheer diversity of extant life (-7000 years) being saved by on small boat (7000 odd years ago) was irrational. I don't think anyone here has taken issue with the concept of the Noah story being based on an actual flood (because after all, everyone knows that floods happen), my intention - and I suspect that of several others - is to point out that biblical tales must be taken in context, and artistic license/exaggeration must be recognised where they are present.

Still, good link, and an interesting one too. It still describes the flood(s) as non-global, though.

Nobody liked my video?

reply to post by TheWill

EDIT: Darn, Kailissa said everything while I was typing.

I know.

Sometimes it's hard to get a word in edgewise.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

And were there two of each species of bear or just two bears? How did we get all the species of bears if there were only two bears?

Two of each kind. They contained the genetic information to produce every bear on earth. For a person who believes in evolution, I figured you would get this.

I'm glad you brought up bears.

Don't they hibernate?

The first 'hiberating gene' controls the production of an enzyme that breaks down fats into products that can be used to produce energy. Generally, humans and other animals tend not to break down their fat deposits to produce energy since it's 'easier' to just use up glucose for the same purpose. However, in hibernation squirrels can use their fat deposits to produce a steady supply of energy to maintain its body.

Long Term Space Travel

Somewhere along the way, however, their internal clocks told them it was better to sleep than try to find food all winter. And, to their credit, various species of bears began negotiating winter by going into a hypo-metabolic torpor, or as we call it, hibernation. Now, researchers have turned their sights on various species of North American bears to try and learn how these animals survive winter by hibernating — sometimes as long as eight months — without defecating, urinating, eating or drinking. They rely on their existing collected body fat as their sole source of food and water.

Contrary to popular belief, bears do not sleep continuously during hibernation. They are active almost every day, says Jansen, although not to the same extent as at other times of the year.

Ground Control To Yogi Bear




reply to post by TheWill

Oh, and a little aside - there are a number of species of fish that drown if you put them in water. Any water. Not to mention what happens when you suddenly move salt-water invertebrates to brackish water

A halocline can be easily created and observed in a drinking glass or other clear vessel. If fresh water is slowly poured over a quantity of salt water, using a spoon held horizontally at water-level to prevent mixing, a hazy interface layer, the halocline, will soon be visible due to the varying index of refraction across the boundary.

Halocline

reply to post by dusty1

Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Nobody liked my video?

EDIT: Darn, Kailissa said everything while I was typing.

I know.

Sometimes it's hard to get a word in edgewise.

I know it gets hard sometimes, but please format your responses so that you are replying to the right people. I didn't say that, TheWill said that.

You then go on to ignore...1 full post of mine found here and then you cherry pick my post for things to respond to.

Like it or not, I respond in full to any post I respond to, or I at least let people know that I'm ignoring certain parts and for what reason I'm ignoring them. Your cherry picking is dishonest and slightly insulting considering the amount of time I put in to writing my posts.

And were there two of each species of bear or just two bears? How did we get all the species of bears if there were only two bears?

Two of each kind.

What the hell is a 'kind'?
I'm sorry to phrase it like that, but I've yet to meet a creationist that ever defined it.

They contained the genetic information to produce every bear on earth. For a person who believes in evolution, I figured you would get this.

So then you're accepting evolution?
And also that still makes no sense. That would require evolution to work faster, you're arguing for hyper-evolution.

There is no baseline bear.

This actually shows a bit of ignorance of phylogeny found in creationist writings. Bears are members of the family Ursidae. There are eight living species of bear, as well as quite a few more that are extinct. What's even crazier is that not all of those eight species of bears are interfertile...

I'm glad you brought up bears.

Don't they hibernate?

Yes, but most species do not.

I deleted the external references because it's just a bunch of random information about hibernation that was unnecessary. Hibernation wouldn't explain anything about the majority of species that would be on the 'ark'.

Would that include dinosaurs?

And could you please address the rest of my posts?

[quote

Oh, and a little aside - there are a number of species of fish that drown if you put them in water. Any water. Not to mention what happens when you suddenly move salt-water invertebrates to brackish water

...also not my post, this is from TheWill.
Please respond to our posts separately, don't interrelate them.


So you addressed a single point I made and then you ignored the rest of my post and started addressing another poster without changing formating or even mentioning that it was that poster.....
Hmmm....

I'm sorry, but that's frankly rude.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

I know it gets hard sometimes, but please format your responses so that you are replying to the right people. I didn't say that, TheWill said that.

In my own defense, I have never actually seen the two of you together, but I apologize.

So you addressed a single point I made and then you ignored the rest of my post and started addressing another poster without changing formating or even mentioning that it was that poster.....
Hmmm....

I think hibernation helps solve the food issue.

I am sorry you find the idea of hibernation un-bear-able.

I can't count how many times I have posted on ATS and the point gets ignored.

At times by you.

It happens.

I'm sorry, but that's frankly rude.

Thank you for the lecture.

I stand corrected.

Sorry, don't have time to read all the replies so just ignore this if it was already said:

It's my understanding that there are significant references to the flood in many different pieces of historical literature, not just the Bible. For example, Ovid's Metamorphoses' Creation account also discusses a flood which wipes out humans. I am more inclined to believe a flood did happen, and that we are seeing the mythological renditions of it through many different stories. But, check this out:

en.wikipedia.org...

Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and the Americas all have flood myths. It is such a recurring theme that something massive must have happened - they theorize massive river floodings maybe.

Obviously not the whole world was covered, but there WAS a big flood.

reply to post by dusty1

Originally posted by dusty1
In my own defense, I have never actually seen the two of you together, but I apologize.

No problem. Just be more careful and format your replies.

So you addressed a single point I made and then you ignored the rest of my post and started addressing another poster without changing formating or even mentioning that it was that poster.....
Hmmm....

I think hibernation helps solve the food issue.

Nominally, yes. So bears and other animals that hibernate are able to eat less. It doesn't solve the problem of elephants, hippos, rhinos, and other animals which do not hibernate.

I am sorry you find the idea of hibernation un-bear-able.

I can't count how many times I have posted on ATS and the point gets ignored.

...well, I clearly don't do that.

At times by you.

It happens.

I've never ignored a point when I'm replying to a post. At least not in a few years. I've gotten into the habit of these long posts. Sure, I don't address every single post in every single thread I participate in, but I have the common courtesy to address every point in posts I reply to.

I'm sorry, but that's frankly rude.

Thank you for the lecture.

I stand corrected.

Yay, my points remain dismissed.

Listen, I take the time out of my busy day to make these posts. If you're going to reply at least reply to the majority of the post instead of just parsing a tiny fragment.

reply to post by spacekc929


...or there were floods pretty much everywhere that humans live (we have a tendency to live near water sources) and people made mythic versions of them.

Not even particularly big floods, just any flooding.

A halocline can be easily created and observed in a drinking glass or other clear vessel. If fresh water is slowly poured over a quantity of salt water, using a spoon held horizontally at water-level to prevent mixing, a hazy interface layer, the halocline, will soon be visible due to the varying index of refraction across the boundary.

So.... when it rained for forty days and forty nights, God held a spoon horizontally at water level to prevent mixing?

As much as haloclines do happen naturally, they are generally quite short term. A wonderful thing called diffusion quite rapidly mixes water of different solute concentrations. Even aside from this, the reason that the shallows of the oceans are largely at a specific gravity of approximately 1.023 (or thereabouts) rather than the (I think) 1.008 more typical of fresh water is that the tides, currents and winds have a considerable mixing effect. Add to that that water falling from the sky to land on, well, land, tends to run into the sea at a rate rather faster than the grenadine into a tequila sunrise and you find that a large amount of the water mixes. Note that where rivers meet the sea, although a certain amount - especially with slow-flowing rivers where tides are particularly weak - remains in fresh/salty layers for some time, much of the water becomes "brackish", with S.G. usually, if memory serves, between about 1.012 and 1.019 being typical.

Rain falls with force. Even if this force is insufficient to cause it to mix - the top 20 metres or so would wipe out a good number of reef-living species - the tides will.

Besides which, the insects, reptiles and amphibians would still need to be on the ark, so even if Noah got away without being the world's first and greatest authority on aquarium maintenance, he'd still be up to his eyeballs in beetles.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

And were there two of each species of bear or just two bears? How did we get all the species of bears if there were only two bears?

Two of each kind.

What the hell is a 'kind'?
I'm sorry to phrase it like that, but I've yet to meet a creationist that ever defined it.

Clearly, by kind he means two of each age class, of each social status, of each local phenotype, of each regional phenotype, of each species, not to mention of each inter-local, interregional and interspecific hybrid. Oh, yes, and of each genotype. So basically, Noah took every bear and its monozygotic twin on board.

But it's alright, they were hibernating.