48348 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 10) Death > > > > > > > > > Not an invention of evolution. > > > > > > > > Actually, in the way it is, assuming you mean programmed cell \ death. > > > > > > > There wasn't no hint of that assumption. > > > > > > Right, since it requires registration. > > > > I was just addressing your points. > > > > > > \Without death, natural selection would count for nothing, and \ life > > > > > could never have evolved at all. > > > > > Nevertheless, it's not an 'invention' of evolution. > > > > Death is just a consequence of life. > > > > > > Without cell death, or apoptosis, > > > > > Apoptosis is programmed cell death, not just cell death. > > > > It is still *death*, which is the author's point. And, I might add, \ my > > > point as well. > > > Programmed cell death is an invention of evolution. > > Death isn't. > > Thus you were incorrect. > > invention of evolution. > > > > > > > > > > multicellular organisms are not possible. The key to both is > > > > > mitochondria. They generate reactive free radicals that slowly > > > > > undermine health, but in the short term optimise respiration, > > > > > enhancing fitness when young. The penalty for vigour in youth is > > > > > decrepit old age. There's hope. Birds leak fewer free-radicals, \ and > > > > > live longer than mammals, without losing their vigour. The \ anti-aging > > > > > pill may not a myth.\ > > > > > Apoptosis is not the result of wear and tear from free radicals. > > > > On this, I have to agree with you. The author apparently is not aware > > > of much that is known about apoptosis. > > > Right. > > > > > > > > There is much of that during differentiation, and it is \ various types > > > > > > > of programmed cell death that control unregulated cell \ growth. > > > > > > > > > Worse, sex requires males, > > > > > > > > > It doesn't. > > > > > > > > OK, let's say that \productive\ sex requires two mating \ types. Is that > > > > > > > better? 8^) > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > Many sexual species don't have mating types at all, other \ species have > > > > > > individuals that change sex during their lifetime. > > > > > > Some species can reproduce both sexually and asexually. > > > > > > I'd like evidence of your first assertion. > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite > > > > > > The second and third > > > > > assertions do not make what I said wrong. > > > > > They show that sex doesn't necessarily require exclusive males. > > > > Nope. First of all, I purposely said mating types, not male and > > > female, so I could include yeast as well. > > > > > > > > > Worse, sex requires males, > > > This is incorrect. > > As I said, \productive\ sex requires 2 mating types (remember yeast). > There are organisms where both are present in the same animal (I > believe earthworms are in this group). Earthworms are hermaphroditic but do not self-fertilize. Tapeworms and many other endoparasites self-fertilize, as do most plants. Some plants, such as peas, have an enclosed reproductive system and thus only self-fertilize in nature (which is one reason they worked so well for Mendel). > > > Second, in your two exampleskk > > > (actually in all your examples), you need both mating types, > > > physically, if not genetically. It is just that in some species, the > > > mating types are physically fluid. > > > Shifting goalposts. Hard to believe that such an expert in mobile goalposts would mistake the phenomenon. But I guess accusing someone of a fallacy without backing it up is all you had. Chris > > Not at all. Both need two mating types. That they may be somewhat > plastic is another thing entirely. === Subject: dying to survive re: 10 greatest inventions of Evolution (from \ \Life > Programmed cell death is an invention of evolution. > Death isn't. Creatures which don't die on a programmed basis feed the same genetic material into the species' gene pool endlessly recycled, so the species' gene pool fails to evolve as fast as its competition in response to environmental change, and so a \gene pool of the undying\ can be expected to be eliminated by usual fitness filtering. That looks awfully much like an RM+NS reason for the existence of organism-level programmed death. I'm pretty sure you can find that same argument spelled out in detail by those who can do the math, in the peer reviewed literature, since I surely did not invent the argument myself. xanthian. === Subject: Re: 10 greatest inventions of Evolution (from \Life Ascending\) > > > > > > > 10) Death > > > > > Not an invention of evolution. > > > > Actually, in the way it is, assuming you mean programmed cell death. > > > There wasn't no hint of that assumption. > > \Without death, natural selection would count for nothing, and life > could never have evolved at all. Without cell death, or apoptosis, > multicellular organisms are not possible. The key to both is > mitochondria. They generate reactive free radicals that slowly > undermine health, but in the short term optimise respiration, > enhancing fitness when young. The penalty for vigour in youth is > decrepit old age. There's hope. Birds leak fewer free-radicals, and > live longer than mammals, without losing their vigour. The anti-aging > pill may not a myth.\ > > > > > > There is much of that during differentiation, and it is various types > > > of programmed cell death that control unregulated cell growth. > > > > > Worse, sex requires males, > > > > > It doesn't. > > > > OK, let's say that \productive\ sex requires two mating types. Is \ that > > > better? 8^) > > > No. > > > Many sexual species don't have mating types at all, other species have > > individuals that change sex during their lifetime. > > Some species can reproduce both sexually and asexually. > > I'd like evidence of your first assertion. The second and third > assertions do not make what I said wrong. > > > > > > > > viewed by implacable > > > > > feminists and evolutionists alike as a waste of space. Why we all \ have > > > > > sex anyway was seen as the queen of evolutionary problems in the \ 20th > > > > > century. Recent work shows that over time all complex species \ would > > > > > degenerate like the Y chromosome without sex. > > > > > Please elaborate. > > > > You might consider posting things that you understand. > > Considering your track record above, you might want to reconsider your > responses. I apologize for posting this twice. When it didn't show up for over a day, despite the fact that posts were appearing on to again, I thought the post got lost in the Google system. === Subject: Re: 10 greatest inventions of Evolution (from \Life Ascending\) > > > > > > > 10) Death > > > > Not an invention of evolution. > > > Actually, in the way it is, assuming you mean programmed cell death. > > There wasn't no hint of that assumption. Here is the quote under \death\ \Without death, natural selection would count for nothing, and life could never have evolved at all. Without cell death, or apoptosis, multicellular organisms are not possible. The key to both is mitochondria. They generate reactive free radicals that slowly undermine health, but in the short term optimise respiration, enhancing fitness when young. The penalty for vigour in youth is decrepit old age. There's hope. Birds leak fewer free-radicals, and live longer than mammals, without losing their vigour. The anti-aging pill may not a myth.\ Note the mention of apoptosis. > > > There is much of that during differentiation, and it is various types > > of programmed cell death that control unregulated cell growth. > > > > Worse, sex requires males, > > > > It doesn't. > > > OK, let's say that \productive\ sex requires two mating types. Is \ that > > better? 8^) > > No. > > Many sexual species don't have mating types at all, other species have > individuals that change sex during their lifetime. > Some species can reproduce both sexually and asexually. I would like some evidence for the first assertion. The second two assertions (which do exist, obviously) do nothing at all to dispute the statement I made. > > > > > viewed by implacable > > > > feminists and evolutionists alike as a waste of space. Why we all \ have > > > > sex anyway was seen as the queen of evolutionary problems in the \ 20th > > > > century. Recent work shows that over time all complex species would > > > > degenerate like the Y chromosome without sex. > > > > Please elaborate. > > > You might consider posting things that you understand. You might take your own advice, considering your comments on \death\ as an important \invention\. === Subject: Mechanism of natural selection defined by Spencer Mechanism of natural selection defined by Spencer http://www.victorianweb.org/science/dagg2.html \A Theory of Population, Deduced from the General Law of Animal Fertility\ in 1852 by Spencer \.....And here it must be remarked, that the effect of pressure of population [...] is not a uniform effect, but an average one. [...] For as those prematurely carried off must, in the average of cases, be those in whom the power of self-preservation is the least, it unavoidably follows, that those left behind to continue the race are those in whom the power of self-preservation is the greatest \ Ñ are the select of their generation. [pp. 499ff.] ....\ Those prematurely carried off must, ........... be those in whom the power of self-preservation is the least, thus that those left behind to continue the race are those in whom the power of self-preservation is the greatest Ñ are the select of their generation....\ Those prematurely carried off must, ........... be those in whom the power of self-preservation is the least, thus that those left behind to continue the race are those in whom the power of self-preservation is the greatest Ñ are the select of their generation....\ Those prematurely carried off are those in whom the power of self- preservation is the least Those left behind to continue the race are those in whom the power of self-preservation is the greatest.\ Those who died had the least power of self-preservation. The survivors produce progeny because the power of self-preservation is the greatest.\ Those who died were less preservable while the survivors were more preservable. This is an obvious tautology, the truth of the statement is guaranteed. James Hutton, Patrick Matthews and Aristotle said essentially the same thing. Darwin got his tautology - Theory of Evolution - published in 5/6th edition after 1860 and one can see that he plagiarized his ideas from Spencer, he reformulated the same tautological concept differently: The preservation of individuals, which were favorable, and the destruction of those which weren't favorable. Which is the reduction from below: Origin of Species: \...This difficulty, as in the case of unconscious selection by man, is avoided on the theory of gradual evolution, through the preservation of a large number of individuals, which varied more or less in any favourable direction, and of the destruction of a large number which varied in an opposite manner. hat many species have been evolved in an extremely gradual manner, there can hardly be a doubt....\ === Subject: Re: Mechanism of natural selection defined by Spencer > Mechanism of natural selection defined by Spencer > > http://www.victorianweb.org/science/dagg2.html > \A Theory of Population, Deduced from the General Law of Animal > Fertility\ in 1852 by Spencer > \.....And here it must be remarked, that the effect of pressure of > population [...] is not a uniform effect, but an average one. [...] > For as those prematurely carried off must, in the average of cases, be > those in whom the power of self-preservation is the least, it > unavoidably follows, that those left behind to continue the race are > those in whom the power of self-preservation is the greatest \ Ñ are the > select of their generation. [pp. 499ff.] Ê....\ > > Those prematurely carried off must, ........... Êbe those in \ whom the > power of self-preservation is the least, thus that those left behind > to continue the race are those in whom the power of self-preservation > is the greatest Ñ are the select of their generation....\ > > Those prematurely carried off must, ........... Êbe those in \ whom the > power of self-preservation is the least, thus that those left behind > to continue the race are those in whom the power of self-preservation > is the greatest Ñ are the select of their generation....\ > > Those prematurely carried off are those in whom the power of self- > preservation is the least > Those left behind to continue the race are those in whom the power of > self-preservation is the greatest.\ > > Those who died had the least power of self-preservation. > The survivors produce progeny because the power of self-preservation > is the greatest.\ > > Those who died were less preservable while the survivors were more > preservable. > This is an obvious tautology, the truth of the statement is > guaranteed. James Hutton, ÊPatrick Matthews and Aristotle \ said > essentially the same thing. I'd very much like to know where you would go next if this 'tautology' point were conceded. Obviously you are yourself persuaded by the logic of it. What is wrong with a logically necessary point about what happens to a population of replicators over time? > Darwin got his tautology - ÊTheory of Evolution - published \ in 5/6th > edition after 1860 and one can see that he plagiarized his ideas from > Spencer, he reformulated the same tautological concept differently: > > The preservation of individuals, which were favorable, and \ Êthe > destruction of those which weren't favorable. > > Which is the reduction from below: > Origin of Species: > \...This difficulty, as in the case of unconscious selection by man, > is avoided on the theory of gradual evolution, through the > preservation of a large number of individuals, which varied more or > less in any favourable direction, and of the destruction of a large > number which varied in an opposite manner. hat many species have been > evolved in an extremely gradual manner, there can hardly be a > doubt....\ === Subject: Re: Mechanism of natural selection defined by Spencer Another series of quotes from commentators on Darwin plus your own take on it. But as with all the rest it is quite irrelevant to the validity of the \ modern theory of evolution. Until you make a case (which your repeatedly refuse to do) that your material has some relevance and real impact on ToE you are just wasting time with word games. If approaching the broader issue \ is too hard just answer a subset question: - What is the relationship between Spencer's commentary that you quote and the variety of life we observe on earth today? David === Subject: Re: Mechanism of natural selection defined by Spencer > > > Another series of quotes from commentators on Darwin plus your own > take on it. But as with all the rest it is quite irrelevant to the > validity of the modern theory of evolution. Until you make a case > (which your repeatedly refuse to do) that your material has some > relevance and real impact on ToE you are just wasting time with word > games. If approaching the broader issue is too hard just answer a > subset question: > > - What is the relationship between Spencer's commentary that you > quote and the variety of life we observe on earth today? > > David What was the UNmodern theory of evolution? Oh! THATS right! The UNmodern theory needed the fossil record to support it. The UNmodern theory was described by it's author as: \You will be greatly disappointed (by the forthcoming book); it will be grievously too hypothetical. It will very likely be of no other service \ than collocating some facts; though I myself think I see my way approximately on the origin of the species. But, alas, how frequent, how almost universal it is in an author to persuade himself of the truth of his own dogmas.\ \Charles Darwin, 1858, in a letter to a colleague regarding the concluding chapters of his Origin of Species.\ The new and improved -->modern version<-- is just as disappointing because the UNmordern version, the foundation for the modern version, was too. Intresting stuff this evolution garbage is. yep === Subject: Re: Mechanism of natural selection defined by Spencer > > > Another series of quotes from commentators on Darwin plus your own > > take on it. ÊBut as with all the rest it is quite \ irrelevant to the > > validity of the modern theory of evolution. ÊUntil you make \ a case > > (which your repeatedly refuse to do) that your material has some > > relevance and real impact on ToE you are just wasting time with word > > games. ÊIf approaching the broader issue is too hard just \ answer a > > subset question: > > > - What is the relationship between Spencer's commentary that you > > quote and the variety of life we observe on earth today? > > > David > > What was the UNmodern theory of evolution? > > Oh! THATS right! > > The UNmodern theory needed the fossil record to support it. > > The UNmodern theory was described by it's author as: > > Ê\You will be greatly disappointed (by the forthcoming \ book); it will be > grievously too hypothetical. It will very likely be of no other service \ than > collocating some facts; though I myself think I see my way approximately \ on > the origin of the species. But, alas, how frequent, how almost universal \ it > is in an author to persuade himself of the truth of his own dogmas.\ > > \Charles Darwin, 1858, in a letter to a colleague regarding the \ concluding > chapters of his Origin of Species.\ > > The new and improved -->modern version<-- is just as disappointing \ because > the UNmordern version, the foundation for the modern version, was too. > > Intresting stuff this evolution garbage is. yep Still lying about that letter, I see. === Subject: Re: Mechanism of natural selection defined by Spencer > Mechanism of natural selection defined by Spencer > > http://www.victorianweb.org/science/dagg2.html > \A Theory of Population, Deduced from the General Law of Animal > Fertility\ in 1852 by Spencer > \.....And here it must be remarked, that the effect of pressure of > population [...] is not a uniform effect, but an average one. [...] > For as those prematurely carried off must, in the average of cases, be > those in whom the power of self-preservation is the least, it > unavoidably follows, that those left behind to continue the race are > those in whom the power of self-preservation is the greatest \ Ñ are the > select of their generation. [pp. 499ff.] Ê....\ > > Those prematurely carried off must, ........... Êbe those in \ whom the > power of self-preservation is the least, thus that those left behind > to continue the race are those in whom the power of self-preservation > is the greatest Ñ are the select of their generation....\ > now let's see....the creationist, with his 3rd century thinking, takes the concepts of spencer...who had no relationship to darwin's theory at all...and rephrases the hell out of it then he concludes spencer says what he wants spencer to say golly. who could have guessed. science wasn't even invented when the style of thinking evidenced by creationism was being used to explain nature (cf dan diner). backspace's argument is circular and useless. he doesnt' understand what a tautology is and waves the term around like a talisman to protect himself from the big bad science monster useless. === Subject: Re: Mechanism of natural selection defined by Spencer > > > > > > > Mechanism of natural selection defined by Spencer > > >http://www.victorianweb.org/science/dagg2.html > > \A Theory of Population, Deduced from the General Law of Animal > > Fertility\ in 1852 by Spencer > > \.....And here it must be remarked, that the effect of pressure of > > population [...] is not a uniform effect, but an average one. [...] > > For as those prematurely carried off must, in the average of cases, be > > those in whom the power of self-preservation is the least, it > > unavoidably follows, that those left behind to continue the race are > > those in whom the power of self-preservation is the greatest \ Ñ are the > > select of their generation. [pp. 499ff.] Ê....\ > > > Those prematurely carried off must, ........... Êbe those \ in whom the > > power of self-preservation is the least, thus that those left behind > > to continue the race are those in whom the power of self-preservation > > is the greatest Ñ are the select of their \ generation....\ > > now let's see....the creationist, with his 3rd century thinking, takes > the concepts of spencer...who had no relationship to darwin's theory > at all...and rephrases the hell out of it > > then he concludes spencer says what he wants spencer to say > > golly. who could have guessed. But he did such a lovely job of weaving that straw into the shape of an upright bipedal humanoid. > > science wasn't even invented when the style of thinking evidenced by > creationism was being used to explain nature (cf dan diner). > > backspace's argument is circular and useless. he doesnt' understand > what a tautology is and waves the term around like a talisman to > protect himself from the big bad science monster > > useless. Well, if it could be condensecd into matter, they would corner the market on door stops and paper weights. Boikat === Subject: Re: The Facts do not Lie > >>>>>>>>>>>>> By way of illustration, consider geologic formations in > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the Great Basin of the western United States. The vast > >>>>>>>>>>>>> horizontal layers of hydraulically deposited sedimentary > >>>>>>>>>>>>> rock are said to take long periods of time to accumulate, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> based on the assumption that the rate of deposition was > >>>>>>>>>>>>> always similar to that observed today in a typical river > >>>>>>>>>>>>> delta. This concept of uniformity may seem like a > >>>>>>>>>>>>> reasonable starting point when considered abstractly, but > >>>>>>>>>>>>> no steady-state river flow could possibly cover such a > >>>>>>>>>>>>> vast area; neither would it produce the violently buried > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and mangled bodies found fossilized in many rocks of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> region. The present-day erosion conditions applied > >>>>>>>>>>>>> uniformly in the past could not account for the unusual > >>>>>>>>>>>>> formations of the Grand Canyon, mesas, badlands, and other > >>>>>>>>>>>>> canyons. By contrast, the catastrophic processes observed > >>>>>>>>>>>>> during and following the eruption of Mount St. Helens in > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the Cascades of Washington state produced a scale model of > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the Grand Canyon in a very brief period of time. Sediments > >>>>>>>>>>>>> were rapidly deposited and then suddenly eroded by > >>>>>>>>>>>>> pyroclastic steam, water, and mudflows in the area > >>>>>>>>>>>>> northwest of the summit. Now the canyon walls resemble > >>>>>>>>>>>>> others that are assumed to be of great age, even though > >>>>>>>>>>>>> they are known to be [merely decades] old. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/isd/walter.asp > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems like Sean Pitman is correct about the Grand > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Canyon > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Is this that example of an honest and valid anti-evolution > >>>>>>>>>>>> argument? What a loser adman. This is the AIG. They make > >>>>>>>>>>>> their money by lying to rubes like you. You know that for a > >>>>>>>>>>>> fact because you have used their junk before. Just look for > >>>>>>>>>>>> your loser arguments on their web site. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> If you are going to use anything from their site you should > >>>>>>>>>>>> use their list of arguments creationists should not use. > >>>>>>>>>>>> The list keeps changing, but they could swap out any of the > >>>>>>>>>>>> arguments that they have and it wouldn't matter. > \ >>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-do\ nt-use > > >>>>>>>>>>>> You should recognize a lot of them. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Ron Okimoto > > >>>>>>>>>>> AiG did not write this RonO. > > >>>>>>>>>>> and Design Department within the Energy Science and Power > >>>>>>>>>>> Systems Division at the Applied Research Laboratory (ARL) at > >>>>>>>>>>> Pennsylvania State University. He holds a B.S. in mechanical > >>>>>>>>>>> engineering with highest distinction, an M.S. in mechanical > >>>>>>>>>>> engineering, and a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering, all from > >>>>>>>>>>> Pennsylvania State University. He was a 1975 recipient of a > >>>>>>>>>>> prestigious National Science Foundation Fellowship, funding > >>>>>>>>>>> graduate study at the institution of his choice. At ARL, Dr. > >>>>>>>>>>> Walter has been the leader for a number of undersea > >>>>>>>>>>> propulsion development projects for the U.S. Navy. His > >>>>>>>>>>> research involves multidisciplinary development and testing > >>>>>>>>>>> of advanced air-independent engines and thermal power > >>>>>>>>>>> systems for various autonomous undersea vehicles. > > >>>>>>>>>>> How about THAT. > > >>>>>>>>>> If I want my submarine fixed, I'll call him. If I want an > >>>>>>>>>> analysis of the finer points of Grand Canyon geology, I'll > >>>>>>>>>> hire a geologist. Here's a hint--he is as much a layman in > >>>>>>>>>> those areas as you are. He sounds like a fine exemplar of > >>>>>>>>>> the Salem Hypothesis, noting that engineers seem predisposed > >>>>>>>>>> to become creationists in disproportionate numbers. > > >>>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem Hypothesis > > >>>>>>>>>> How about.... !!!!****THAT****!!!!. (shouting and > >>>>>>>>>> breakdancing). > > >>>>>>>>> [chuckle].. did you wet your keyboard? > > >>>>>>>> Additional note. > > >>>>>>>> Of course engineers seem predisposed to become creationists in > >>>>>>>> disproportionate numbers. > > >>>>>>>> An engineer can recognize DESIGN > > >>>>>>> Which fails to explain how an engineer can make such a hash of > >>>>>>> matters geological. > > >>>>>> They see things from another perspective. > > >>>>> Which still fails to explain how an engineer can make such a hash > >>>>> of matters geological, and also fails explain why you would rather > >>>>> accept his view over the view of those more qualified to deal with > >>>>> matters geological. > > >>>> Maybe in \DA-World\ and in \Evolution-Speak\ > > >>>> But in THIS world....and in THIS reality... engineers are > >>>> designers, therefore they can recognize design . > > >>> To a hammer, everything looks like a nail. However, the original > >>> claim was that the Grand Canyon was formed quickly by natural > >>> processes, not that it was designed. And the fact is, an engineering > >>> degree doesn't give a person the knowledge or understanding or > >>> perspective to make that determination regarding a geological > >>> process. > > >> They have better perspective. > > >> A flood is a disaster. A building blown up is a disaster. Who do you > >> call when a building falls? The engineer... NOT a geologist. Why? > >> They can reconstruct the damage, and tell what caused it. > > > Following this reasoning of yours, a geologist is better qualified to > > explain matters geological, yet you still prefer to favour the > > writings of an engineer on matters geological, can you not see how > > this makes your position completely untenable? > > It is not untenable. An engineer can recognize patterns of design and > patterns of destruction. It is an engineer that is called when a bridge > falls. A geologist is not called even though the bridge is built on rocks > and in the ground; Something a geologist is familuar with. > > Which is why an engineer can see the destructive simularties between St. > Hellens and The Grand Canyon- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Hey nutbar, I am a geotechnical engineer, that means I studied geology as part of my degree, and it means I understand the strength and other engineering properties of rock and soil. That makes me more qualified than a Mechanical Engineer to comment on rocks. Now I say that the Grand Canyon was formed by erosion by water action (with some wind action as well), over a very long period of time. Which is the same thing anyone who understands geology will say. It is also very obvious what the differences are between the ROCK which was eroded in the Grand Canyon, and the SOIL which was eroded at the Mount St. Helens eruption. === Subject: Re: The Facts do not Lie In message , \[M]adman\ >> In message , \[M]adman\ >>>> , Ernest Major stated...\ >>>>> >>>>> In message , >>>>>>>>>>> By way of illustration, consider geologic formations in the >>>>>>>>>>> Great Basin of the western United States. The vast horizontal >>>>>>>>>>> layers of hydraulically deposited sedimentary rock are said >>>>>>>>>>> to take long periods of time to accumulate, based on the >>>>>>>>>>> assumption that the rate of deposition was always similar to >>>>>>>>>>> that observed today in a typical river delta. This concept of >>>>>>>>>>> uniformity may seem like a reasonable starting point when >>>>>>>>>>> considered abstractly, but no steady-state river flow could >>>>>>>>>>> possibly cover such a vast area; neither would it produce the >>>>>>>>>>> violently buried and mangled bodies found fossilized in many >>>>>>>>>>> rocks of the region. The present-day erosion conditions >>>>>>>>>>> applied uniformly in the past could not account for the >>>>>>>>>>> unusual formations of the Grand Canyon, mesas, badlands, and >>>>>>>>>>> other canyons. By contrast, the catastrophic processes >>>>>>>>>>> observed during and following the eruption of Mount St. >>>>>>>>>>> Helens in the Cascades of Washington state produced a scale >>>>>>>>>>> model of the Grand Canyon in a very brief period of time. >>>>>>>>>>> Sediments were rapidly deposited and then suddenly eroded by >>>>>>>>>>> pyroclastic steam, water, and mudflows in the area northwest >>>>>>>>>>> of the summit. Now the canyon walls resemble others that are >>>>>>>>>>> assumed to be of great age, even though they are known to be >>>>>>>>>>> [merely decades] old. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/isd/walter.asp >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It seems like Sean Pitman is correct about the Grand Canyon >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Is this that example of an honest and valid anti-evolution >>>>>>>>>> argument? What a loser adman. This is the AIG. They make >>>>>>>>>> their money by lying to rubes like you. You know that for a >>>>>>>>>> fact because you have used their junk before. Just look for >>>>>>>>>> your loser arguments on their web site. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If you are going to use anything from their site you should >>>>>>>>>> use their list of arguments creationists should not use. The >>>>>>>>>> list keeps changing, but they could swap out any of the >>>>>>>>>> arguments that they have and it wouldn't matter. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-don\ t-use >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You should recognize a lot of them. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ron Okimoto >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> AiG did not write this RonO. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Design Department within the Energy Science and Power Systems >>>>>>>>> Division at the Applied Research Laboratory (ARL) at >>>>>>>>> Pennsylvania State University. He holds a B.S. in mechanical >>>>>>>>> engineering with highest distinction, an M.S. in mechanical >>>>>>>>> engineering, and a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering, all from >>>>>>>>> Pennsylvania State University. He was a 1975 recipient of a >>>>>>>>> prestigious National Science Foundation Fellowship, funding >>>>>>>>> graduate study at the institution of his choice. At ARL, Dr. >>>>>>>>> Walter has been the leader for a number of undersea propulsion >>>>>>>>> development projects for the U.S. Navy. His research involves >>>>>>>>> multidisciplinary development and testing of advanced >>>>>>>>> air-independent engines and thermal power systems for various >>>>>>>>> autonomous undersea vehicles. How about THAT. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If I want my submarine fixed, I'll call him. If I want an >>>>>>>> analysis of the finer points of Grand Canyon geology, I'll hire >>>>>>>> a geologist. Here's a hint--he is as much a layman in those >>>>>>>> areas as you are. He sounds like a fine exemplar of the Salem >>>>>>>> Hypothesis, noting that engineers seem predisposed to become >>>>>>>> creationists in disproportionate numbers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_Hypothesis >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How about.... !!!!****THAT****!!!!. (shouting and breakdancing). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [chuckle].. did you wet your keyboard? >>>>>> >>>>>> Additional note. >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course engineers seem predisposed to become creationists in >>>>>> disproportionate numbers. >>>>>> >>>>>> An engineer can recognize DESIGN >>>>>> >>>>> Even, perhaps, especially, when it's not present. >>>>> >>>>> Though why you would think that ascribing the Grand Canyon to the >>>>> mythical Noachian Flood has anything to do with the recognition of >>>>> design escapes me. >>>> >>>> It is fascinating how many of the creationist arguments set out to >>>> \prove\ one thing, and end up - not only being a bad argument, but >>>> being a bad argument for something else altogether. >>>> >>>> This may be the first time I've come across this particular >>> >>> You would go to a shoe maker for answers on how to build a car? >>> >>> No, you would go to someone that knows and can recognize design. >>> >>> THAT would be an engineer >>> >> Would you clarify a point please. Are you claiming that the supposed >> creation of the Grand Canyon by the waters of the Noachian Flood is an >> example of design? > >The \catastrophic processes\ of the flood designed the grand canyon in \ much >the same way the \catastrophic processes\ designed the new features we \ see >at Mt StHellens. I asked for a clarification, not an obfuscation. > >Only an engineer can spot these similarities. > Fortunately geologists can spot the differences. -- alias Ernest Major === Subject: Re: The Facts do not Lie > > In message , \[M]adman\ > >>> , Ernest Major stated...\ > > >>>> In message , > >>>>>>>>>> By way of illustration, consider geologic formations in the > >>>>>>>>>> Great Basin of the western United States. The vast horizontal > >>>>>>>>>> layers of hydraulically deposited sedimentary rock are said > >>>>>>>>>> to take long periods of time to accumulate, based on the > >>>>>>>>>> assumption that the rate of deposition was always similar to > >>>>>>>>>> that observed today in a typical river delta. This concept of > >>>>>>>>>> uniformity may seem like a reasonable starting point when > >>>>>>>>>> considered abstractly, but no steady-state river flow could > >>>>>>>>>> possibly cover such a vast area; neither would it produce the > >>>>>>>>>> violently buried and mangled bodies found fossilized in many > >>>>>>>>>> rocks of the region. The present-day erosion conditions > >>>>>>>>>> applied uniformly in the past could not account for the > >>>>>>>>>> unusual formations of the Grand Canyon, mesas, badlands, and > >>>>>>>>>> other canyons. By contrast, the catastrophic processes > >>>>>>>>>> observed during and following the eruption of Mount St. > >>>>>>>>>> Helens in the Cascades of Washington state produced a scale > >>>>>>>>>> model of the Grand Canyon in a very brief period of time. > >>>>>>>>>> Sediments were rapidly deposited and then suddenly eroded by > >>>>>>>>>> pyroclastic steam, water, and mudflows in the area northwest > >>>>>>>>>> of the summit. Now the canyon walls resemble others that are > >>>>>>>>>> assumed to be of great age, even though they are known to be > >>>>>>>>>> [merely decades] old. > > >>>>>>>>>>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/isd/walter.asp > > >>>>>>>>>> It seems like Sean Pitman is correct about the Grand Canyon > > >>>>>>>>> Is this that example of an honest and valid anti-evolution > >>>>>>>>> argument? What a loser adman. ÊThis is the AIG. \ ÊThey make > >>>>>>>>> their money by lying to rubes like you. ÊYou know \ that for a > >>>>>>>>> fact because you have used their junk before. ÊJust \ look for > >>>>>>>>> your loser arguments on their web site. > > >>>>>>>>> If you are going to use anything from their site you should > >>>>>>>>> use their list of arguments creationists should not use. \ ÊThe > >>>>>>>>> list keeps changing, but they could swap out any of the > >>>>>>>>> arguments that they have and it wouldn't matter. > \ >>>>>>>>>http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-\ use > > >>>>>>>>> You should recognize a lot of them. > > >>>>>>>>> Ron Okimoto > > >>>>>>>> AiG did not write this RonO. > > >>>>>>>> Design Department within the Energy Science and Power Systems > >>>>>>>> Division at the Applied Research Laboratory (ARL) at > >>>>>>>> Pennsylvania State University. He holds a B.S. in mechanical > >>>>>>>> engineering with highest distinction, an M.S. in mechanical > >>>>>>>> engineering, and a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering, all from > >>>>>>>> Pennsylvania State University. He was a 1975 recipient of a > >>>>>>>> prestigious National Science Foundation Fellowship, funding > >>>>>>>> graduate study at the institution of his choice. At ARL, Dr. > >>>>>>>> Walter has been the leader for a number of undersea propulsion > >>>>>>>> development projects for the U.S. Navy. His research involves > >>>>>>>> multidisciplinary development and testing of advanced > >>>>>>>> air-independent engines and thermal power systems for various > >>>>>>>> autonomous undersea vehicles. How about THAT. > > >>>>>>> If I want my submarine fixed, I'll call him. ÊIf I \ want an > >>>>>>> analysis of the finer points of Grand Canyon geology, I'll hire > >>>>>>> a geologist. Here's a hint--he is as much a layman in those > >>>>>>> areas as you are. ÊHe sounds like a fine exemplar of \ the Salem > >>>>>>> Hypothesis, noting that engineers seem predisposed to become > >>>>>>> creationists in disproportionate numbers. > > >>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem Hypothesis > > >>>>>>> How about.... !!!!****THAT****!!!!. (shouting and breakdancing). > > >>>>>> [chuckle].. did you wet your keyboard? > > >>>>> Additional note. > > >>>>> Of course engineers seem predisposed to become creationists in > >>>>> disproportionate numbers. > > >>>>> An engineer can recognize DESIGN > > >>>> Even, perhaps, especially, when it's not present. > > >>>> Though why you would think that ascribing the Grand Canyon to the > >>>> mythical Noachian Flood has anything to do with the recognition of > >>>> design escapes me. > > >>> It is fascinating how many of the creationist arguments set out to > >>> \prove\ one thing, and end up - not only being a bad argument, but > >>> being a bad argument for something else altogether. > > >>> This may be the first time I've come across this particular > > >> You would go to a shoe maker for answers on how to build a car? > > >> No, you would go to someone that knows and can recognize design. > > >> THAT would be an engineer > > > Would you clarify a point please. Are you claiming that the supposed > > creation of the Grand Canyon by the waters of the Noachian Flood is an > > example of design? > > The \catastrophic processes\ of the flood designed the grand canyon in \ much > the same way the \catastrophic processes\ designed the new features we \ see > at Mt StHellens. So there was no designer. > > Only an engineer can spot these similarities. === Subject: Re: The Facts do not Lie >> In message , \[M]adman\ >>>> , Ernest Major stated...\ >>>>> In message , >>>>>>>>>>> By way of illustration, consider geologic formations in the >>>>>>>>>>> Great Basin of the western United States. The vast horizontal >>>>>>>>>>> layers of hydraulically deposited sedimentary rock are said >>>>>>>>>>> to take long periods of time to accumulate, based on the >>>>>>>>>>> assumption that the rate of deposition was always similar to >>>>>>>>>>> that observed today in a typical river delta. This concept of >>>>>>>>>>> uniformity may seem like a reasonable starting point when >>>>>>>>>>> considered abstractly, but no steady-state river flow could >>>>>>>>>>> possibly cover such a vast area; neither would it produce the >>>>>>>>>>> violently buried and mangled bodies found fossilized in many >>>>>>>>>>> rocks of the region. The present-day erosion conditions >>>>>>>>>>> applied uniformly in the past could not account for the >>>>>>>>>>> unusual formations of the Grand Canyon, mesas, badlands, and >>>>>>>>>>> other canyons. By contrast, the catastrophic processes >>>>>>>>>>> observed during and following the eruption of Mount St. >>>>>>>>>>> Helens in the Cascades of Washington state produced a scale >>>>>>>>>>> model of the Grand Canyon in a very brief period of time. >>>>>>>>>>> Sediments were rapidly deposited and then suddenly eroded by >>>>>>>>>>> pyroclastic steam, water, and mudflows in the area northwest >>>>>>>>>>> of the summit. Now the canyon walls resemble others that are >>>>>>>>>>> assumed to be of great age, even though they are known to be >>>>>>>>>>> [merely decades] old. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/isd/walter.asp >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It seems like Sean Pitman is correct about the Grand Canyon >>>>>>>>>> Is this that example of an honest and valid anti-evolution >>>>>>>>>> argument? What a loser adman. This is the AIG. They make >>>>>>>>>> their money by lying to rubes like you. You know that for a >>>>>>>>>> fact because you have used their junk before. Just look for >>>>>>>>>> your loser arguments on their web site. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If you are going to use anything from their site you should >>>>>>>>>> use their list of arguments creationists should not use. The >>>>>>>>>> list keeps changing, but they could swap out any of the >>>>>>>>>> arguments that they have and it wouldn't matter. >>>>>>>>>> \ http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You should recognize a lot of them. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ron Okimoto >>>>>>>>> AiG did not write this RonO. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Design Department within the Energy Science and Power Systems >>>>>>>>> Division at the Applied Research Laboratory (ARL) at >>>>>>>>> Pennsylvania State University. He holds a B.S. in mechanical >>>>>>>>> engineering with highest distinction, an M.S. in mechanical >>>>>>>>> engineering, and a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering, all from >>>>>>>>> Pennsylvania State University. He was a 1975 recipient of a >>>>>>>>> prestigious National Science Foundation Fellowship, funding >>>>>>>>> graduate study at the institution of his choice. At ARL, Dr. >>>>>>>>> Walter has been the leader for a number of undersea propulsion >>>>>>>>> development projects for the U.S. Navy. His research involves >>>>>>>>> multidisciplinary development and testing of advanced >>>>>>>>> air-independent engines and thermal power systems for various >>>>>>>>> autonomous undersea vehicles. How about THAT. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If I want my submarine fixed, I'll call him. If I want an >>>>>>>> analysis of the finer points of Grand Canyon geology, I'll hire >>>>>>>> a geologist. Here's a hint--he is as much a layman in those >>>>>>>> areas as you are. He sounds like a fine exemplar of the Salem >>>>>>>> Hypothesis, noting that engineers seem predisposed to become >>>>>>>> creationists in disproportionate numbers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_Hypothesis >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How about.... !!!!****THAT****!!!!. (shouting and breakdancing). >>>>>>> [chuckle].. did you wet your keyboard? >>>>>> Additional note. >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course engineers seem predisposed to become creationists in >>>>>> disproportionate numbers. >>>>>> >>>>>> An engineer can recognize DESIGN >>>>>> >>>>> Even, perhaps, especially, when it's not present. >>>>> >>>>> Though why you would think that ascribing the Grand Canyon to the >>>>> mythical Noachian Flood has anything to do with the recognition of >>>>> design escapes me. >>>> It is fascinating how many of the creationist arguments set out to >>>> \prove\ one thing, and end up - not only being a bad argument, but >>>> being a bad argument for something else altogether. >>>> >>>> This may be the first time I've come across this particular >>> You would go to a shoe maker for answers on how to build a car? >>> >>> No, you would go to someone that knows and can recognize design. >>> >>> THAT would be an engineer >>> >> Would you clarify a point please. Are you claiming that the supposed >> creation of the Grand Canyon by the waters of the Noachian Flood is an >> example of design? > > The \catastrophic processes\ of the flood designed the grand canyon in \ much > the same way the \catastrophic processes\ designed the new features we \ see > at Mt StHellens. > > Only an engineer can spot these similarities. > In other words, the Grand Canyon is designed because it was formed by natural forces seen to operate today? Klaus === Subject: Re: The Facts do not Lie >>> Would you clarify a point please. Are you claiming that the supposed >>> creation of the Grand Canyon by the waters of the Noachian Flood is >>> an example of design? >> >> The \catastrophic processes\ of the flood designed the grand canyon >> in much the same way the \catastrophic processes\ designed the new >> features we see at Mt StHellens. >> >> Only an engineer can spot these similarities. >> > > In other words, the Grand Canyon is designed because it was formed by > natural forces seen to operate today? > Klaus > > It's worse than that - Madman is claiming that, like engineers, catastrophic processes are capable of designing things. I don't know whether he considers engineers to be catastrophic processes or not, but the \ implications of a flood or a landslide designing a new landscape and then proceeding to excute that design as a single process are pretty staggering. \ Either that, or he is using the word 'design' in a whole new way that divorces it from cognitive processes completely. === Subject: Re: The Facts do not Lie On May 25, 6:43Êam, Jim Willemin \ > > > > > > > > > >>> Would you clarify a point please. Are you claiming that the supposed > >>> creation of the Grand Canyon by the waters of the Noachian Flood is > >>> an example of design? > > >> The \catastrophic processes\ of the flood designed the grand canyon > >> in much the same way the \catastrophic processes\ designed the new > >> features we see at Mt StHellens. > > >> Only an engineer can spot these similarities. > > > In other words, the Grand Canyon is designed because it was formed by > > natural forces seen to operate today? > > Klaus > > It's worse than that - Madman is claiming that, like engineers, > catastrophic processes are capable of designing things. ÊI \ don't know > whether he considers engineers to be catastrophic processes or not, but \ the > implications of a flood or a landslide designing a new landscape and then > proceeding to excute that design as a single process are pretty \ staggering. Ê > Either that, or he is using the word 'design' in a whole new way that > divorces it from cognitive processes completely.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Do \cognitive processes\ and \Madman\ ever coincide? Harry K === Subject: Re: The Facts do not Lie >>>>>>>>>>> By way of illustration, consider geologic formations in the >>>>>>>>>>> Great Basin of the western United States. The vast horizontal >>>>>>>>>>> layers of hydraulically deposited sedimentary rock are said >>>>>>>>>>> to take long periods of time to accumulate, based on the >>>>>>>>>>> assumption that the rate of deposition was always similar to >>>>>>>>>>> that observed today in a typical river delta. This concept of >>>>>>>>>>> uniformity may seem like a reasonable starting point when >>>>>>>>>>> considered abstractly, but no steady-state river flow could >>>>>>>>>>> possibly cover such a vast area; neither would it produce the >>>>>>>>>>> violently buried and mangled bodies found fossilized in many >>>>>>>>>>> rocks of the region. The present-day erosion conditions >>>>>>>>>>> applied uniformly in the past could not account for the >>>>>>>>>>> unusual formations of the Grand Canyon, mesas, badlands, and >>>>>>>>>>> other canyons. By contrast, the catastrophic processes >>>>>>>>>>> observed during and following the eruption of Mount St. >>>>>>>>>>> Helens in the Cascades of Washington state produced a scale >>>>>>>>>>> model of the Grand Canyon in a very brief period of time. >>>>>>>>>>> Sediments were rapidly deposited and then suddenly eroded by >>>>>>>>>>> pyroclastic steam, water, and mudflows in the area northwest >>>>>>>>>>> of the summit. Now the canyon walls resemble others that are >>>>>>>>>>> assumed to be of great age, even though they are known to be >>>>>>>>>>> [merely decades] old. >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/isd/walter.asp >>>>>>>>>>> It seems like Sean Pitman is correct about the Grand Canyon >>>>>>>>>> Is this that example of an honest and valid anti-evolution >>>>>>>>>> argument? What a loser adman. This is the AIG. They make their >>>>>>>>>> money by lying to rubes like you. You know that for a fact >>>>>>>>>> because you have used their junk before. Just look for your >>>>>>>>>> loser arguments on their web site. >>>>>>>>>> If you are going to use anything from their site you should >>>>>>>>>> use their list of arguments creationists should not use. The >>>>>>>>>> list keeps changing, but they could swap out any of the >>>>>>>>>> arguments that they have and it wouldn't matter. >>>>>>>>>> \ http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use >>>>>>>>>> You should recognize a lot of them. >>>>>>>>>> Ron Okimoto >>>>>>>>> AiG did not write this RonO. >>>>>>>> It's from the AiG website, fuctard. >>>>>>>>> Design Department within the Energy Science and Power Systems >>>>>>>>> Division at the Applied Research Laboratory (ARL) at >>>>>>>>> Pennsylvania State University. He holds a B.S. in mechanical >>>>>>>>> engineering with highest distinction, an M.S. in mechanical >>>>>>>>> engineering, and a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering, all from >>>>>>>>> Pennsylvania State University. He was a 1975 recipient of a >>>>>>>>> prestigious National Science Foundation Fellowship, funding >>>>>>>>> graduate study at the institution of his choice. At ARL, Dr. >>>>>>>>> Walter has been the leader for a number of undersea propulsion >>>>>>>>> development projects for the U.S. Navy. His research involves >>>>>>>>> multidisciplinary development and testing of advanced >>>>>>>>> air-independent engines and thermal power systems for various >>>>>>>>> autonomous undersea vehicles. >>>>>>>> Geeee, nothing about schooling in physical geology. >>>>>>>>> How about THAT.- >>>>>>>> He's just another idiot with a bunch of degrees yagging about a >>>>>>>> subject of which he is ignorant, in order to convince the >>>>>>>> uneducated (like you) of an a-priori conclusion based upon >>>>>>>> religious doctrine. >>>>>>>> In other words, another logical fallacy: Argument from (an >>>>>>>> unqulified) authority. >>>>>>>> Boikat >>>>>>> HE is an edcuated scientist. >>>>>> He's an engineer, not a geologist. >>>>>>> YOU are an unedcuated retard, >>>>>> Projection. >>>>>>> Let's see... umm .... WHO do i pick? >>>>>> The twit that totes your a-priori beliefs. >>>>>>> Clue: It ain't Y O U- >>>>>> That's okay. Gay/Bisexual Jesus loves fools like you. >>>>>> Boikat >>>>> Being a homophobe is quite unbecoming- >>>> You keep saying \homophobia\. Do you even know what the definition >>>> of the word? How does pointing out that Jesus (and God, if you think >>>> about it) was a homosexual make one a homophobe? That's as stupid as >>>> pointing out that someone is a vegatarian makes you a \veganophobe\. >>>> But you apparently are to stupid to understand that point, which is >>>> okay, since gay Jesus want's his sheeple to be stupid, and you are >>>> obliging him. >>>> Boikat >>> In the dictionary under Homophobia it says: /see boikat/ pp 567 >> Obvious lie, fuctard. Butr you are stupid, and you never seem to be >> able to explain why identifying someone as a homosexual makes one a >> homophobe. I wonder why that is, aside from you projecting your own >> homophobia. Otherwise, why would it matter if Jesus was a homosexual? >> >> Boikat > > Incorrectly identifying someone as a homosexual makes you a homophobe. > > Is your cat a homosexual too? Perhaps you see homosexuals in your > refrigerator, under your bed too? > > You seem to have totally forgotten Boikat's original point, that sometimes it is very difficult dispute short and simple assertions. You seem to think that if an assertion doesn't have a short and simple rebuttal, it is valid. Hence, Boikat asserted that Jesus was gay. And, unfortunately for you, the assertion of Jesus being gay has far more evidence than your assertions. For example, there are all the references of his special \love\ for John as well as statements to the effect that he was not interested in marriage to a woman, but it is fine for others. Additionally, there is the new covenant thing where he invalidated many restrictions of the Old Testament, including the books where homosexuality is condemned. All this is simply circumstantial evince, but it is far more than you ever give. Klaus === Subject: Re: The Facts do not Lie > On 22 May, 06:41, \Mike Dworetsky\ >> One nut-job corroborates another nut-job? And a third nut-job believes \ it? >> Colour me astounded! > > What shade of astounded would that be? Hoolovoo! >> -- >> Mike Dworetsky >> >> (Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply) > === Subject: Re: The Facts do not Lie > > On 22 May, 06:41, \Mike Dworetsky\ > > > > >> One nut-job corroborates another nut-job? ÊAnd a third \ nut-job believes it? > >> Colour me astounded! > > > What shade of astounded would that be? > > Hooloovoo! But only if temporarily refracted into a free-standing prism. :P > > >> -- > >> Mike Dworetsky > > >> (Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply) === Subject: Re: The Facts do not Lie >>>>>>>> By way of illustration, consider geologic formations in the >>>>>>>> Great Basin of the western United States. The vast horizontal >>>>>>>> layers of hydraulically deposited sedimentary rock are said to >>>>>>>> take long periods of time to accumulate, based on the >>>>>>>> assumption that the rate of deposition was always similar to >>>>>>>> that observed today in a typical river delta. This concept of >>>>>>>> uniformity may seem like a reasonable starting point when >>>>>>>> considered abstractly, but no steady-state river flow could >>>>>>>> possibly cover such a vast area; neither would it produce the >>>>>>>> violently buried and mangled bodies found fossilized in many >>>>>>>> rocks of the region. The present-day erosion conditions applied >>>>>>>> uniformly in the past could not account for the unusual >>>>>>>> formations of the Grand Canyon, mesas, badlands, and other >>>>>>>> canyons. By contrast, the catastrophic processes observed >>>>>>>> during and following the eruption of Mount St. Helens in the >>>>>>>> Cascades of Washington state produced a scale model of the >>>>>>>> Grand Canyon in a very brief period of time. Sediments were >>>>>>>> rapidly deposited and then suddenly eroded by pyroclastic >>>>>>>> steam, water, and mudflows in the area northwest of the summit. >>>>>>>> Now the canyon walls resemble others that are assumed to be of >>>>>>>> great age, even though they are known to be [merely decades] >>>>>>>> old. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/isd/walter.asp >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It seems like Sean Pitman is correct about the Grand Canyon >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is this that example of an honest and valid anti-evolution >>>>>>> argument? What a loser adman. This is the AIG. They make their >>>>>>> money by lying to rubes like you. You know that for a fact >>>>>>> because you have used their junk before. Just look for your >>>>>>> loser arguments on their web site. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you are going to use anything from their site you should use >>>>>>> their list of arguments creationists should not use. The list >>>>>>> keeps changing, but they could swap out any of the arguments that >>>>>>> they have and it wouldn't matter. >>>>>>> \ http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You should recognize a lot of them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ron Okimoto >>>>>> >>>>>> AiG did not write this RonO. >>>>>> >>>>>> Design Department within the Energy Science and Power Systems >>>>>> Division at the Applied Research Laboratory (ARL) at Pennsylvania >>>>>> State University. He holds a B.S. in mechanical engineering with >>>>>> highest distinction, an M.S. in mechanical engineering, and a >>>>>> Ph.D. in mechanical engineering, all from Pennsylvania State >>>>>> University. He was a 1975 recipient of a prestigious National >>>>>> Science Foundation Fellowship, funding graduate study at the >>>>>> institution of his choice. At ARL, Dr. Walter has been the leader >>>>>> for a number of undersea propulsion development projects for the >>>>>> U.S. Navy. His research involves multidisciplinary development >>>>>> and testing of advanced air-independent engines and thermal power >>>>>> systems for various autonomous undersea vehicles. >>>>>> >>>>>> How about THAT. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If I want my submarine fixed, I'll call him. If I want an analysis >>>>> of the finer points of Grand Canyon geology, I'll hire a geologist. >>>>> Here's a hint--he is as much a layman in those areas as you are. He >>>>> sounds like a fine exemplar of the Salem Hypothesis, noting that >>>>> engineers seem predisposed to become creationists in >>>>> disproportionate numbers. >>>>> >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_Hypothesis >>>>> >>>>> How about.... !!!!****THAT****!!!!. (shouting and breakdancing). >>>> >>>> [chuckle].. did you wet your keyboard? >>> >>> Additional note. >>> >>> Of course engineers seem predisposed to become creationists in >>> disproportionate numbers. >>> >>> An engineer can recognize DESIGN >> >> How do engineers recognize design? A person becomes and engineer by >> going to an engineering school. What do they teach them in those >> schools that allows them to recognize design? >> >> I'll be gone for a few days. I'm riding a motorcycle to do some >> exploring in the Palouse. > > Have a nice trip. > recognize design? A person becomes and engineer by going to an engineering \ school. What do they teach them in those schools that allows them to recognize design? === Subject: Re: The Facts do not Lie >>>>>>>>>> By way of illustration, consider geologic formations in the >>>>>>>>>> Great Basin of the western United States. The vast horizontal >>>>>>>>>> layers of hydraulically deposited sedimentary rock are said to >>>>>>>>>> take long periods of time to accumulate, based on the >>>>>>>>>> assumption that the rate of deposition was always similar to >>>>>>>>>> that observed today in a typical river delta. This concept of >>>>>>>>>> uniformity may seem like a reasonable starting point when >>>>>>>>>> considered abstractly, but no steady-state river flow could >>>>>>>>>> possibly cover such a vast area; neither would it produce the >>>>>>>>>> violently buried and mangled bodies found fossilized in many >>>>>>>>>> rocks of the region. The present-day erosion conditions >>>>>>>>>> applied uniformly in the past could not account for the >>>>>>>>>> unusual formations of the Grand Canyon, mesas, badlands, and >>>>>>>>>> other canyons. By contrast, the catastrophic processes >>>>>>>>>> observed during and following the eruption of Mount St. >>>>>>>>>> Helens in the Cascades of Washington state produced a scale >>>>>>>>>> model of the Grand Canyon in a very brief period of time. >>>>>>>>>> Sediments were rapidly deposited and then suddenly eroded by >>>>>>>>>> pyroclastic steam, water, and mudflows in the area northwest >>>>>>>>>> of the summit. Now the canyon walls resemble others that are >>>>>>>>>> assumed to be of great age, even though they are known to be >>>>>>>>>> [merely decades] old. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/isd/walter.asp >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It seems like Sean Pitman is correct about the Grand Canyon >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Is this that example of an honest and valid anti-evolution >>>>>>>>> argument? What a loser adman. This is the AIG. They make their >>>>>>>>> money by lying to rubes like you. You know that for a fact >>>>>>>>> because you have used their junk before. Just look for your >>>>>>>>> loser arguments on their web site. >>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you are going to use anything from their site you should use >>>>>>>>> their list of arguments creationists should not use. The list >>>>>>>>> keeps changing, but they could swap out any of the arguments >>>>>>>>> that they have and it wouldn't matter. >>>>>>>>> \ http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use >>>>> >>>>>>>>> You should recognize a lot of them. >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ron Okimoto >>>>> >>>>>>>> AiG did not write this RonO. >>>>> >>>>>>>> Design Department within the Energy Science and Power Systems >>>>>>>> Division at the Applied Research Laboratory (ARL) at >>>>>>>> Pennsylvania State University. He holds a B.S. in mechanical >>>>>>>> engineering with highest distinction, an M.S. in mechanical >>>>>>>> engineering, and a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering, all from >>>>>>>> Pennsylvania State University. He was a 1975 recipient of a >>>>>>>> prestigious National Science Foundation Fellowship, funding >>>>>>>> graduate study at the institution of his choice. At ARL, Dr. >>>>>>>> Walter has been the leader for a number of undersea propulsion >>>>>>>> development projects for the U.S. Navy. His research involves >>>>>>>> multidisciplinary development and testing of advanced >>>>>>>> air-independent engines and thermal power systems for various >>>>>>>> autonomous undersea vehicles. >>>>> >>>>>>>> How about THAT. >>>>> >>>>>>> If I want my submarine fixed, I'll call him. If I want an >>>>>>> analysis of the finer points of Grand Canyon geology, I'll hire >>>>>>> a geologist. Here's a hint--he is as much a layman in those >>>>>>> areas as you are. He sounds like a fine exemplar of the Salem >>>>>>> Hypothesis, noting that engineers seem predisposed to become >>>>>>> creationists in disproportionate numbers. >>>>> >>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_Hypothesis >>>>> >>>>>>> How about.... !!!!****THAT****!!!!. (shouting and breakdancing). >>>>> >>>>>> [chuckle].. did you wet your keyboard? >>>>> >>>>> Additional note. >>>>> >>>>> Of course engineers seem predisposed to become creationists in >>>>> disproportionate numbers. >>>>> >>>>> An engineer can recognize DESIGN >>>> >>>> Which fails to explain how an engineer can make such a hash of >>>> matters geological. >>> >>> They see things from another perspective. >>> >> What do they see that allows them to recognize design? > > Design features > And what are those features? Please provide some examples. === Subject: Re: The Facts do not Lie >>>>>>>>>>>> By way of illustration, consider geologic formations in the >>>>>>>>>>>> Great Basin of the western United States. The vast >>>>>>>>>>>> horizontal layers of hydraulically deposited sedimentary >>>>>>>>>>>> rock are said to take long periods of time to accumulate, >>>>>>>>>>>> based on the assumption that the rate of deposition was >>>>>>>>>>>> always similar to that observed today in a typical river >>>>>>>>>>>> delta. This concept of uniformity may seem like a >>>>>>>>>>>> reasonable starting point when considered abstractly, but >>>>>>>>>>>> no steady-state river flow could possibly cover such a vast >>>>>>>>>>>> area; neither would it produce the violently buried and >>>>>>>>>>>> mangled bodies found fossilized in many rocks of the >>>>>>>>>>>> region. The present-day erosion conditions applied >>>>>>>>>>>> uniformly in the past could not account for the unusual >>>>>>>>>>>> formations of the Grand Canyon, mesas, badlands, and other >>>>>>>>>>>> canyons. By contrast, the catastrophic processes observed >>>>>>>>>>>> during and following the eruption of Mount St. Helens in >>>>>>>>>>>> the Cascades of Washington state produced a scale model of >>>>>>>>>>>> the Grand Canyon in a very brief period of time. Sediments >>>>>>>>>>>> were rapidly deposited and then suddenly eroded by >>>>>>>>>>>> pyroclastic steam, water, and mudflows in the area >>>>>>>>>>>> northwest of the summit. Now the canyon walls resemble >>>>>>>>>>>> others that are assumed to be of great age, even though >>>>>>>>>>>> they are known to be [merely decades] old. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/isd/walter.asp >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It seems like Sean Pitman is correct about the Grand Canyon >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Is this that example of an honest and valid anti-evolution >>>>>>>>>>> argument? What a loser adman. This is the AIG. They make >>>>>>>>>>> their money by lying to rubes like you. You know that for a >>>>>>>>>>> fact because you have used their junk before. Just look for >>>>>>>>>>> your loser arguments on their web site. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If you are going to use anything from their site you should >>>>>>>>>>> use their list of arguments creationists should not use. The >>>>>>>>>>> list keeps changing, but they could swap out any of the >>>>>>>>>>> arguments that they have and it wouldn't matter. >>>>>>>>>>> \ http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You should recognize a lot of them. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Ron Okimoto >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> AiG did not write this RonO. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> and Design Department within the Energy Science and Power >>>>>>>>>> Systems Division at the Applied Research Laboratory (ARL) at >>>>>>>>>> Pennsylvania State University. He holds a B.S. in mechanical >>>>>>>>>> engineering with highest distinction, an M.S. in mechanical >>>>>>>>>> engineering, and a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering, all from >>>>>>>>>> Pennsylvania State University. He was a 1975 recipient of a >>>>>>>>>> prestigious National Science Foundation Fellowship, funding >>>>>>>>>> graduate study at the institution of his choice. At ARL, Dr. >>>>>>>>>> Walter has been the leader for a number of undersea propulsion >>>>>>>>>> development projects for the U.S. Navy. His research involves >>>>>>>>>> multidisciplinary development and testing of advanced >>>>>>>>>> air-independent engines and thermal power systems for various >>>>>>>>>> autonomous undersea vehicles. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> How about THAT. >>>>> >>>>>>>>> If I want my submarine fixed, I'll call him. If I want an >>>>>>>>> analysis of the finer points of Grand Canyon geology, I'll hire >>>>>>>>> a geologist. Here's a hint--he is as much a layman in those >>>>>>>>> areas as you are. He sounds like a fine exemplar of the Salem >>>>>>>>> Hypothesis, noting that engineers seem predisposed to become >>>>>>>>> creationists in disproportionate numbers. >>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_Hypothesis >>>>> >>>>>>>>> How about.... !!!!****THAT****!!!!. (shouting and >>>>>>>>> breakdancing). >>>>> >>>>>>>> [chuckle].. did you wet your keyboard? >>>>> >>>>>>> Additional note. >>>>> >>>>>>> Of course engineers seem predisposed to become creationists in >>>>>>> disproportionate numbers. >>>>> >>>>>>> An engineer can recognize DESIGN >>>>> >>>>>> Which fails to explain how an engineer can make such a hash of >>>>>> matters geological. >>>>> >>>>> They see things from another perspective. >>>> >>>> Which still fails to explain how an engineer can make such a hash of >>>> matters geological, and also fails explain why you would rather >>>> accept his view over the view of those more qualified to deal with >>>> matters geological. >>> >>> Maybe in \DA-World\ and in \Evolution-Speak\ >>> >>> But in THIS world....and in THIS reality... _engineers are designers, >>> therefore they can recognize design_. >> >> To a hammer, everything looks like a nail. However, the original >> claim was that the Grand Canyon was formed quickly by natural >> processes, not that it was designed. And the fact is, an engineering >> degree doesn't give a person the knowledge or understanding or >> perspective to make that determination regarding a geological process. > > They have better perspective. > > A flood is a disaster. A building blown up is a disaster. Who do you call \ > when a building falls? The engineer... NOT a geologist. Why? They can > reconstruct the damage, and tell what caused it. If you want to assess the geological effects of a flood, you call a geologist, NOT an engineer. Why? Because engineers don't study geology. So, if you want to understand how the Grand Canyon formed, you need to talk \ to a geologist. Of course, if a building collapsed and it was determined that the earth under the building was the problem, any engineer worth his degree would call for a geologist. === Subject: Re: The Facts do not Lie > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> By way of illustration, consider geologic formations in the > >>>>>>>>>>>> Great Basin of the western United States. The vast > >>>>>>>>>>>> horizontal layers of hydraulically deposited sedimentary > >>>>>>>>>>>> rock are said to take long periods of time to accumulate, > >>>>>>>>>>>> based on the assumption that the rate of deposition was > >>>>>>>>>>>> always similar to that observed today in a typical river > >>>>>>>>>>>> delta. This concept of uniformity may seem like a > >>>>>>>>>>>> reasonable starting point when considered abstractly, but > >>>>>>>>>>>> no steady-state river flow could possibly cover such a vast > >>>>>>>>>>>> area; neither would it produce the violently buried and > >>>>>>>>>>>> mangled bodies found fossilized in many rocks of the > >>>>>>>>>>>> region. The present-day erosion conditions applied > >>>>>>>>>>>> uniformly in the past could not account for the unusual > >>>>>>>>>>>> formations of the Grand Canyon, mesas, badlands, and other > >>>>>>>>>>>> canyons. By contrast, the catastrophic processes observed > >>>>>>>>>>>> during and following the eruption of Mount St. Helens in > >>>>>>>>>>>> the Cascades of Washington state produced a scale model of > >>>>>>>>>>>> the Grand Canyon in a very brief period of time. Sediments > >>>>>>>>>>>> were rapidly deposited and then suddenly eroded by > >>>>>>>>>>>> pyroclastic steam, water, and mudflows in the area > >>>>>>>>>>>> northwest of the summit. Now the canyon walls resemble > >>>>>>>>>>>> others that are assumed to be of great age, even though > >>>>>>>>>>>> they are known to be [merely decades] old. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/isd/walter.asp > > >>>>>>>>>>>> It seems like Sean Pitman is correct about the Grand Canyon > > >>>>>>>>>>> Is this that example of an honest and valid anti-evolution > >>>>>>>>>>> argument? What a loser adman. This is the AIG. They make > >>>>>>>>>>> their money by lying to rubes like you. You know that for a > >>>>>>>>>>> fact because you have used their junk before. Just look for > >>>>>>>>>>> your loser arguments on their web site. > > >>>>>>>>>>> If you are going to use anything from their site you should > >>>>>>>>>>> use their list of arguments creationists should not use. The > >>>>>>>>>>> list keeps changing, but they could swap out any of the > >>>>>>>>>>> arguments that they have and it wouldn't matter. > \ >>>>>>>>>>>http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-don\ t-use > > >>>>>>>>>>> You should recognize a lot of them. > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ron Okimoto > > >>>>>>>>>> AiG did not write this RonO. > > >>>>>>>>>> and Design Department within the Energy Science and Power > >>>>>>>>>> Systems Division at the Applied Research Laboratory (ARL) at > >>>>>>>>>> Pennsylvania State University. He holds a B.S. in mechanical > >>>>>>>>>> engineering with highest distinction, an M.S. in mechanical > >>>>>>>>>> engineering, and a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering, all from > >>>>>>>>>> Pennsylvania State University. He was a 1975 recipient of a > >>>>>>>>>> prestigious National Science Foundation Fellowship, funding > >>>>>>>>>> graduate study at the institution of his choice. At ARL, Dr. > >>>>>>>>>> Walter has been the leader for a number of undersea propulsion > >>>>>>>>>> development projects for the U.S. Navy. His research involves > >>>>>>>>>> multidisciplinary development and testing of advanced > >>>>>>>>>> air-independent engines and thermal power systems for various > >>>>>>>>>> autonomous undersea vehicles. > > >>>>>>>>>> How about THAT. > > >>>>>>>>> If I want my submarine fixed, I'll call him. If I want an > >>>>>>>>> analysis of the finer points of Grand Canyon geology, I'll hire > >>>>>>>>> a geologist. Here's a hint--he is as much a layman in those > >>>>>>>>> areas as you are. He sounds like a fine exemplar of the Salem > >>>>>>>>> Hypothesis, noting that engineers seem predisposed to become > >>>>>>>>> creationists in disproportionate numbers. > > >>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem Hypothesis > > >>>>>>>>> How about.... !!!!****THAT****!!!!. (shouting and > >>>>>>>>> breakdancing). > > >>>>>>>> [chuckle].. did you wet your keyboard? > > >>>>>>> Additional note. > > >>>>>>> Of course engineers seem predisposed to become creationists in > >>>>>>> disproportionate numbers. > > >>>>>>> An engineer can recognize DESIGN > > >>>>>> Which fails to explain how an engineer can make such a hash of > >>>>>> matters geological. > > >>>>> They see things from another perspective. > > >>>> Which still fails to explain how an engineer can make such a hash of > >>>> matters geological, and also fails explain why you would rather > >>>> accept his view over the view of those more qualified to deal with > >>>> matters geological. > > >>> Maybe in \DA-World\ and in \Evolution-Speak\ > > >>> But in THIS world....and in THIS reality... engineers are designers, > >>> therefore they can recognize design . > > >> To a hammer, everything looks like a nail. ÊHowever, the \ original > >> claim was that the Grand Canyon was formed quickly by natural > >> processes, not that it was designed. ÊAnd the fact is, an \ engineering > >> degree doesn't give a person the knowledge or understanding or > >> perspective to make that determination regarding a geological process. > > > They have better perspective. > > > A flood is a disaster. A building blown up is a disaster. Who do you \ call > > when a building falls? The engineer... NOT a geologist. Why? They can > > reconstruct the damage, and tell what caused it. > > If you want to assess the geological effects of a flood, you call a > geologist, NOT an engineer. ÊWhy? ÊBecause \ engineers don't study geology. > So, if you want to understand how the Grand Canyon formed, you need to \ talk > to a geologist. ÊOf course, if a building collapsed and it \ was determined > that the earth under the building was the problem, any engineer worth his > degree would call for a geologist.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Just to nit pick, some engineers do study geology. One field that does is called geotechnical engineering. I am one of these. And if it was determined that the earth under the building was a problem, it would be considered a foundation failure, and you would call a geotechnical and/or foundation engineer (different names for the same thing) before you called a geologist. Geologists don't study the engineering properties of soil or rock. === Subject: Re: The Facts do not Lie > >>>>>>>>> By way of illustration, consider geologic formations in the > >>>>>>>>> Great Basin of the western United States. The vast horizontal > >>>>>>>>> layers of hydraulically deposited sedimentary rock are said to > >>>>>>>>> take long periods of time to accumulate, based on the > >>>>>>>>> assumption that the rate of deposition was always similar to > >>>>>>>>> that observed today in a typical river delta. This concept of > >>>>>>>>> uniformity may seem like a reasonable starting point when > >>>>>>>>> considered abstractly, but no steady-state river flow could > >>>>>>>>> possibly cover such a vast area; neither would it produce the > >>>>>>>>> violently buried and mangled bodies found fossilized in many > >>>>>>>>> rocks of the region. The present-day erosion conditions > >>>>>>>>> applied uniformly in the past could not account for the > >>>>>>>>> unusual formations of the Grand Canyon, mesas, badlands, and > >>>>>>>>> other canyons. By contrast, the catastrophic processes > >>>>>>>>> observed during and following the eruption of Mount St. > >>>>>>>>> Helens in the Cascades of Washington state produced a scale > >>>>>>>>> model of the Grand Canyon in a very brief period of time. > >>>>>>>>> Sediments were rapidly deposited and then suddenly eroded by > >>>>>>>>> pyroclastic steam, water, and mudflows in the area northwest > >>>>>>>>> of the summit. Now the canyon walls resemble others that are > >>>>>>>>> assumed to be of great age, even though they are known to be > >>>>>>>>> [merely decades] old. > > >>>>>>>>>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/isd/walter.asp > > >>>>>>>>> It seems like Sean Pitman is correct about the Grand Canyon > > >>>>>>>> Is this that example of an honest and valid anti-evolution > >>>>>>>> argument? What a loser adman. ÊThis is the AIG. \ ÊThey make > >>>>>>>> their money by lying to rubes like you. ÊYou know \ that for a > >>>>>>>> fact because you have used their junk before. ÊJust \ look for > >>>>>>>> your loser arguments on their web site. > > >>>>>>>> If you are going to use anything from their site you should use > >>>>>>>> their list of arguments creationists should not use. \ ÊThe list > >>>>>>>> keeps changing, but they could swap out any of the arguments > >>>>>>>> that they have and it wouldn't matter. > \ >>>>>>>>http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-u\ se > > >>>>>>>> You should recognize a lot of them. > > >>>>>>>> Ron Okimoto > > >>>>>>> AiG did not write this RonO. > > >>>>>>> Design Department within the Energy Science and Power Systems > >>>>>>> Division at the Applied Research Laboratory (ARL) at > >>>>>>> Pennsylvania State University. He holds a B.S. in mechanical > >>>>>>> engineering with highest distinction, an M.S. in mechanical > >>>>>>> engineering, and a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering, all from > >>>>>>> Pennsylvania State University. He was a 1975 recipient of a > >>>>>>> prestigious National Science Foundation Fellowship, funding > >>>>>>> graduate study at the institution of his choice. At ARL, Dr. > >>>>>>> Walter has been the leader for a number of undersea propulsion > >>>>>>> development projects for the U.S. Navy. His research involves > >>>>>>> multidisciplinary development and testing of advanced > >>>>>>> air-independent engines and thermal power systems for various > >>>>>>> autonomous undersea vehicles. > > >>>>>>> How about THAT. > > >>>>>> If I want my submarine fixed, I'll call him. ÊIf I \ want an > >>>>>> analysis of the finer points of Grand Canyon geology, I'll hire > >>>>>> a geologist. Here's a hint--he is as much a layman in those > >>>>>> areas as you are. He sounds like a fine exemplar of the Salem > >>>>>> Hypothesis, noting that engineers seem predisposed to become > >>>>>> creationists in disproportionate numbers. > > >>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem Hypothesis > > >>>>>> How about.... !!!!****THAT****!!!!. (shouting and breakdancing). > > >>>>> [chuckle].. did you wet your keyboard? > > >>>> Additional note. > > >>>> Of course engineers seem predisposed to become creationists in > >>>> disproportionate numbers. > > >>>> An engineer can recognize DESIGN > > >>> Yes, I think that is about right. Since they deal with design, they > >>> tend to see it everywhere - and if they lack training in the history > >>> of their discipline, which is the norm rather than the exception in > >>> our education system, they won;t necessarily know just how much of > >>> our design practices is copied from what we observe in nature. > >>> Doesn't ,mean of course that nature is designed, only that our > >>> designs are imitations of nature. . > > >> ehh... this is not exactly right. > > > And you have evidence and arguments of how I'm wrong? > > You need proof that man designs things without using nature as an \ example? > And here i was thing you were one of the few smart ones at TO. Nope. I need proof that man uses never nature as blueprint. > > For that matter why can man not fully mimick the designs he sees in \ nature? > Because the design is far superior to anything man can dream up even \ though > man has nature as a guide. As maybe, but rather irrelevant for the issue we are discussing > > For instance: Man has made an egg with all of the same ingredients, taste > and qualities. However the egg that man makes cannot reproduce. Man has \ made > a mechanical heart. But can it do the same job as the original? No. The > original can last up, to 120 years if taken care of. Man can fly. But not \ as > majestically as a bird on a fraction of the energy. > > An engineer can see these differences and is well qualifies to determine > what is and is not a design feature. your point. My point was rather simple: The designer who has learned how to make the artificial heart then looks at the biological one and this, he infers a) that there is a designer and b) the designer is (for the time being) a better one. Birth of the Gods in man's imagination follows. But the reasoning is of course fallacious (and is so regardless of your belief or disbelief in Gods), since the artificial heart took the natural heart as a model - i.e. we are dealing with projection only. . === Subject: Re: Ray Was Incorrect > > > > > > > > >>>> ** SHUNNED for stupidity, lying and trolling. ** > > > >>> ** SHUNNED for just being STUPID ** > > > >> Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:- > > > >> That 3.5% actually means 25%... > > > > Oh you are a fucking retard. A BIG FUCKING RETARD!! > > > > Are you gonna keep spouting this crap, > > > Just like your \ICL1900 TABN\ SHIT? > > > > Or should I dig up your GR Fuck ups for all to see? > > > > NOBODY. NOT NOBODY, could back you up in your > > > fucked up half wanked, double cocked tripple fucked up, > > > quarter halfed tits up, quadrupled balls, 8th sacked, > > > 9th try, 2/3 half wanked, 1/4 pissed on, 99% fucked up > > > > attempt to prove ther is a \ICL 1900 TABN\. > > > > I dropped it at Glenn's request, but you're the; > > > > \stupid retard, dumb fuck, asshole, piss stain, moron, > > > mother fucker, ass wipe, ball stain, green vile, turd breath, > > > skid stain, ball wipe, cock pumpin, Êretard lovin, old \ decaying, > > > fucked up, self loathing, pig loving, fmother uck up. > > > > Who is too RETARDED to STOP WHILE HE'S ahead. > > > Now Now Spinny. > > Well, the guy makes my skin crawl. > > He's an annoying sadistic little twit.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The only thing he does, is the same thing he does with Madman; he calls you on your bullshit, and asks you to back up your assertions with evidence. Something, I note, which you both completely fail to do. === Subject: Re: Ray Was Incorrect >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >>>> ** SHUNNED for stupidity, lying and trolling. ** >> >> > >>> ** SHUNNED for just being STUPID ** >> >> > >> Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:- >> >> > >> That 3.5% actually means 25%... >> >> > > Oh you are a fucking retard. A BIG FUCKING RETARD!! >> >> > > Are you gonna keep spouting this crap, >> > > Just like your \ICL1900 TABN\ SHIT? >> >> > > Or should I dig up your GR Fuck ups for all to see? >> >> > > NOBODY. NOT NOBODY, could back you up in your >> > > fucked up half wanked, double cocked tripple fucked up, >> > > quarter halfed tits up, quadrupled balls, 8th sacked, >> > > 9th try, 2/3 half wanked, 1/4 pissed on, 99% fucked up >> >> > > attempt to prove ther is a \ICL 1900 TABN\. >> >> > > I dropped it at Glenn's request, but you're the; >> >> > > \stupid retard, dumb fuck, asshole, piss stain, moron, >> > > mother fucker, ass wipe, ball stain, green vile, turd breath, >> > > skid stain, ball wipe, cock pumpin, Êretard lovin, old \ decaying, >> > > fucked up, self loathing, pig loving, fmother uck up. >> >> > > Who is too RETARDED to STOP WHILE HE'S ahead. >> >> > Now Now Spinny. >> >> Well, the guy makes my skin crawl. >> >> He's an annoying sadistic little twit.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > >The only thing he does, is the same thing he does with Madman; he >calls you >on your bullshit, and asks you to back up your assertions with >evidence. >Something, I note, which you both completely fail to do. I thank you very much - the cheque will be in the post first thing in the morning :) -- Bob. === Subject: Re: Ray Was Incorrect >> >>>> snip >>>>>> Do you imagine that pictures are the only form of evidence? >>>>>> >>>>>> You have continued to fail to provide any evidence to support your >>>>>> claim. >>>>>> >>>>>> DJT >>>>> >>>>> It is IN the history, folklore, legengs and traditions of every >>>>> race IN that part of the world. >>>> >>>> Then you should have no trouble producing some evidence. Yet you >>>> fail to do so. >>>> >>>> Note also, that accusations from one culture that the 'other guy' >>>> does something bad is not evidence that it actually happened. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Get over it >>>> >>>> Produce some evidence to support your cliam. >>>> >>>> DJT >>> >>> common knowledge >> >> Which we all know you lack. >> >> Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:- >> >> That 3.5% actually means 25%... >> >> That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist... >> >> That \Dr.\ Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries... >> >> That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited >> some facet of some religion... >> >> To have a \higher education\ than most posters to this news group... >> >> To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of >> rock... >> >> That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me >> laugh] >> >> And that he has \created genes\ and not evolved ape genes... >> >> >> Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to? >> Certainly I don't. > >Have you always pounded a point into the ground so far that it goes to >China? Get a lot of dates that way? > >ok BOB . > >Since you want to persist in this behavior for more then 6 months now i >suspose that i will actually have to use my killfile instead of just joking \ >about it. In fact, *You* will be the first person to go into my kill \ file >in more then 8 years. Hohohohoho! > >THAT says A LOT about YOU eh? Yes, it says that you are really ashamed of yourself. > >your obsession is clear. your madness is evident. your motivation is quite \ >scarey > >You may continue to annoy the others with your obsession, but not me any >longer. > >bye nut-ball. *plonk* Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:- That 3.5% actually means 25%... That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist... That \Dr.\ Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries... That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited some facet of some religion... To have a \higher education\ than most posters to this news group... To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of rock... That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me laugh] And that he has \created genes\ and not evolved ape genes... Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to? Certainly I don't. -- Bob. === Subject: Re: Ray Was Incorrect >> In message <6RTRl.46177$19.23413@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, \[M]adman\ >>>> In message , \[M]adman\ >>>>>> snip >>>>>>>> Do you imagine that pictures are the only form of evidence? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You have continued to fail to provide any evidence to support >>>>>>>> your claim. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> DJT >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is IN the history, folklore, legengs and traditions of every >>>>>>> race IN that part of the world. >>>>>> >>>>>> Then you should have no trouble producing some evidence. Yet you >>>>>> fail to do so. >>>>>> >>>>>> Note also, that accusations from one culture that the 'other guy' >>>>>> does something bad is not evidence that it actually happened. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Get over it >>>>>> >>>>>> Produce some evidence to support your cliam. >>>>>> >>>>>> DJT >>>>> >>>>> common knowledge >>>>> >>>> Is it also common knowledge that, as you claimed in another thread, >>>> human cannibalism was solely a pre-flood phenomenon? >>> >>> Can you please show me where i claimed it was \SOLEY\ a pre-flood >>> phenomenon? >>> >>> No. You can't. >> >> mid:LkwRl.44669$b9.39576@bignews6.bellsouth.net >> >> \The ones doing the human cannibalism were destroyed in-da-flood\ > >The folks IN THE REGION which was under discussion. Look up the word >\context\ >>> >>> THAT makes YOU a deliberate liar >>> >> That looks rather like false witness. (Even if you don't understand >> your own words, reckless defamation is generally held to fall within >> the scope of the Biblical prohibition.) > >Looks more like bearing false wittness on your part. > Constantly lying does not work - as you are finding out. Try telling the truth for once. -- Bob. === Subject: Re: Ray Was Incorrect >> >> >>>> ** SHUNNED for stupidity, lying and trolling. ** >> >> >>> ** SHUNNED for just being STUPID ** >> >> >> Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:- >> >> >> That 3.5% actually means 25%... >> >> > Oh you are a fucking retard. A BIG FUCKING RETARD!! >> >> > Are you gonna keep spouting this crap, >> > Just like your \ICL1900 TABN\ SHIT? >> >> > Or should I dig up your GR Fuck ups for all to see? >> >> > NOBODY. NOT NOBODY, could back you up in your >> > fucked up half wanked, double cocked tripple fucked up, >> > quarter halfed tits up, quadrupled balls, 8th sacked, >> > 9th try, 2/3 half wanked, 1/4 pissed on, 99% fucked up >> >> > attempt to prove ther is a \ICL 1900 TABN\. >> >> > I dropped it at Glenn's request, but you're the; >> >> > \stupid retard, dumb fuck, asshole, piss stain, moron, >> > mother fucker, ass wipe, ball stain, green vile, turd breath, >> > skid stain, ball wipe, cock pumpin, Êretard lovin, old \ decaying, >> > fucked up, self loathing, pig loving, fmother uck up. >> >> > Who is too RETARDED to STOP WHILE HE'S ahead. >> >> Now Now Spinny. > >Well, the guy makes my skin crawl. > >He's an annoying sadistic little twit. ** SHUNNED for stupidity and trolling. ** -- Bob. === Subject: News: Primate Eye Evolution. Primate Eye Evolution: Small Evolutionary Shifts Make Big Impacts -- Like Developing Night Vision http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090518213952.htm ScienceDaily (May 24, 2009) ÷ In the developing fetus, cell growth follows a very specific schedule. In the eye's retina, for example, cones -- which help distinguish color during the day -- develop before the more light-sensitive rods -- which are needed for night vision. But minor differences in the timing of cell proliferation can explain the large differences found in the eyes of two species -- owl monkeys and capuchin monkeys -- that evolved from a common ancestor. Researchers from Cornell, St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital in Tennessee and the Federal University of Para, Brazil, have found an evolutionary mechanism that provides insight into how important changes in brain structure of primates can evolve. That evolution appears to proceed via simple genetic changes that affect the timing of development of brain regions, they report in a paper published May 18 online and in a future print issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. In both monkey species, the specialized eye cells develop in the growing embryo from a single retinal progenitor cell. In their basic design, the eyes of these primates have the capability and necessary architecture to be either nocturnal or diurnal, based on a species' ecological niche and needs, said Cornell neurobiologist and psychologist Barbara Finlay. Finlay and her colleagues compared the developing eyes in fetuses of the two species to better understand how the nocturnal owl monkeys developed retinas with many more rod cells than cones, while capuchin monkeys, which are active during the day (diurnal), developed more cone cells than rods. \These two species evolved about 15 million years ago from a common ancestor that had a diurnal eye,\ said Finlay, a Cornell professor of psychology and senior author of the paper. \So we believed that comparing how their eyes develop during embryonic growth could help us understand what evolutionary changes would be required to evolve from a diurnal to a nocturnal eye,\ said Finlay. By comparing the timing of retinal cell proliferation in the two species, the researchers found evidence that an extended period of progenitor cell proliferation in the owl monkey gave rise to an increased number of rod and other associated cells that make its eyes adept at night vision; the eyes also evolved to be large, with bigger light-gathering and light-sensing structures needed for nocturnal sight. \The beauty of the evolutionary mechanism we have identified is that it enables the eye to almost toggle back and forth between a nocturnal and a diurnal structure,\ said neurobiologist Michael Dyer of St. Jude's hospital. \It is an elegant system that gives the eye a lot of flexibility in terms of specialization.\ This research was funded by the National Science Foundation and Brazil's NSF equivalent, National Counsel of Technological and Scientific Development. Journal reference: 1. Michael A. Dyer, Rodrigo Martins, Manoel da Silva Filho, Jos\.8e Augusto P. C. Muniz, Luiz Carlos L. Silveira, Constance L. Cepko, and Barbara L. Finlay. Developmental sources of conservation and variation in the evolution of the primate eye. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2009; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0901484106 http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/05/15/0901484106 Adapted from materials provided by Cornell University. Cornell University (2009, May 24). Primate Eye Evolution: Small Evolutionary Shifts Make Big Impacts -- Like Developing Night Vision. -- Bob. === Subject: Re: APS News - Evolution Stirs Tempest in Turkish Teapot > Evolution Stirs Tempest in Turkish Teapot > > > However many do see a silver lining in the controversy. The strong > reaction against the censorship has prompted T\.86B\[NonBreakingSpace]TAK \ to announce that > the next issue of Bilim ve Teknik will be entirely devoted to Darwin > and evolution. Shortly after her removal, Atakuman was also reinstated > to her former post. > > Read it at:http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200905/evolution.cfm Interesting that they thought global warming was an anodyne enough substitute. === Subject: Re: APS News - Evolution Stirs Tempest in Turkish Teapot Were we supposed to know what this story is about already? === Subject: Re: APS News - Evolution Stirs Tempest in Turkish Teapot > Were we supposed to know what this story is about already? Oops. I wanted to post the happy ending but, yeah, I could have primed it better. Like... The news broke on March 11th that the government-run Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (T\.86BÜTAK) had \ tried to quietly remove a story about Charles Darwin from the upcoming issue of its popular science magazine. The magazine Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technology) was due to publish a 17-page cover story celebrating the 150th anniversary of Darwin's theory of evolution. Just before going to press, the magazine was unexpectedly delayed for a week while the Darwin story was removed and replaced by one about global warming. Top officials at T\.86BÜTAK then relieved Bilim ve \ Teknik's editor-in- chief \.82iÛdem Atakuman of her post. === Subject: Re: News: Study turns back clock on origins of life on Earth. > > > > > > > > > > > Study turns back clock on origins of life on Earth > > > > By Julie Steenhuysen Julie Steenhuysen Wed May 20, 2:10 pm \ EThttp://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090520/sc nm/us asteroids 2 > > > > CHICAGO (Reuters) \[CapitalEth] A heavy bombardment by asteroids the \ size of > > > > Ireland was not enough to wipe out life on Earth 3.9 billion years > > > > ago, researchers said on Wednesday in a finding that turns back the > > > > clock of life by 500 million years. > > > > > Many scientists had thought the violent pelting by massive \ asteroids > > > > during the period known as the Late Heavy Bombardment would have > > > > melted the Earth's crust and vaporized any life on the planet. > > > > > But new three-dimensional computer models developed by a team at \ the > > > > University of Colorado at Boulder shows > > > > What a load of crap. > > > > Scientists can't even get climate models correct for where we live > > > now, with LIVE data. > > > > And you think they can model the planet 3.9Billion years ago. What a > > > load of Bull Shit!! > > > Why do you think the complexity of the model depends on the timespan? > > The *Accuracy* of the model depends on the complexity of the data. > > Since you have an overwhelming amount of data on todays climate & 0 > for 3.9 billion years ago. > > Why oh why do you think you have an accurate model, for something so > long ago > & so complex? > how complex do you think rocks and subthermal vents are? in fact, creationists had no idea such things were even possible until they were discovered by scientists. THATS why you object: your 'god did it' crap has NO idea what water is let alone how to model asteroid impacts. more proof creationism is useless === Subject: Re: News: Study turns back clock on origins of life on Earth. > > > > But new three-dimensional computer models developed by a team at the > > University of Colorado at Boulder shows > > What a load of crap. > > Scientists can't even get climate models correct for where we live > now, with LIVE data. > > And you think they can model the planet 3.9Billion years ago. What a > load of Bull Shit!! IOW you have no response so just object to science, qua science, being done yeah you guys prefer the magical solution which has failed for 2000 years....'god did it'... wrong, wrong wrong === Subject: Re: News: Study turns back clock on origins of life on Earth. > > > > > > > > > Study turns back clock on origins of life on Earth > > > > By Julie Steenhuysen Julie Steenhuysen Wed May 20, 2:10 pm \ EThttp://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090520/sc nm/us asteroids 2 > > > > CHICAGO (Reuters) \[CapitalEth] A heavy bombardment by asteroids the \ size of > > > > Ireland was not enough to wipe out life on Earth 3.9 billion years > > > > ago, researchers said on Wednesday in a finding that turns back the > > > > clock of life by 500 million years. > > > > > Many scientists had thought the violent pelting by massive \ asteroids > > > > during the period known as the Late Heavy Bombardment would have > > > > melted the Earth's crust and vaporized any life on the planet. > > > > > But new three-dimensional computer models developed by a team at \ the > > > > University of Colorado at Boulder shows > > > > What a load of crap. > > > > Scientists can't even get climate models correct for where we live > > > now, with LIVE data. > > > > And you think they can model the planet 3.9Billion years ago. What a > > > load of Bull Shit!! > > > Why do you think the complexity of the model depends on the timespan? > > As an example/analogy, calculating the relative position of stars > > billions of Êyears ago is considerably more straightforward \ than say > > modelling the movement of molecules in a cup of tea now. > > If you could do the latter you could be quite famous, but possibly > short-lived. :P > Ahh, but would build the superfast spacecraft BEFORE I go public with the discovery ;o) === Subject: Re: News: Study turns back clock on origins of life on Earth. > In message , \[M]adman\ > > > > > > >>>> You wonder if it is always the reporters that get this junk wrong. > >>>> They haven't pushed back the origin of life. They have models that > >>>> demonstrate that life may have been able to form half a billion > >>>> years earlier than we currently have evidence that life existed. > >>>> They have a wider time frame and it may have taken longer for life > >>>> to form than they have thought. Even the 3.8 billion year old > >>>> evidence of life is less than a decade old in terms of when it was > >>>> discovered. It will be tough finding older evidence since the > >>>> available rocks are only 3,9 billion years old. All the evidence is > >>>> eroded away, burried deep or subducted and recycled. > > >>>> Ron Okimoto > > >>> This clearly shows us science does not really know what has > >>> happened. At all. > > >> Really? We don't know everything for certain, therefore we know > >> nothing at all? > > >Basically yes. > > I'm surprised that you're so open about being a nihilist. I prefer to call it \willful ignorance\. Boikat === Subject: Re: News: Study turns back clock on origins of life on Earth. > > > > > > > >> Study turns back clock on origins of life on Earth > > >> By Julie Steenhuysen Julie Steenhuysen Wed May 20, 2:10 pm > > >> EThttp://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090520/sc nm/us asteroids 2 > > > >> CHICAGO (Reuters) \[CapitalEth] A heavy bombardment by asteroids the \ size of > > >> Ireland was not enough to wipe out life on Earth 3.9 billion years > > >> ago, researchers said on Wednesday in a finding that turns back the > > >> clock of life by 500 million years. > > > >> Many scientists had thought the violent pelting by massive asteroids > > >> during the period known as the Late Heavy Bombardment would have > > >> melted the Earth's crust and vaporized any life on the planet. > > > >> But new three-dimensional computer models developed by a team at the > > >> University of Colorado at Boulder shows much of Earth's crust, and > > >> the > > >> microbes living on it, could have survived and may even have \ thrived. > > > >> \These new results push back the possible beginnings of life on \ Earth > > >> to well before the bombardment period 3.9 billion years ago,\ said > > >> Oleg Abramov, a researcher at the university whose study appears in > > >> the journal Nature. > > > >> \It opens up the possibility that life emerged as far back as 4.4 > > >> billion years ago, about the time the first oceans are thought to > > >> have > > >> formed,\ Abramov said in a statement. > > > >> To study this period, Abramov and colleague Stephen Mojzsis used \ data > > >> from moon rocks, meteorite samples and the dented surfaces of > > >> neighboring planets to develop a three-dimensional model of this > > >> period of bombardment. > > > >> \What we did was recreate the Late Heavy Bombardment on a \ computer,\ > > >> Abramov said, adding that the simulation randomly \smacked the \ Earth\ > > >> with giant asteroids. > > > >> The team then looked at the impact that would have had on the \ Earth's > > >> temperature in the so-called geophysical habitable zone -- a zone > > >> representing the top 2.5 miles of the Earth's crust. > > > >> Based on these models, Abramov said this sustained period of impacts > > >> would have killed any life on the Earth's surface, but not all life > > >> on > > >> Earth, as many had assumed. > > > >> \We find it is essentially impossible to sterilize the entire > > >> habitable zone of the Earth by this kind of bombardment,\ Abramov > > >> said > > >> in a telephone interview. > > > >> \Certainly, the surface of the Earth was sterilized repeatedly,\ \ he > > >> said. > > > >> But he said hydrothermal vents below the surface of the Earth may > > >> have > > >> offered sanctuaries for certain heat-loving microbes, and may have > > >> even provided a kind of incubator for life. > > > >> He said many scientists had thought that a cataclysmic bombardment > > >> event would have sterilized the planet and life would have had to > > >> start anew. > > > >> \The important thing about these results is they push back the > > >> possible beginnings of life as we know it,\ he said. > > > >> \Exactly when life originated on Earth is a hotly debated topic,\ > > >> said > > >> Michael New, an astrobiologist at the National Aeronautics and Space > > >> Administration, which sponsored the research. > > > >> \These findings are significant because they indicated life could > > >> have > > >> begun well before the Late Heavy Bombardment, during the so-called > > >> Hadean Eon of Earth's history 3.8 billion to 4.5 billion years \ ago,\ > > >> New said in a statement. > > > >> (Editing by Michael Conlon and Doina Chiacu) > > > >> -- > > >> Bob. > > > > You wonder if it is always the reporters that get this junk wrong. > > > They haven't pushed back the origin of life. ÊThey have \ models that > > > demonstrate that life may have been able to form half a billion years > > > earlier than we currently have evidence that life existed. \ ÊThey have > > > a wider time frame and it may have taken longer for life to form than > > > they have thought. ÊEven the 3.8 billion year old \ evidence of life is > > > less than a decade old in terms of when it was discovered. \ ÊIt will be > > > tough finding older evidence since the available rocks are only 3,9 > > > billion years old. ÊAll the evidence is eroded away, \ burried deep or > > > subducted and recycled. > > > > Ron Okimoto > > > This clearly shows us science does not really know what has happened. \ At > > all. > > > THAT would include the origin of species.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Let me see if I have this straight. ÊRon Okimoto points out \ that the > model merely points to a possibility, and that reporters have implied > that the possibility was factual, or at least likely. ÊRon \ further > points out that we are very unlikely to ever collect hard evidence of > life beyond 3.9 bya. (Please correct me if this is wrong, Ron.) > > [M]adman's syllogism: > > Premise: Some reporters have drawn an unwarranted inference from a > computer model developed by a small group of scientists. > > Premise: Other scientists have concluded that life on earth arose > naturally and evolved into the many species we see today. > > Conclusion: No conclusion arrived at by any scientist regarding the > history of life on earth is reliable. > > If you can defend such \thinking\, have at it, [M]adman. > > Tim If addledman could defend his junk he wouldn't be addledman. Ron Okimoto === Subject: Re: OT theism plus right wingism: a recipe for lies > It's fairly astonishing what an enemy to truth the > combination of extremist theism and party of greed > membership is. Watch Dick Cheney lie, lie, and lie > some more, and get hung out to dry for his efforts: > > http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/68643.html > > Every time I see that vicious monster on a TV > in office. > > Of course, I'm overjoyed that the fundamentalist and > reactionary right is adopting Cheney as its most > visible spokesperson. [The others, Michael Steele, > Rush LImbaugh, Sarah Palin, and (omigod) Newt > Gingrich of \served his wife divorce papers on her > hospital cancer ward bed\ fame, just cement the > case.] I'll see you John Edwards on the last. Of course. === Subject: Re: OT theism plus right wingism: a recipe for lies > > It's fairly astonishing what an enemy to truth the > > combination of extremist theism and party of greed > > membership is. Watch Dick Cheney lie, lie, and lie > > some more, and get hung out to dry for his efforts: > > >http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/68643.html > > > Every time I see that vicious monster on a TV > > in office. > > > Of course, I'm overjoyed that the fundamentalist and > > reactionary right is adopting Cheney as its most > > visible spokesperson. [The others, Michael Steele, > > Rush LImbaugh, Sarah Palin, and (omigod) Newt > > Gingrich of \served his wife divorce papers on her > > hospital cancer ward bed\ fame, just cement the > > case.] > > I'll see you John Edwards on the last. ÊOf course. Yeah. I was a big Edwards supporter until that crap came out. What a bastard. Mind you, I would have voted for him had he been nominated, but I would have puked afterward. Chris === Subject: Re: OT theism plus right wingism: a recipe for lies > > It's fairly astonishing what an enemy to truth the > > combination of extremist theism and party of greed > > membership is. Watch Dick Cheney lie, lie, and lie > > some more, and get hung out to dry for his efforts: > > > > http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/68643.html > > > > Every time I see that vicious monster on a TV > > in office. > > > > Of course, I'm overjoyed that the fundamentalist and > > reactionary right is adopting Cheney as its most > > visible spokesperson. [The others, Michael Steele, > > Rush LImbaugh, Sarah Palin, and (omigod) Newt > > Gingrich of \served his wife divorce papers on her > > hospital cancer ward bed\ fame, just cement the > > case.] We need not worry about any near term power > > shifts in Washington DC while this (parade of) > > oaf(s) continue(s) to offend the body politic with > > obvious lies and a demonstrated unwillingness to > > abandon the policies of feeding greed that led to > > our current US (and world-wide) economic meltdown. > > > > xanthian. > > Speaking of Vice Presidents, whatever happened to Biden anyway? Does > he still exist? He seems to be neither visible nor audible. Cheney invented the principle of vice-presidential undetectability by means of digital information services. === Subject: Re: Biologist sacked for questioning evolution. (For Chris) > >>> But I wouldn't mind a physics professor telling his students that he >>> doesn't believe that string theory is even a scientific theory. >>> >>> The difference is that string theory is out there on the fringe of >>> established physics. > >> Beyond the fringe, IMAO. None make testable predictions. > > I agree, but I would mind a teacher saying that. That isn't > a good teaching technique. If string theory came up it is a > good place to explain the difference between a good idea still > lacking in experimental evidence and well-tested notions such > as relativity. > > That doesn't make relativity the final theory or string theory > impossible. But it explains where they stand. > > If creationism came up it would be incumbent on the teacher to > explain that creationism is a belief system that neither needs > nor has any experimental confirmation. As such, it isn't science > and need not be considered in a science class. You see no similarties believing in evolution as compared to believing creationism? I see plenty. Both need faith to believe. === Subject: Re: Biologist sacked for questioning evolution. (For Chris) >You see no similarties believing in evolution as compared to believing >creationism? > >I see plenty. > >Both need faith to believe. There's another similarity: Both have evidence supporting them (except for creationism). Alan -- Defendit numerus === Subject: Re: Biologist sacked for questioning evolution. (For Chris) > > >>> But I wouldn't mind a physics professor telling his students that he > >>> doesn't believe that string theory is even a scientific theory. > > >>> The difference is that string theory is out there on the fringe of > >>> established physics. > > >> Beyond the fringe, IMAO. None make testable predictions. > > > I agree, but I would mind a teacher saying that. ÊThat \ isn't > > a good teaching technique. ÊIf string theory came up it is \ a > > good place to explain the difference between a good idea still > > lacking in experimental evidence and well-tested notions such > > as relativity. > > > That doesn't make relativity the final theory or string theory > > impossible. ÊBut it explains where they stand. > > > If creationism came up it would be incumbent on the teacher to > > explain that creationism is a belief system that neither needs > > nor has any experimental confirmation. ÊAs such, it isn't \ science > > and need not be considered in a science class. > > You see no similarties believing in evolution as compared to believing > creationism? Correct. > > I see plenty. Well, no, you lack the perception to see what is involved in science, even though we ahve explained it numerous times. Perhaps because when we do, you close your eyes and cover your ears singing \Lalalala! Can't hear you!\ Well, once more, for the lurkers: A scientific theory fits *all facts. It makes predictions, which makes it testable and falsifiable (if the predictions do *not come true, it is falsified, or at least challenged, depending on how profound the conflict). If it is confirmed that it is falsified, it must be modified or discarded. A theory is true if it meets these conditions. While it is conceivable that there is a reality \out there\ which is contrary to the theory, until the evidence for it shows up, it doesn't mean anything. It is possible to have two or more conflicting but true theories. Obviously they can't both be right, but if they fit the facts, they are true as anything can be until more data is accumulated. Scientific methodology assumes that humans are fallible, and facts have to be verified, both in principle and in fact. Anyone can do science, altho practically speaking one isn't likely to get very far without education (or you'd just be reinventing the wheel) and resources (some science is still with minimal tools). A scientist can have any religion, or none at all. Just as a carpenter doesn't require, no ri hindered by, religion, neither is science, with the exception of those sects which require certain beliefs about the universe which are demonstrably false, or contrary to verifiable evidence (what else could false mean?). > > Both need faith to believe. Science only needs the working assumption that the universe is not one big illusion, and is causal in nature (at least largely so). Creationism requires denying reality. A Creationist believes that he is infallible. He thinks that his interpretation of his holy books is more reliable than looking at the world under his feet - which, ironically enough, he thinks was made by his god(s). Kermit === Subject: Re: Biologist sacked for questioning evolution. (For Chris) In message , \[M]adman\ >> >>>> But I wouldn't mind a physics professor telling his students that he >>>> doesn't believe that string theory is even a scientific theory. >>>> >>>> The difference is that string theory is out there on the fringe of >>>> established physics. >> >>> Beyond the fringe, IMAO. None make testable predictions. >> >> I agree, but I would mind a teacher saying that. That isn't >> a good teaching technique. If string theory came up it is a >> good place to explain the difference between a good idea still >> lacking in experimental evidence and well-tested notions such >> as relativity. >> >> That doesn't make relativity the final theory or string theory >> impossible. But it explains where they stand. >> >> If creationism came up it would be incumbent on the teacher to >> explain that creationism is a belief system that neither needs >> nor has any experimental confirmation. As such, it isn't science >> and need not be considered in a science class. > >You see no similarties believing in evolution as compared to believing >creationism? > >I see plenty. > >Both need faith to believe. > > Many of us see a difference between faith that evidence means something and faith that evidence doesn't mean anything. -- alias Ernest Major === Subject: Re: Biologist sacked for questioning evolution. (For Chris) >> >>>> But I wouldn't mind a physics professor telling his students that he >>>> doesn't believe that string theory is even a scientific theory. >>>> >>>> The difference is that string theory is out there on the fringe of >>>> established physics. >> >>> Beyond the fringe, IMAO. None make testable predictions. >> >> I agree, but I would mind a teacher saying that. That isn't >> a good teaching technique. If string theory came up it is a >> good place to explain the difference between a good idea still >> lacking in experimental evidence and well-tested notions such >> as relativity. >> >> That doesn't make relativity the final theory or string theory >> impossible. But it explains where they stand. >> >> If creationism came up it would be incumbent on the teacher to >> explain that creationism is a belief system that neither needs >> nor has any experimental confirmation. As such, it isn't science >> and need not be considered in a science class. > >You see no similarties believing in evolution as compared to believing >creationism? > >I see plenty. But you are a well known idiot. > >Both need faith to believe. > No faith involved in evolution. Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:- That 3.5% actually means 25%... That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist... That \Dr.\ Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries... That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited some facet of some religion... To have a \higher education\ than most posters to this news group... To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of rock... That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me laugh] And that he has \created genes\ and not evolved ape genes... That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah and his sons rebuilt mankind. Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to? Certainly I don't. -- Bob. === Subject: Re: Biologist sacked for questioning evolution. (For Chris) > > >>> But I wouldn't mind a physics professor telling his students that he > >>> doesn't believe that string theory is even a scientific theory. > > >>> The difference is that string theory is out there on the fringe of > >>> established physics. > > >> Beyond the fringe, IMAO. None make testable predictions. > > > I agree, but I would mind a teacher saying that. ÊThat \ isn't > > a good teaching technique. ÊIf string theory came up it is \ a > > good place to explain the difference between a good idea still > > lacking in experimental evidence and well-tested notions such > > as relativity. > > > That doesn't make relativity the final theory or string theory > > impossible. ÊBut it explains where they stand. > > > If creationism came up it would be incumbent on the teacher to > > explain that creationism is a belief system that neither needs > > nor has any experimental confirmation. ÊAs such, it isn't \ science > > and need not be considered in a science class. > > You see no similarties believing in evolution as compared to believing > creationism? > > I see plenty. > > Both need faith to believe. I see you are still ignoring all the scientific evidence that supports evolutionary theory and are unable to come up a single scrap of scientific evidence that supports creationism. In case you have forgotten, creationism has been ruled by the US courts as a religious belief, I refer you back to the case of Farnan vs. Corbett, which found the teacher in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. === Subject: Re: Biologist sacked for questioning evolution. (For Chris) >> >>>>> But I wouldn't mind a physics professor telling his students that >>>>> he doesn't believe that string theory is even a scientific theory. >> >>>>> The difference is that string theory is out there on the fringe of >>>>> established physics. >> >>>> Beyond the fringe, IMAO. None make testable predictions. >> >>> I agree, but I would mind a teacher saying that. That isn't >>> a good teaching technique. If string theory came up it is a >>> good place to explain the difference between a good idea still >>> lacking in experimental evidence and well-tested notions such >>> as relativity. >> >>> That doesn't make relativity the final theory or string theory >>> impossible. But it explains where they stand. >> >>> If creationism came up it would be incumbent on the teacher to >>> explain that creationism is a belief system that neither needs >>> nor has any experimental confirmation. As such, it isn't science >>> and need not be considered in a science class. >> >> You see no similarties believing in evolution as compared to >> believing creationism? >> >> I see plenty. >> >> Both need faith to believe. > > I see you are still ignoring all the scientific evidence that supports > evolutionary theory and are unable to come up a single scrap of > scientific evidence that supports creationism. > > In case you have forgotten, creationism has been ruled by the US > courts as a religious belief, I refer you back to the case of Farnan > vs. Corbett, which found the teacher in violation of the Establishment > Clause of the First Amendment. It takes just as much faith to believe fish became man. === Subject: Re: Biologist sacked for questioning evolution. (For Chris) > Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:- > > That 3.5% You never learn do you? You are hated on these newsgroups, not least because of your \repetetive/grinding/brain-numbing/childlike/pathetic\ taunts. People here want real discussion, not some retarded repeating bot they can download. === Subject: Re: Spincronic lying again. > >> Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:- >> >> That 3.5% > >You never learn do you? > >You are hated on these newsgroups, not least because of >your \repetetive/grinding/brain-numbing/childlike/pathetic\ >taunts. > >People here want real discussion, not some retarded repeating >bot they can download. ** SHUNNED for repeated lying, stupidity and trolling. ** -- Bob. === Subject: Re: Biologist sacked for questioning evolution. (For Chris) > >> Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:- >> >> That 3.5% > > You never learn do you? > > You are hated on these newsgroups, not least because of > your \repetetive/grinding/brain-numbing/childlike/pathetic\ > taunts. Which is worse, people who repeatedly post stuff that's nonsense (usually refusing to acknowledge when it's shown to be nonsense) or people who make a note of such nonsense and repeatedly point it out? > People here want real discussion, not some retarded repeating > bot they can download. When are you going to start real discussion? === Subject: Re: *KILL* *FILE* *LIST* FOR 5/15 TO 6/15 [excerpts only to save space:] > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The following people have shown *no* interest >>>>>>>>> in the discussion of 'Origins or the related >>>>>>>>> topics that are related to 'Origins' >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Therefore it is recommended they be added >>>>>>>>> to your kill file list in order to focus on >>>>>>>>> those that want to discuss 'origins' >>>>>>>> I'm insulted. I'm not on the list. >>>>>>> Me too! >>>>>> I think he was too scared of us to put us on the list. >>>>> Oh Puleezzeee... >>>> Well, you certainly don't answer any questions put to you. >>> No WONDER everyone thinks you are a k00k. >> The kookery is all yours. > Hey, wait a minute! How come Madman is responding to my posts > when I'm on his killfile list? > --- Paul J. Gans Indeed. It's quite a let down to think that you have been exalted by a killfile list to the high echelons of celestial Plonk-dom, only to find out that you are still down here in the mundane ranks of the undead. Read the relevant excerpts above again. The original message \recommended they be added to -your- kill file list\. Of course you're not on that author's kill list. People post off topic killfile list messages to see people's responses and reactions! (Hook, line and sinker! :) PopQuiz: What are the \origins\ of killfile lists? --Richard === Subject: Re: *KILL* *FILE* *LIST* FOR 5/15 TO 6/15 >[excerpts only to save space:] >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The following people have shown *no* interest >>>>>>>>>> in the discussion of 'Origins or the related >>>>>>>>>> topics that are related to 'Origins' >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Therefore it is recommended they be added >>>>>>>>>> to your kill file list in order to focus on >>>>>>>>>> those that want to discuss 'origins' >>>>>>>>> I'm insulted. I'm not on the list. >>>>>>>> Me too! >>>>>>> I think he was too scared of us to put us on the list. >>>>>> Oh Puleezzeee... >>>>> Well, you certainly don't answer any questions put to you. >>>> No WONDER everyone thinks you are a k00k. >>> The kookery is all yours. >> Hey, wait a minute! How come Madman is responding to my posts >> when I'm on his killfile list? >> --- Paul J. Gans >Indeed. It's quite a let down to think that you have been exalted by a >killfile list to the high echelons of celestial Plonk-dom, only to find \ out >that you are still down here in the mundane ranks of the undead. >Read the relevant excerpts above again. The original message \recommended >they be added to -your- kill file list\. Of course you're not on that >author's kill list. People post off topic killfile list messages to see >people's responses and reactions! >(Hook, line and sinker! :) I tried killfiling myself, but it doesn't work very well. Somehow I know what I posted even without reading it. -- --- Paul J. Gans === Subject: Re: *KILL* *FILE* *LIST* FOR 5/15 TO 6/15 > >[excerpts only to save space:] > > > >>>>>>>>>> The following people have shown *no* interest > >>>>>>>>>> Ê Êin the discussion of 'Origins or \ the related > >>>>>>>>>> Ê Ê Ê Ê \ topics that are related to 'Origins' > > >>>>>>>>>> Therefore it is recommended they be added > >>>>>>>>>> Ê Ê to your kill file list in order \ to focus on > >>>>>>>>>> Ê Ê Ê \ Êthose that want to discuss 'origins' > >>>>>>>>> I'm insulted. I'm not on the list. > >>>>>>>> Me too! > >>>>>>> I think he was too scared of us to put us on the list. > >>>>>> Oh Puleezzeee... > >>>>> Well, you certainly don't answer any questions put to you. > >>>> No WONDER everyone thinks you are a k00k. > >>> The kookery is all yours. > >> Hey, wait a minute! ÊHow come Madman is responding to my \ posts > >> when I'm on his killfile list? > >> Ê --- Paul J.Gans > >Indeed. It's quite a let down to think that you have been exalted by a > >killfile list to the high echelons of celestial Plonk-dom, only to find \ out > >that you are still down here in the mundane ranks of the undead. > >Read the relevant excerpts above again. The original message \ \recommended > >they be added to -your- kill file list\. Of course you're not on that > >author's kill list. People post off topic killfile list messages to see > >people's responses and reactions! > >(Hook, line and sinker! :) > > I tried killfiling myself, but it doesn't work very well. > Somehow I know what I posted even without reading it. Do you remember that Twilight Zone episode - Damn! I forget who starred in it... Wait: E.G. Marshal - anyway, it was about this mad math professor. A complete misanthrope, he boarded himself up in his office and refused to respond to the frantic knocking. Just like office hours - yet at /all times of day/! No one saw him, no one spoke to him, he never answered the phone, he never showed up at classes he was supposed to teach; he severed all contact with his fellow humans... And yet somehow papers continued to to be published in his name... . After several years departmental faculty took notice. Assigning a committee, they quietly polled all mathematicians his field, determining that no one could be submitting the papers in his stead. \Oh, yeah\, added the guy at the math journal, \look, his papers have always been in longhand. We checked early on; distinctive, they're all in his.\ Finally, on a close vote, they determined to have the door to his office broken down. After some delay for parliamentary reconsiderations and sabbaticals, they rounded up graduate assistants and ordered them to shoulder up. Bursting in, there he was, writing on the blackboard, in perfect health. \We thought you were dead!\ the faculty cried. \No,\ he answered, attending to his chalk, \just tenured.\ Everyone shrugged, and left. I don't know what reminded me of this. Mitchell === Subject: Re: *KILL* *FILE* *LIST* FOR 5/15 TO 6/15 >> [excerpts only to save space:] > >>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The following people have shown *no* interest >>>>>>>>>>> in the discussion of 'Origins or the related >>>>>>>>>>> topics that are related to 'Origins' >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Therefore it is recommended they be added >>>>>>>>>>> to your kill file list in order to focus on >>>>>>>>>>> those that want to discuss 'origins' > >>>>>>>>>> I'm insulted. I'm not on the list. > >>>>>>>>> Me too! > >>>>>>>> I think he was too scared of us to put us on the list. > >>>>>>> Oh Puleezzeee... > >>>>>> Well, you certainly don't answer any questions put to you. > >>>>> No WONDER everyone thinks you are a k00k. > >>>> The kookery is all yours. > >>> Hey, wait a minute! How come Madman is responding to my posts >>> when I'm on his killfile list? >>> --- Paul J. Gans > >> Indeed. It's quite a let down to think that you have been exalted by >> a killfile list to the high echelons of celestial Plonk-dom, only to >> find out that you are still down here in the mundane ranks of the >> undead. > >> Read the relevant excerpts above again. The original message >> \recommended they be added to -your- kill file list\. Of course >> you're not on that author's kill list. People post off topic >> killfile list messages to see people's responses and reactions! > >> (Hook, line and sinker! :) > > I tried killfiling myself, but it doesn't work very well. > Somehow I know what I posted even without reading it. What happens in Vegas ....Stays in Vegas. === Subject: Re: *KILL* *FILE* *LIST* FOR 5/15 TO 6/15 ... > > I tried killfiling myself, but it doesn't work very well. > Somehow I know what I posted even without reading it. That is rather unusual, you know... === Subject: Re: *KILL* *FILE* *LIST* FOR 5/15 TO 6/15 > > ... > > > > > I tried killfiling myself, but it doesn't work very well. > > > > Somehow I know what I posted even without reading it. > > That is rather unusual, you know... I never know what I post; saves time. I do get reports, wild assertions about think I supposedly posted; people tell me things; I don't believe them. Comes I suppose from my years in Intelligence. It's a habit of mind one acquires in case one is detained by the enemy (Slavic fellows, as I recall; damned if I can remember their name). If I never know what I know, all's left to concentrate on is forgetting when you knew it. This last in fact becomes rather besides the point. I always wore one of those watches with the psuedo-random display, just in case. We talked in code words all the time: \bio-weapon,\ for instance, meant the tank truck was empty; the term for an empty shed was \fissionable material.\ Don't know if they still use those words; can't imagine they do; don't follow that much any more. Mitchell === Subject: Re: *KILL* *FILE* *LIST* FOR 5/15 TO 6/15 > > ... > > > > I tried killfiling myself, but it doesn't work very well. > > Somehow I know what I posted even without reading it. > > That is rather unusual, you know... He should apply for Randi's one million dollar bet... -- John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney http://evolvethink.wordpress.com/ But al be that he was a philosophre, Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre === ÒDid You Know That At Least 95% Of Income Opportunities Are Actually http://www.goprofitz.com/ You Are about to see A Real & Proven System, That will Have YOU Earning $200.00+ Daily Does That Sound At All Interesting To YOU?Ó http://www.goprofitz.com/ rgds === >ãDid You Know That At Least 95% >Of Income Opportunities Are Actually Including this one. > >http://www.goprofitz.com/ > >You Are about to see A Real & Proven System, >That will Have YOU Earning $200.00+ Daily >Does That Sound At All Interesting To YOU?ä > >http://www.goprofitz.com/ > >rgds === > ÒDid You Know That At Least 95% > Of Income Opportunities Are Actually > > http://www.goprofitz.com/ > > You Are about to see A Real & Proven System, > That will Have YOU Earning $200.00+ Daily > Does That Sound At All Interesting To YOU?Ó > > http://www.goprofitz.com/ > > rgds Interesting that you should warn us that there is a 95% chance that === > ãDid You Know That At Least 95% > Of Income Opportunities Are Actually in this newsgroup are scams. Including this one. > > http://www.goprofitz.com/ > > You Are about to see A Real & Proven System, > That will Have YOU Earning $200.00+ Daily > Does That Sound At All Interesting To YOU?ä > > http://www.goprofitz.com/ > > rgds > > -- Dick #1349 \They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.\ ~Benjamin Franklin Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com email: dickcr@gmail.com === Subject: Yes. They all fit All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. \ The average size of all animals, is the size of a sheep, some say a small \ rodent. One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would mean that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. The arks total capacity was 569 stock cars. The 40,000 animals would require less than 30% \ of the ark's space. In other words all the animals could fit on one of the ark's three decks. This would leave the other 70% of the ark's space for Noah's family, food, supplies, and baggage. Many biologists state that the average size of most vertebrates is the size \ of a sheep. Other sources state that the average size is about the size of a \ small rabbit. Since there is some doubt as to what is the average size of the animals that were brought into the ark, and this paper is a conservative \ analysis of the carrying capacity of the ark, we will use the larger sheep average.We will also base our calculation on four different occupancy estimates. The first is my own conservative estimate of 40,000. The second is the estimate of Whitcomb at 35,000. The final two figures of 16,000 and 2,000 are based on the work of Woodmorappe. The 16,000 figure is based on the biblical kind being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of genus. The second figure of 2,000 is based on the biblical kind being equivalent to the \ taxonomic rank of family. \ http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit > > All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. > > > \ The average size of all animals, is the size of a sheep, some say a > > small rodent. Ê... > > By Woodmorappe's calculations, the average size is substantially larger > than a sheep, about the size of a large yak, IIRC. > > But then, if you include enough really small animals, you can get the > average size down to a flea. ÊBut then again, the average \ size doesn't > matter; it's the *total* size, including all animals together, that > matters. ÊWho but a creationist would think that you could \ make more room > on the Ark by putting a million more animals on it. > > > ... One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. > > Next look at how long those sheep can live in those stock cars. And scale-wise, with only one opening, about a inch or two square, for ventilation. Boikat === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit > All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. > > \ The average size of all animals, is the size of a sheep, some say a \ small > rodent. One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would mean > that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. The arks total > capacity was 569 stock cars. The 40,000 animals would require less than \ 30% > of the ark's space. In other words all the animals could fit on one of \ the > ark's three decks. This would leave the other 70% of the ark's space for > Noah's family, food, supplies, and baggage. > > Many biologists state that the average size of most vertebrates is the \ size > of a sheep. Other sources state that the average size is about the size of \ a > small rabbit. Since there is some doubt as to what is the average size of > the animals that were brought into the ark, and this paper is a \ conservative > analysis of the carrying capacity of the ark, we will use the larger \ sheep > average.We will also base our calculation on four different occupancy > estimates. The first is my own conservative estimate of 40,000. The \ second > is the estimate of Whitcomb at 35,000. The final two figures of 16,000 \ and > 2,000 are based on the work of Woodmorappe. The 16,000 figure is based on > the biblical kind being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of genus. The > second figure of 2,000 is based on the biblical kind being equivalent to \ the > taxonomic rank of family. \ > > http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html Why do you want to look like someone so stupid he doesn't know what an average is? === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit > All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. > > \ The average size of all animals, is the size of a sheep, some say a \ small > rodent. One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would mean > that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. The arks total > capacity was 569 stock cars. The 40,000 animals would require less than \ 30% > of the ark's space. In other words all the animals could fit on one of \ the > ark's three decks. This would leave the other 70% of the ark's space for > Noah's family, food, supplies, and baggage. > > Many biologists state that the average size of most vertebrates is the \ size > of a sheep. Other sources state that the average size is about the size of \ a > small rabbit. Since there is some doubt as to what is the average size of > the animals that were brought into the ark, and this paper is a \ conservative > analysis of the carrying capacity of the ark, we will use the larger \ sheep > average.We will also base our calculation on four different occupancy > estimates. The first is my own conservative estimate of 40,000. The \ second > is the estimate of Whitcomb at 35,000. The final two figures of 16,000 \ and > 2,000 are based on the work of Woodmorappe. The 16,000 figure is based on > the biblical kind being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of genus. The > second figure of 2,000 is based on the biblical kind being equivalent to \ the > taxonomic rank of family. \ > > http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html When they are done with that, they can calculate if Talos was made of 80/20 or 90/10 bronze. Eric Root === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit > All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. > > \ The average size of all animals, is the size of a sheep, some say a > small rodent. One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would \ > mean that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. The arks > total capacity was 569 stock cars. The 40,000 animals would require less > than 30% of the ark's space. In other words all the animals could fit on > one of the ark's three decks. This would leave the other 70% of the ark's \ > space for Noah's family, food, supplies, and baggage. > > Many biologists state that the average size of most vertebrates is the > size of a sheep. Other sources state that the average size is about the > size of a small rabbit. Since there is some doubt as to what is the > average size of the animals that were brought into the ark, and this paper \ > is a conservative analysis of the carrying capacity of the ark, we will > use the larger sheep average.We will also base our calculation on four > different occupancy estimates. The first is my own conservative estimate > of 40,000. The second is the estimate of Whitcomb at 35,000. The final two \ > figures of 16,000 and 2,000 are based on the work of Woodmorappe. The > 16,000 figure is based on the biblical kind being equivalent to the > taxonomic rank of genus. The second figure of 2,000 is based on the > biblical kind being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of family. \ > > http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html Do you have VALID cite for any of the claims you've made? Of course you don't. === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit > All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. > > \ The average size of all animals, is the size of a sheep, some say a \ small > rodent. One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would mean > that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. The arks total > capacity was 569 stock cars. The 40,000 animals would require less than \ 30% > of the ark's space. In other words all the animals could fit on one of \ the > ark's three decks. This would leave the other 70% of the ark's space for > Noah's family, food, supplies, and baggage. > > Many biologists state that the average size of most vertebrates is the \ size > of a sheep. Other sources state that the average size is about the size of \ a > small rabbit. Since there is some doubt as to what is the average size of > the animals that were brought into the ark, and this paper is a \ conservative > analysis of the carrying capacity of the ark, we will use the larger \ sheep > average.We will also base our calculation on four different occupancy > estimates. The first is my own conservative estimate of 40,000. The \ second > is the estimate of Whitcomb at 35,000. The final two figures of 16,000 \ and > 2,000 are based on the work of Woodmorappe. The 16,000 figure is based on > the biblical kind being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of genus. The > second figure of 2,000 is based on the biblical kind being equivalent to \ the > taxonomic rank of family. \ > > http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html No single beam of wood could provide the keel for a 450 foot long boat. No wooden boat approaching 2/3 that size has survived the ocean. They leak and break apart. Creationist accounts for stuffing the animals in the boat are laughably underestimating (or lying) the volume of animals, the volume of food needed, the animals waste produced, and the size needed for cages, aisles, etc. How could the food be kept fresh enough for the animals? How was the water stored, and delivered? How did the animals get to Noah? How did they return - perhaps the koalas swam, or made a raft of eucalyptus trees. what did the lions eat while the zebras were repopulating? If you think, as some Creationists do, that this was before Gondwanaland broke up, know that the continents sailing thru the crust at speeds sufficient to get to where they are now would produce heat enough to melt the rock and cause tremendous earthquakes, which curiously were not mentioned in the ancient texts. Also, the age of fossils after the continental breakup show them diversifying after it started (the species were isolated), and these were currently extinct species. I have killed several houseplants or garden plants overs the years. I wonder what a year under salt water would do? Probably turn it all into greenish black sludge. Which means the herbivores wouldn't have anything to eat. And most of these plants would not be able to reproduce, after soaking their seeds in salt water. The genetic diversity shown by living organisms is *far greater than what biologists know is possible, if they all went thru a bottleneck of two (or is it 14?) individuals just a few thousand years ago. Not to mention the idea that most of the species are only a few thousand years old - Creationist attempts to reduce the load on the ark typically boil down to claiming \all cats come from the one pair on the ark - they're all the cat kind\. Etc. There was nowhere the water could have come from, nor anywhere the water could have gone. Geological evidence refutes the claims of a global flood. For instance, strata of sedimentary rock showing worm tracks, small animal tracks, etc, laid down over and over for many tens or hundreds of meters in depth. This could not have been laid down in a mere 10,000 years, nor all at once in a flood. Any one of these could have been fixed by an omnipotent being, but then one has to ask: \Why would a god kill almost all life, then hide the evidence for this with dozens of major, but unmentioned, miracles?\ === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit > > > > > Any one of these could have been fixed by an omnipotent being, but > > then one has to ask: > > \Why would a god kill almost all life, then hide the evidence for this > > with dozens of major, but unmentioned, miracles?\- > > Or, why did he not simply \speak\ the evil and corrupt out if > existence? Quicker, cleaner, and equally as believable. > > Boikat I was thinking that an engineered virus - excuse me, a plague - would have done the job in under a year with considerably less cleanup. If the idea was to impress everybody, why the secret and miraculous covering of tracks? Sounds more like a child's tantrum, who then cleans up before Mommy sees the mess he made.unitchin Kermit === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit >> >> >> >>> Any one of these could have been fixed by an omnipotent being, but >>> then one has to ask: >>> \Why would a god kill almost all life, then hide the evidence for >>> this with dozens of major, but unmentioned, miracles?\- >> >> Or, why did he not simply \speak\ the evil and corrupt out if >> existence? Quicker, cleaner, and equally as believable. >> >> Boikat > > I was thinking that an engineered virus - excuse me, a plague - would > have done the job in under a year with considerably less cleanup. If > the idea was to impress everybody, why the secret and miraculous > covering of tracks? Sounds more like a child's tantrum, who then > cleans up before Mommy sees the mess he made.unitchin > > Kermit You k0oks already /know/ that the universe has laws it operates by. Change the laws, you change the universe. God did rather nicely destroying the evil that needed to be destroyed while \ insuring life on this planet would come back and thrive; all the while staying with in the natural laws that HE put into place. === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit > > >> > > >>> Any one of these could have been fixed by an omnipotent being, but > >>> then one has to ask: > >>> \Why would a god kill almost all life, then hide the evidence for > >>> this with dozens of major, but unmentioned, miracles?\- > > >> Or, why did he not simply \speak\ the evil and corrupt out if > >> existence? Quicker, cleaner, and equally as believable. > > >> Boikat > > > I was thinking that an engineered virus - excuse me, a plague - would > > have done the job in under a year with considerably less cleanup. If > > the idea was to impress everybody, why the secret and miraculous > > covering of tracks? Sounds more like a child's tantrum, who then > > cleans up before Mommy sees the mess he made.unitchin > > > Kermit > > You k0oks already /know/ that the universe has laws it operates by. \ Change > the laws, you change the universe. > > God did rather nicely destroying the evil that needed to be destroyed \ while > insuring life on this planet would come back and thrive; If he coupd \speak\ the universe into existence, he could just as easily \spoke\ away the evil and currupted. > all the while > staying with in the natural laws that HE put into place Then how come you rely on \Goddidit\ miracles to explain away the multitudes of problems with ye olde arke story? BTY, your book of Josher is more screwed up than the bible. Boikat === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit > >> > >> > >> > >>> Any one of these could have been fixed by an omnipotent being, but > >>> then one has to ask: > >>> \Why would a god kill almost all life, then hide the evidence for > >>> this with dozens of major, but unmentioned, miracles?\- > >> > >> Or, why did he not simply \speak\ the evil and corrupt out if > >> existence? Quicker, cleaner, and equally as believable. > >> > >> Boikat > > > > I was thinking that an engineered virus - excuse me, a plague - would > > have done the job in under a year with considerably less cleanup. If > > the idea was to impress everybody, why the secret and miraculous > > covering of tracks? Sounds more like a child's tantrum, who then > > cleans up before Mommy sees the mess he made.unitchin > > > > Kermit > > You k0oks already /know/ that the universe has laws it operates by. \ Change > the laws, you change the universe. > > God did rather nicely destroying the evil that needed to be destroyed \ while > insuring life on this planet would come back and thrive; all the while > staying with in the natural laws that HE put into place. Huh. Yeah, nothing evil happens after the flood, except for upright Noah getting drunk and condemning a third - or two thirds, I forget - of the world population to slavery to the rest. And the Tower of Babel. And pharaohs being jerks. And hamburgers. === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit >>> >>> >>> >>>> Any one of these could have been fixed by an omnipotent being, but >>>> then one has to ask: >>>> \Why would a god kill almost all life, then hide the evidence for >>>> this with dozens of major, but unmentioned, miracles?\- >>> >>> Or, why did he not simply \speak\ the evil and corrupt out if >>> existence? Quicker, cleaner, and equally as believable. >>> >>> Boikat >> >> I was thinking that an engineered virus - excuse me, a plague - would >> have done the job in under a year with considerably less cleanup. If >> the idea was to impress everybody, why the secret and miraculous >> covering of tracks? Sounds more like a child's tantrum, who then >> cleans up before Mommy sees the mess he made.unitchin >> >> Kermit > >You k0oks already /know/ that the universe has laws it operates by. Change \ >the laws, you change the universe. > >God did rather nicely destroying the evil that needed to be destroyed while \ >insuring life on this planet would come back and thrive; all the while >staying with in the natural laws that HE put into place. I guess you discount the miracles mentioned in the Bible. I mean, God has to stay within natural law, right? === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit > >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Any one of these could have been fixed by an omnipotent being, but >>>>> then one has to ask: >>>>> \Why would a god kill almost all life, then hide the evidence for >>>>> this with dozens of major, but unmentioned, miracles?\- >>>> >>>> Or, why did he not simply \speak\ the evil and corrupt out if >>>> existence? Quicker, cleaner, and equally as believable. >>>> >>>> Boikat >>> >>> I was thinking that an engineered virus - excuse me, a plague - >>> would have done the job in under a year with considerably less >>> cleanup. If the idea was to impress everybody, why the secret and >>> miraculous covering of tracks? Sounds more like a child's tantrum, >>> who then cleans up before Mommy sees the mess he made.unitchin >>> >>> Kermit >> >> You k0oks already /know/ that the universe has laws it operates by. >> Change the laws, you change the universe. >> >> God did rather nicely destroying the evil that needed to be >> destroyed while insuring life on this planet would come back and >> thrive; all the while staying with in the natural laws that HE put >> into place. > > I guess you discount the miracles mentioned in the Bible. I mean, God > has to stay within natural law, right? Angels can bend natural laws as well. But they do not break them. === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit >> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Any one of these could have been fixed by an omnipotent being, but >>>>>> then one has to ask: >>>>>> \Why would a god kill almost all life, then hide the evidence for >>>>>> this with dozens of major, but unmentioned, miracles?\- >>>>> >>>>> Or, why did he not simply \speak\ the evil and corrupt out if >>>>> existence? Quicker, cleaner, and equally as believable. >>>>> >>>>> Boikat >>>> >>>> I was thinking that an engineered virus - excuse me, a plague - >>>> would have done the job in under a year with considerably less >>>> cleanup. If the idea was to impress everybody, why the secret and >>>> miraculous covering of tracks? Sounds more like a child's tantrum, >>>> who then cleans up before Mommy sees the mess he made.unitchin >>>> >>>> Kermit >>> >>> You k0oks already /know/ that the universe has laws it operates by. >>> Change the laws, you change the universe. >>> >>> God did rather nicely destroying the evil that needed to be >>> destroyed while insuring life on this planet would come back and >>> thrive; all the while staying with in the natural laws that HE put >>> into place. >> >> I guess you discount the miracles mentioned in the Bible. I mean, God >> has to stay within natural law, right? > >Angels can bend natural laws as well. > >But they do not break them. In other words, *anyone* can walk on water, because that doesn't break natural law. And if water's about, we never have to worry about running out of wine again. === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit in >> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Any one of these could have been fixed by an omnipotent being, but >>>>>> then one has to ask: >>>>>> \Why would a god kill almost all life, then hide the evidence for >>>>>> this with dozens of major, but unmentioned, miracles?\- >>>>> >>>>> Or, why did he not simply \speak\ the evil and corrupt out if >>>>> existence? Quicker, cleaner, and equally as believable. >>>>> >>>>> Boikat >>>> >>>> I was thinking that an engineered virus - excuse me, a plague - >>>> would have done the job in under a year with considerably less >>>> cleanup. If the idea was to impress everybody, why the secret and >>>> miraculous covering of tracks? Sounds more like a child's tantrum, >>>> who then cleans up before Mommy sees the mess he made.unitchin >>>> >>>> Kermit >>> >>> You k0oks already /know/ that the universe has laws it operates by. >>> Change the laws, you change the universe. >>> >>> God did rather nicely destroying the evil that needed to be >>> destroyed while insuring life on this planet would come back and >>> thrive; all the while staying with in the natural laws that HE put >>> into place. >> >> I guess you discount the miracles mentioned in the Bible. I mean, God >> has to stay within natural law, right? > >Angels can bend natural laws as well. > >But they do not break them. > Natural things are those that act because of what they are, because of the nature of the thing. Rocks fall because it is of the nature of mass to attract mass. God acts by his will, and so is not a natural object. Do angels have will? Do they have a soul? If so, can angels sin? -- Matt Silberstein Do something today about the Darfur Genocide http://www.beawitness.org http://www.darfurgenocide.org http://www.savedarfur.org \Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop\ === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit On May 27, 12:57Êam, Matt Silberstein > in > > > > > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> Any one of these could have been fixed by an omnipotent being, but > >>>>>> then one has to ask: > >>>>>> \Why would a god kill almost all life, then hide the evidence for > >>>>>> this with dozens of major, but unmentioned, miracles?\- > > >>>>> Or, why did he not simply \speak\ the evil and corrupt out if > >>>>> existence? Quicker, cleaner, and equally as believable. > > >>>>> Boikat > > >>>> I was thinking that an engineered virus - excuse me, a plague - > >>>> would have done the job in under a year with considerably less > >>>> cleanup. If the idea was to impress everybody, why the secret and > >>>> miraculous covering of tracks? Sounds more like a child's tantrum, > >>>> who then cleans up before Mommy sees the mess he made.unitchin > > >>>> Kermit > > >>> You k0oks already /know/ that the universe has laws it operates by. > >>> Change the laws, you change the universe. > > >>> God did rather nicely destroying the evil that needed to be > >>> destroyed while insuring life on this planet would come back and > >>> thrive; all the while staying with in the natural laws that HE put > >>> into place. > > >> I guess you discount the miracles mentioned in the Bible. I mean, God > >> has to stay within natural law, right? > > >Angels can bend natural laws as well. > > >But they do not break them. > > Natural things are those that act because of what they are, because of > the nature of the thing. Rocks fall because it is of the nature of > mass to attract mass. God acts by his will, and so is not a natural > object. Do angels have will? Do they have a soul? If so, can angels > sin? You're from New York. Did you ever get down to Time Square in the old days? Mitchell === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> Any one of these could have been fixed by an omnipotent being, \ but > > >>>>> then one has to ask: > > >>>>> \Why would a god kill almost all life, then hide the evidence \ for > > >>>>> this with dozens of major, but unmentioned, miracles?\- > > > > >>>> Or, why did he not simply \speak\ the evil and corrupt out if > > >>>> existence? Quicker, cleaner, and equally as believable. > > > > >>>> Boikat > > > > >>> I was thinking that an engineered virus - excuse me, a plague - > > >>> would have done the job in under a year with considerably less > > >>> cleanup. If the idea was to impress everybody, why the secret and > > >>> miraculous covering of tracks? Sounds more like a child's tantrum, > > >>> who then cleans up before Mommy sees the mess he made.unitchin > > > > >>> Kermit > > > > >> You k0oks already /know/ that the universe has laws it operates by. > > >> Change the laws, you change the universe. > > > > >> God did rather nicely destroying the evil that needed to be > > >> destroyed while insuring life on this planet would come back and > > >> thrive; all the while staying with in the natural laws that HE put > > >> into place. > > > > > I guess you discount the miracles mentioned in the Bible. I mean, God > > > has to stay within natural law, right? > > > > Angels can bend natural laws as well. > > > > But they do not break them > > Bending is breaking. > Anyway they want it. As long as they love us, it's all right. -- John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney http://evolvethink.wordpress.com/ But al be that he was a philosophre, Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit >> All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. >> >> \ The average size of all animals, is the size of a sheep, some say >> a small rodent. One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. >> This would mean that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad >> cars. The arks total capacity was 569 stock cars. The 40,000 animals >> would require less than 30% of the ark's space. In other words all >> the animals could fit on one of the ark's three decks. This would >> leave the other 70% of the ark's space for Noah's family, food, >> supplies, and baggage. >> >> Many biologists state that the average size of most vertebrates is >> the size of a sheep. Other sources state that the average size is >> about the size of a small rabbit. Since there is some doubt as to >> what is the average size of the animals that were brought into the >> ark, and this paper is a conservative analysis of the carrying >> capacity of the ark, we will use the larger sheep average.We will >> also base our calculation on four different occupancy estimates. The >> first is my own conservative estimate of 40,000. The second is the >> estimate of Whitcomb at 35,000. The final two figures of 16,000 and >> 2,000 are based on the work of Woodmorappe. The 16,000 figure is >> based on the biblical kind being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of >> genus. The second figure of 2,000 is based on the biblical kind >> being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of family. \ >> >> http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html > > No single beam of wood could provide the keel for a 450 foot long > boat. You bozo. The ark did not need a keel. The ark had internal compartments, a \ door in its side, and a one-cubit-high tso'har, which is a gable roof, with \ openings below it for ventilation and light. Genesis makes no mention of a keel or a prow or of any sails, oars, or rudders on the ark. In fact, the same Hebrew word for ark is used to describe the pitch-covered basket used by the mother of the infant Moses to keep him afloat in the waters of the Nile River in Exodus 2:3-10. It was simply a floating box > No wooden boat approaching 2/3 that size has survived the ocean. They > leak and break apart. Oh? The ark's length was six times its width and ten times its height. Many \ modern ships have similar proportion ratios. Modern ship builders would learn the hard way that such a ratio as the ark can accommodate the stresses \ found in rough seas. Tar \pitch\ was used on the inside and the outside. THAT would add strength to the lumber AND it was flexable when dry. Now if all that is not good enough then consider what the book of Enoch says \ about the ark and who was helping Noah build it. Do you really think that Noah and his 3 boys could build something that massive without help?: \1 Enoch 67:2-At this time the angels are working with wood (making an ark) \ and when it is completed, I shall place my hands upon it and protect it. God said he would \protect it\ The Angels helped build it. > Creationist accounts for stuffing the animals in the boat are > laughably underestimating (or lying) the volume of animals, the volume > of food needed, the animals waste produced, and the size needed for > cages, aisles, etc. > How could the food be kept fresh enough for the animals? > How was the water stored, and delivered? Hell man. It rained for 40 days. All they had to do was catch the water in resoviors on the top and sides of the boat and run a piping system town through the boat. The waste was shoveled out into the ocean just as waste goes into the ocean today from modern boats. I showd you the boat was big enough and grain is not a difficult food to store. > > How did the animals get to Noah? God told the animals to go to the ark and surrond it. The ones that God told \ to lay down are the ones that Noah led into the boat. THE BOOK OF JASHER. Chapter 5 http://www.archive.org/stream/thebookofjasherr00unknuoft/thebookofjasherr00u\ nknuoft_djvu.txt > How did they return - perhaps the koalas swam, or made a raft of > eucalyptus trees. They spread across the earth just as man did. They walked > what did the lions eat while the zebras were repopulating? Read the bible. What were animals given as food to eat in genesis? Hint, they were not meat eaters. > If you think, as some Creationists do, that this was before > Gondwanaland broke up, know that the continents sailing thru the crust > at speeds sufficient to get to where they are now would produce heat > enough to melt the rock and cause tremendous earthquakes, which > curiously were not mentioned in the ancient texts. > Also, the age of fossils after the continental breakup show them > diversifying after it started (the species were isolated), and these > were currently extinct species. > > I have killed several houseplants or garden plants overs the years. I > wonder what a year under salt water would do? Probably turn it all > into greenish black sludge. > Which means the herbivores wouldn't have anything to eat. > And most of these plants would not be able to reproduce, after soaking > their seeds in salt water. > > The genetic diversity shown by living organisms is *far greater than > what biologists know is possible, if they all went thru a bottleneck > of two (or is it 14?) individuals just a few thousand years ago. > Not to mention the idea that most of the species are only a few > thousand years old - Creationist attempts to reduce the load on the > ark typically boil down to claiming \all cats come from the one pair > on the ark - they're all the cat kind\. Etc. That is exactly right. One pair, in some cases 7 pair > > There was nowhere the water could have come from, nor anywhere the > water could have gone. > Geological evidence refutes the claims of a global flood. For > instance, strata of sedimentary rock showing worm tracks, small animal > tracks, etc, laid down over and over for many tens or hundreds of > meters in depth. This could not have been laid down in a mere 10,000 > years, nor all at once in a flood. 40' water canapoy around the earth. The Flood is very possible. > > Any one of these could have been fixed by an omnipotent being, but > then one has to ask: > \Why would a god kill almost all life, then hide the evidence for this > with dozens of major, but unmentioned, miracles?\ You make a few good points. The rest is rationalizations because you do not \ want to admit the ark, and therefore God, is real. === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit - NOT! >>> All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. >>> >>> \ The average size of all animals, is the size of a sheep, some say >>> a small rodent. One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. >>> This would mean that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad >>> cars. The arks total capacity was 569 stock cars. The 40,000 animals >>> would require less than 30% of the ark's space. In other words all >>> the animals could fit on one of the ark's three decks. This would >>> leave the other 70% of the ark's space for Noah's family, food, >>> supplies, and baggage. >>> >>> Many biologists state that the average size of most vertebrates is >>> the size of a sheep. Other sources state that the average size is >>> about the size of a small rabbit. Since there is some doubt as to >>> what is the average size of the animals that were brought into the >>> ark, and this paper is a conservative analysis of the carrying >>> capacity of the ark, we will use the larger sheep average.We will >>> also base our calculation on four different occupancy estimates. The >>> first is my own conservative estimate of 40,000. The second is the >>> estimate of Whitcomb at 35,000. The final two figures of 16,000 and >>> 2,000 are based on the work of Woodmorappe. The 16,000 figure is >>> based on the biblical kind being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of >>> genus. The second figure of 2,000 is based on the biblical kind >>> being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of family. \ >>> >>> http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html >> >> No single beam of wood could provide the keel for a 450 foot long >> boat. > >You bozo. The ark did not need a keel. The ark had internal compartments, a \ >door in its side, and a one-cubit-high tso'har, which is a gable roof, with \ >openings below it for ventilation and light. Genesis makes no mention of a \ >keel or a prow or of any sails, oars, or rudders on the ark. Just goes to show how ignorant of sea going boats the author must have been. > In fact, the >same Hebrew word for ark is used to describe the pitch-covered basket used \ >by the mother of the infant Moses to keep him afloat in the waters of the >Nile River in Exodus 2:3-10. > >It was simply a floating box Would not have floated for very long. > >> No wooden boat approaching 2/3 that size has survived the ocean. They >> leak and break apart. > >Oh? The ark's length was six times its width and ten times its height. Many \ >modern ships have similar proportion ratios. Modern ship builders would >learn the hard way that such a ratio as the ark can accommodate the \ stresses >found in rough seas. Tar \pitch\ was used on the inside and the outside. \ >THAT would add strength to the lumber AND it was flexable when dry. Total rubbish. > >Now if all that is not good enough then consider what the book of Enoch \ says >about the ark and who was helping Noah build it. Do you really think that >Noah and his 3 boys could build something that massive without help?: That is what your book of fairy tales says. > >\1 Enoch 67:2-At this time the angels are working with wood (making an \ ark) >and when it is completed, I shall place my hands upon it and protect it. > >God said he would \protect it\ The Angels helped build it. You are nuts. > >> Creationist accounts for stuffing the animals in the boat are >> laughably underestimating (or lying) the volume of animals, the volume >> of food needed, the animals waste produced, and the size needed for >> cages, aisles, etc. >> How could the food be kept fresh enough for the animals? >> How was the water stored, and delivered? > >Hell man. It rained for 40 days. What about the other 325+ Days? > All they had to do was catch the water in >resoviors on the top and sides of the boat Which would then sink. > and run a piping system town >through the boat. The waste was shoveled out into the ocean just as waste >goes into the ocean today from modern boats. I showd you the boat was big >enough and grain is not a difficult food to store. What about all the animals that do not eat grain? > >> >> How did the animals get to Noah? > >God told the animals to go to the ark and surrond it. The ones that God \ told >to lay down are the ones that Noah led into the boat. Sure he did :) Bugger but you are really stupid. > >THE BOOK OF JASHER. Chapter 5 >http://www.archive.org/stream/thebookofjasherr00unknuoft/thebookofjasherr00\ unknuoft djvu.txt > > >> How did they return - perhaps the koalas swam, or made a raft of >> eucalyptus trees. > >They spread across the earth just as man did. They walked And yet there is an unbroken fossil record in their own land and only in their own land. > >> what did the lions eat while the zebras were repopulating? > >Read the bible. What were animals given as food to eat in genesis? Hint, >they were not meat eaters. And yet so many have been meat eaters for millions of years. The cats for example are obligate carnivores, they HAVE to eat meat and have been like that for at least the last 40 million years. > >> If you think, as some Creationists do, that this was before >> Gondwanaland broke up, know that the continents sailing thru the crust >> at speeds sufficient to get to where they are now would produce heat >> enough to melt the rock and cause tremendous earthquakes, which >> curiously were not mentioned in the ancient texts. >> Also, the age of fossils after the continental breakup show them >> diversifying after it started (the species were isolated), and these >> were currently extinct species. >> >> I have killed several houseplants or garden plants overs the years. I >> wonder what a year under salt water would do? Probably turn it all >> into greenish black sludge. >> Which means the herbivores wouldn't have anything to eat. >> And most of these plants would not be able to reproduce, after soaking >> their seeds in salt water. >> >> The genetic diversity shown by living organisms is *far greater than >> what biologists know is possible, if they all went thru a bottleneck >> of two (or is it 14?) individuals just a few thousand years ago. >> Not to mention the idea that most of the species are only a few >> thousand years old - Creationist attempts to reduce the load on the >> ark typically boil down to claiming \all cats come from the one pair >> on the ark - they're all the cat kind\. Etc. > >That is exactly right. One pair, in some cases 7 pair 7 pairs??? > >> >> There was nowhere the water could have come from, nor anywhere the >> water could have gone. >> Geological evidence refutes the claims of a global flood. For >> instance, strata of sedimentary rock showing worm tracks, small animal >> tracks, etc, laid down over and over for many tens or hundreds of >> meters in depth. This could not have been laid down in a mere 10,000 >> years, nor all at once in a flood. > >40' water canapoy around the earth. Total rubbish. > More rubbish. > >The Flood is very possible. Liar! > >> >> Any one of these could have been fixed by an omnipotent being, but >> then one has to ask: >> \Why would a god kill almost all life, then hide the evidence for this >> with dozens of major, but unmentioned, miracles?\ > >You make a few good points. The rest is rationalizations because you do not \ >want to admit the ark, and therefore God, is real. He is honest. Wish the same could be said of you. Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:- That 3.5% actually means 25%... That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist... That \Dr.\ Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries... That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited some facet of some religion... To have a \higher education\ than most posters to this news group... To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of rock... That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me laugh] And that he has \created genes\ and not evolved ape genes... That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah and his sons rebuilt mankind. Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to? Certainly I don't. -- Bob. === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit >>> All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. >>> >>> \ The average size of all animals, is the size of a sheep, some say >>> a small rodent. One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. >>> This would mean that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad >>> cars. The arks total capacity was 569 stock cars. The 40,000 animals >>> would require less than 30% of the ark's space. In other words all >>> the animals could fit on one of the ark's three decks. This would >>> leave the other 70% of the ark's space for Noah's family, food, >>> supplies, and baggage. >>> >>> Many biologists state that the average size of most vertebrates is >>> the size of a sheep. Other sources state that the average size is >>> about the size of a small rabbit. Since there is some doubt as to >>> what is the average size of the animals that were brought into the >>> ark, and this paper is a conservative analysis of the carrying >>> capacity of the ark, we will use the larger sheep average.We will >>> also base our calculation on four different occupancy estimates. The >>> first is my own conservative estimate of 40,000. The second is the >>> estimate of Whitcomb at 35,000. The final two figures of 16,000 and >>> 2,000 are based on the work of Woodmorappe. The 16,000 figure is >>> based on the biblical kind being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of >>> genus. The second figure of 2,000 is based on the biblical kind >>> being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of family. \ >>> >>> http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html >> >> No single beam of wood could provide the keel for a 450 foot long >> boat. > > You bozo. The ark did not need a keel. The ark had internal compartments, \ > a door in its side, and a one-cubit-high tso'har, which is a gable roof, > with openings below it for ventilation and light. Genesis makes no mention \ > of a keel or a prow or of any sails, oars, or rudders on the ark. In fact, \ > the same Hebrew word for ark is used to describe the pitch-covered basket \ > used by the mother of the infant Moses to keep him afloat in the waters of \ > the Nile River in Exodus 2:3-10. > > It was simply a floating box > >> No wooden boat approaching 2/3 that size has survived the ocean. They >> leak and break apart. > > Oh? The ark's length was six times its width and ten times its height. > Many modern ships have similar proportion ratios. Modern ship builders > would learn the hard way that such a ratio as the ark can accommodate the \ > stresses found in rough seas. Tar \pitch\ was used on the inside and the \ > outside. THAT would add strength to the lumber AND it was flexable when > dry. > > Now if all that is not good enough then consider what the book of Enoch > says about the ark and who was helping Noah build it. Do you really think \ > that Noah and his 3 boys could build something that massive without \ help?: > > \1 Enoch 67:2-At this time the angels are working with wood (making an > ark) and when it is completed, I shall place my hands upon it and protect \ > it. > > God said he would \protect it\ The Angels helped build it. > >> Creationist accounts for stuffing the animals in the boat are >> laughably underestimating (or lying) the volume of animals, the volume >> of food needed, the animals waste produced, and the size needed for >> cages, aisles, etc. >> How could the food be kept fresh enough for the animals? >> How was the water stored, and delivered? > > Hell man. It rained for 40 days. All they had to do was catch the water in \ > resoviors on the top and sides of the boat and run a piping system town > through the boat. The waste was shoveled out into the ocean just as waste \ > goes into the ocean today from modern boats. I showd you the boat was big \ > enough and grain is not a difficult food to store. > >> >> How did the animals get to Noah? > > God told the animals to go to the ark and surrond it. The ones that God > told to lay down are the ones that Noah led into the boat. > > THE BOOK OF JASHER. Chapter 5 > \ http://www.archive.org/stream/thebookofjasherr00unknuoft/thebookofjasherr00un\ knuoft_djvu.txt > > >> How did they return - perhaps the koalas swam, or made a raft of >> eucalyptus trees. > > They spread across the earth just as man did. They walked > >> what did the lions eat while the zebras were repopulating? > > Read the bible. What were animals given as food to eat in genesis? Hint, > they were not meat eaters. > >> If you think, as some Creationists do, that this was before >> Gondwanaland broke up, know that the continents sailing thru the crust >> at speeds sufficient to get to where they are now would produce heat >> enough to melt the rock and cause tremendous earthquakes, which >> curiously were not mentioned in the ancient texts. >> Also, the age of fossils after the continental breakup show them >> diversifying after it started (the species were isolated), and these >> were currently extinct species. >> >> I have killed several houseplants or garden plants overs the years. I >> wonder what a year under salt water would do? Probably turn it all >> into greenish black sludge. >> Which means the herbivores wouldn't have anything to eat. >> And most of these plants would not be able to reproduce, after soaking >> their seeds in salt water. >> >> The genetic diversity shown by living organisms is *far greater than >> what biologists know is possible, if they all went thru a bottleneck >> of two (or is it 14?) individuals just a few thousand years ago. >> Not to mention the idea that most of the species are only a few >> thousand years old - Creationist attempts to reduce the load on the >> ark typically boil down to claiming \all cats come from the one pair >> on the ark - they're all the cat kind\. Etc. > > That is exactly right. One pair, in some cases 7 pair > >> >> There was nowhere the water could have come from, nor anywhere the >> water could have gone. >> Geological evidence refutes the claims of a global flood. For >> instance, strata of sedimentary rock showing worm tracks, small animal >> tracks, etc, laid down over and over for many tens or hundreds of >> meters in depth. This could not have been laid down in a mere 10,000 >> years, nor all at once in a flood. > > 40' water canapoy around the earth. > > > The Flood is very possible. > >> >> Any one of these could have been fixed by an omnipotent being, but >> then one has to ask: >> \Why would a god kill almost all life, then hide the evidence for this >> with dozens of major, but unmentioned, miracles?\ > > You make a few good points. The rest is rationalizations because you do > not want to admit the ark, and therefore God, is real. It's FAIRY TALE, asshole. Never happened, and never could!!!! === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit > > > No single beam of wood could provide the keel for a 450 foot long > > boat. > > You bozo. The ark did not need a keel. The ark had internal compartments, \ a > door in its side, and a one-cubit-high tso'har, which is a gable roof, \ with > openings below it for ventilation and light. Genesis makes no mention of \ a > keel or a prow or of any sails, oars, or rudders on the ark. In fact, the > same Hebrew word for ark is used to describe the pitch-covered basket \ used > by the mother of the infant Moses to keep him afloat in the waters of the > Nile River in Exodus 2:3-10. > > It was simply a floating box > > > No wooden boat approaching 2/3 that size has survived the ocean. They > > leak and break apart. > > Oh? The ark's length was six times its width and ten times its height. \ Many > modern ships have similar proportion ratios. Modern ship builders would > learn the hard way that such a ratio as the ark can accommodate the \ stresses > found in rough seas. Tar \pitch\ was used on the inside and the \ outside. > THAT would add strength to the lumber AND it was flexable when dry. having similar proportions does not manage the mechanical stresses inherent in a wooden vessel of the size you say the ark is. there is a limit to the mechanical strength of wood. 'unrestrained' is quite right in that no wooden vessel of the ark's purported size has ever been built in history. moreover, the lack of a rudder, oars, etc. would have meant the ark would have turned broadside to the waves in heavy seas (presumably present in a worldwide flood). and it would have rolled over and capsized. so it was not seaworthy NOR was it mechanically able to stand the stresses of a flood. > > How could the food be kept fresh enough for the animals? > > How was the water stored, and delivered? > > Hell man. It rained for 40 days. All they had to do was catch the water \ in > resoviors on the top and sides of the boat and run a piping system town > through the boat. The waste was shoveled out into the ocean just as waste > goes into the ocean today from modern boats. I showd you the boat was big > enough and grain is not a difficult food to store. well, no, you didn't show us that at all. and modern boats do not 'shovel' their wasted into the ocean. it's held in storage tanks and either dumped at sea or processed at a shore facility the ark, based on scientific principles, did not exist. a boat of that size would have either broken up or capsized. === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit stated...\ [...snip...] >moreover, the lack of a rudder, oars, etc. would have meant the ark >would have turned broadside to the waves in heavy seas (presumably >present in a worldwide flood). and it would have rolled over and >capsized. [...snip...] As far as the existence of heavy seas, remember that the creationists tell us that the seas were rough enough to carve out the Grand Canyon. That's some giant waves we're talking about. Can you imagine the punishment that the cargo - all the varieties of live animals - had to endure? Picture the giraffes being thrown about. Picture the sea-sick elephants. -- ---Tom S. \As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the \ demand.\ attributed to Josh Billings === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit > stated...\ > [...snip...]>moreover, the lack of a rudder, oars, etc. would have meant \ the ark > >would have turned broadside to the waves in heavy seas (presumably > >present in a worldwide flood). and it would have rolled over and > >capsized. > > [...snip...] > > As far as the existence of heavy seas, remember that the creationists > tell us that the seas were rough enough to carve out the Grand > Canyon. That's some giant waves we're talking about. More to the point, madman's \ancient comic book du jour\, the Book of Jasher ,explicetly says the seas were very rough: Jash 6.28:And the ark floated upon the face of the waters, and it was tossed upon the waters so that all the living creatures within were turned about like pottage in a cauldron. Jash 6.29:And great anxiety seized all the living creatures that were in the ark, and the ark was like to be broken. Jash 6.30: And all the living creatures that were in the ark were terrified, and the lions roared (See note), and the oxen lowed, and the wolves howled, and every living creature in the ark spoke and lamented in its own language, so that their voices reached to a great distance, and Noah and his sons cried and wept in their troubles; they were greatly afraid that they had reached the gates of death. (Note) Just a quick look at the book shows contradictions. here is what it says about lions boarding the ark: Jash 6.5And a lioness came, with her two whelps, male and female, and the three crouched before Noah, and the two whelps rose up against the lioness and smote her, and made her flee from her place, and she went away, and they returned to their places, and crouched upon the earth before Noah. Jash 6.6And the lioness ran away, and stood in the place of the lions. So, there were no adult lions on ye olde arke, just the two cubs. Yet the passage above says that the lions roared in fear. Whelps, cubs, whatever you want to call them, do not roar. Now, the above passages also claim that ye olde arke was dossed about to the point where all the critters were stired about like pottage in a cauldron. Given the size and coinstruction of ye olde arke, it's again, a little hard to explain why it was not shredded without evoking miracles, wheich addy claims was not used. > > Can you imagine the punishment that the cargo - all the varieties > of live animals - had to endure? Picture the giraffes being thrown > about. Picture the sea-sick elephants. Picture \carnage\. Boikat > > -- > ---Tom S. > \As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the \ demand.\ > attributed to Josh Billings === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit stated...\ > >> stated...\ >> [...snip...]>moreover, the lack of a rudder, oars, etc. would have meant \ = >the ark >> >would have turned broadside to the waves in heavy seas (presumably >> >present in a worldwide flood). and it would have rolled over and >> >capsized. >> >> [...snip...] >> >> As far as the existence of heavy seas, remember that the creationists >> tell us that the seas were rough enough to carve out the Grand >> Canyon. That's some giant waves we're talking about. > >More to the point, madman's \ancient comic book du jour\, the Book of >Jasher ,explicetly says the seas were very rough: > >Jash 6.28:And the ark floated upon the face of the waters, and it was >tossed upon the waters so that all the living creatures within were >turned about like pottage in a cauldron. > >Jash 6.29:And great anxiety seized all the living creatures that were >in the ark, and the ark was like to be broken. > >Jash 6.30: And all the living creatures that were in the ark were >terrified, and the lions roared (See note), and the oxen lowed, and >the wolves howled, and every living creature in the ark spoke and >lamented in its own language, so that their voices reached to a great >distance, and Noah and his sons cried and wept in their troubles; they >were greatly afraid that they had reached the gates of death. > >(Note) Just a quick look at the book shows contradictions. here is >what it says about lions boarding the ark: What this shows is how ancient readers treated texts. What they were *not* concerned with was \literalism\. I recommend taking a look at this book, which gives a varied sample of how readers of the era from about the 2nd century BCE to 2nd century CE interpreted the Bible. James L. Kugel The Bible As It Was Belknap Press of Harvard U. Press, 1997 > >Jash 6.5And a lioness came, with her two whelps, male and female, and >the three crouched before Noah, and the two whelps rose up against the >lioness and smote her, and made her flee from her place, and she went >away, and they returned to their places, and crouched upon the earth >before Noah. > >Jash 6.6And the lioness ran away, and stood in the place of the lions. > >So, there were no adult lions on ye olde arke, just the two cubs. Yet >the passage above says that the lions roared in fear. Whelps, cubs, >whatever you want to call them, do not roar. > >Now, the above passages also claim that ye olde arke was dossed about >to the point where all the critters were stired about like pottage in >a cauldron. Given the size and coinstruction of ye olde arke, it's >again, a little hard to explain why it was not shredded without >evoking miracles, wheich addy claims was not used. > > >> >> Can you imagine the punishment that the cargo - all the varieties >> of live animals - had to endure? Picture the giraffes being thrown >> about. Picture the sea-sick elephants. > >Picture \carnage\. > >Boikat >> >> -- >> ---Tom S. >> \As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the \ deman= >d.\ >> attributed to Josh Billings > -- ---Tom S. \As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the \ demand.\ attributed to Josh Billings === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit > All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. > > \ The average size of all animals, is the size of a sheep, some say a \ small > rodent. One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would mean > that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. The arks total > capacity was 569 stock cars. The 40,000 animals would require less than \ 30% > of the ark's space. In other words all the animals could fit on one of \ the > ark's three decks. This would leave the other 70% of the ark's space for > Noah's family, food, supplies, and baggage. > > Many biologists state that the average size of most vertebrates is the \ size > of a sheep. Other sources state that the average size is about the size of \ a > small rabbit. Since there is some doubt as to what is the average size of > the animals that were brought into the ark, and this paper is a \ conservative > analysis of the carrying capacity of the ark, we will use the larger \ sheep > average.We will also base our calculation on four different occupancy > estimates. The first is my own conservative estimate of 40,000. The \ second > is the estimate of Whitcomb at 35,000. The final two figures of 16,000 \ and > 2,000 are based on the work of Woodmorappe. The 16,000 figure is based on > the biblical kind being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of genus. The > second figure of 2,000 is based on the biblical kind being equivalent to \ the > taxonomic rank of family. \ > > http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html How did they get rid of the shit and pis, not to mention the CO2? Remember, there was only *one* one cubit square window on the ark, just one. No moon pool, or other adhoc claims. Also, food. The bible specifically states that Noah was to load the ark with enough food to feed the animals and his family. Where did they store it? Also, no adhoc solutions, such as \God put all the animals asleep\, since that is not stated in the Bible, sither. It's an academic exersize for you, however, since there was no world wide flood, nor was there ever a \Noah's Ark\. Grow up, infant. Boikat === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit > All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. > > \ The average size of all animals, is the size of a sheep, some say a \ small > rodent. The inability to distinguish average from median is the first clue that there's something wrong with this. > One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would mean > that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. Where does the number 40,000 come from? > The arks total > capacity was 569 stock cars. The 40,000 animals would require less than \ 30% > of the ark's space. In other words all the animals could fit on one of the \ > ark's three decks. This would leave the other 70% of the ark's space for > Noah's family, food, supplies, and baggage. > > Many biologists state that the average size of most vertebrates is the \ size > of a sheep. Other sources state that the average size is about the size of \ a > small rabbit. Since there is some doubt as to what is the average size of \ > the animals that were brought into the ark, and this paper is a \ conservative > analysis of the carrying capacity of the ark, we will use the larger sheep \ > average.We will also base our calculation on four different occupancy > estimates. The first is my own conservative estimate of 40,000. The second \ > is the estimate of Whitcomb at 35,000. The final two figures of 16,000 and \ > 2,000 are based on the work of Woodmorappe. The 16,000 figure is based on \ > the biblical kind being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of genus. The > second figure of 2,000 is based on the biblical kind being equivalent to \ the > taxonomic rank of family. \ Ah, pulled out of the nether regions of various creationists. There are a few problems with this analysis (aside from that difficulty with means and medians): 1. There was no flood, no ark, and no Noah. 2. The numbers appear to refer only to land vertebrates, at the very most. This leaves all the land invertebrates, marine animals, and plants fbehind, not to mention protists, prokaryotes, and fungi. 3. You're claiming that an animal, on average, eat at most only twice its weight in a year. And what about water? I could go on for quite a while, but why bother? > http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html > === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit >> All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. >> >> \ The average size of all animals, is the size of a sheep, some say >> a small rodent. > > The inability to distinguish average from median is the first clue > that there's something wrong with this. > >> One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would mean >> that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. > > Where does the number 40,000 come from? > >> The arks total >> capacity was 569 stock cars. The 40,000 animals would require less >> than 30% of the ark's space. In other words all the animals could >> fit on one of the ark's three decks. This would leave the other 70% >> of the ark's space for Noah's family, food, supplies, and baggage. >> >> Many biologists state that the average size of most vertebrates is >> the size of a sheep. Other sources state that the average size is >> about the size of a small rabbit. Since there is some doubt as to >> what is the average size of the animals that were brought into the >> ark, and this paper is a conservative analysis of the carrying >> capacity of the ark, we will use the larger sheep average.We will >> also base our calculation on four different occupancy estimates. The >> first is my own conservative estimate of 40,000. The second is the >> estimate of Whitcomb at 35,000. The final two figures of 16,000 and >> 2,000 are based on the work of Woodmorappe. The 16,000 figure is >> based on the biblical kind being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of >> genus. The second figure of 2,000 is based on the biblical kind >> being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of family. \ > > Ah, pulled out of the nether regions of various creationists. > > There are a few problems with this analysis (aside from that > difficulty with means and medians): > > 1. There was no flood, no ark, and no Noah. And you know this how? I am sure the the Arabs, the Persians will be intrested in this since you do \ not believe the jewish version of Noah. > > 2. The numbers appear to refer only to land vertebrates, at the very > most. This leaves all the land invertebrates, marine animals, and > plants fbehind, not to mention protists, prokaryotes, and fungi. Right. Only the ones God told to kneel down in front the ark entered. If others survived, then God must have handled it himself. See the book of Jasher, chapter 5 > 3. You're claiming that an animal, on average, eat at most only twice > its weight in a year. And what about water? It rained for 40 days. Simple reservoirs and a piping system is all it would \ really take. > > I could go on for quite a while, but why bother? Because you can't > >> http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit - NOT! >>> All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. >>> >>> \ The average size of all animals, is the size of a sheep, some say >>> a small rodent. >> >> The inability to distinguish average from median is the first clue >> that there's something wrong with this. >> >>> One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would mean >>> that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. >> >> Where does the number 40,000 come from? >> >>> The arks total >>> capacity was 569 stock cars. The 40,000 animals would require less >>> than 30% of the ark's space. In other words all the animals could >>> fit on one of the ark's three decks. This would leave the other 70% >>> of the ark's space for Noah's family, food, supplies, and baggage. >>> >>> Many biologists state that the average size of most vertebrates is >>> the size of a sheep. Other sources state that the average size is >>> about the size of a small rabbit. Since there is some doubt as to >>> what is the average size of the animals that were brought into the >>> ark, and this paper is a conservative analysis of the carrying >>> capacity of the ark, we will use the larger sheep average.We will >>> also base our calculation on four different occupancy estimates. The >>> first is my own conservative estimate of 40,000. The second is the >>> estimate of Whitcomb at 35,000. The final two figures of 16,000 and >>> 2,000 are based on the work of Woodmorappe. The 16,000 figure is >>> based on the biblical kind being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of >>> genus. The second figure of 2,000 is based on the biblical kind >>> being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of family. \ >> >> Ah, pulled out of the nether regions of various creationists. >> >> There are a few problems with this analysis (aside from that >> difficulty with means and medians): >> >> 1. There was no flood, no ark, and no Noah. > >And you know this how? Evidence. > >I am sure the the Arabs, the Persians will be intrested in this since you \ do >not believe the jewish version of Noah. Don't accept any version, because the clear evidence says there was no flood. > >> >> 2. The numbers appear to refer only to land vertebrates, at the very >> most. This leaves all the land invertebrates, marine animals, and >> plants fbehind, not to mention protists, prokaryotes, and fungi. > >Right. Only the ones God told to kneel down in front the ark entered. If >others survived, then God must have handled it himself. Oh? > >See the book of Jasher, chapter 5 Well, I would - but which one? Sefer haYashar, \Book of the Upright\, often only half-translated into English as Book of Jasher or as Book of Jashar. This title covers a number of possibles. 1) It is another name for Genesis. 2) An Hebrew midrash text of Jewish legends covering the period from the creation of man to the first wave of the mythical conquest of Canaan. A book that is not certain to have existed before 1625. 3) A moral treatise of the 13th century published as Ha-Yewani Zerahiah, Sefer Hayashar, The Book of the Righteous, attributed to Rabbi Zerahiah ha-Yevani. Edited and translated by Seymour J. Cohen (New York, 1973). 4) An 18th century forgery alleging to be a translation of the lost book of Jasher by Alcuin. 5) A fictional translation, by Benjamin Rosenbaum, of the supposed Book of Jasher mentioned in 2 Samuel. Which is it Mudbrain? > >> 3. You're claiming that an animal, on average, eat at most only twice >> its weight in a year. And what about water? > >It rained for 40 days. Simple reservoirs and a piping system is all it \ would >really take. To last over a year? You do spout some rubbish Mudbrain. >> >> I could go on for quite a while, but why bother? > >Because you can't Because you are not worth it. > > Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:- That 3.5% actually means 25%... That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist... That \Dr.\ Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries... That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited some facet of some religion... To have a \higher education\ than most posters to this news group... To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of rock... That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me laugh] And that he has \created genes\ and not evolved ape genes... That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah and his sons rebuilt mankind. Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to? Certainly I don't. -- Bob. === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit > >> All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. > > >> \ The average size of all animals, is the size of a sheep, some say > >> a small rodent. > > > The inability to distinguish average from median is the first clue > > that there's something wrong with this. > > >> One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would mean > >> that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. > > > Where does the number 40,000 come from? > > >> The arks total > >> capacity was 569 stock cars. The 40,000 animals would require less > >> than 30% of the ark's space. In other words all the animals could > >> fit on one of the ark's three decks. This would leave the other 70% > >> of the ark's space for Noah's family, food, supplies, and baggage. > > >> Many biologists state that the average size of most vertebrates is > >> the size of a sheep. Other sources state that the average size is > >> about the size of a small rabbit. Since there is some doubt as to > >> what is the average size of the animals that were brought into the > >> ark, and this paper is a conservative analysis of the carrying > >> capacity of the ark, we will use the larger sheep average.We will > >> also base our calculation on four different occupancy estimates. The > >> first is my own conservative estimate of 40,000. The second is the > >> estimate of Whitcomb at 35,000. The final two figures of 16,000 and > >> 2,000 are based on the work of Woodmorappe. The 16,000 figure is > >> based on the biblical kind being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of > >> genus. The second figure of 2,000 is based on the biblical kind > >> being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of family. \ > > > Ah, pulled out of the nether regions of various creationists. > > > There are a few problems with this analysis (aside from that > > difficulty with means and medians): > > > 1. There was no flood, no ark, and no Noah. > > And you know this how? > > I am sure the the Arabs, the Persians will be intrested in this since you \ do > not believe the jewish version of Noah. > > > > > 2. The numbers appear to refer only to land vertebrates, at the very > > most. This leaves all the land invertebrates, marine animals, and > > plants fbehind, not to mention protists, prokaryotes, and fungi. > > Right. Only the ones God told to kneel down in front the ark entered. If > others survived, then God must have handled it himself. so god killed everything except when he didn't. he had an ark built because he was gonna kill everything, but then he DIDNT kill everything which made the ark moot. creationists have a strange way of looking at their delusions > > See the book of Jasher, chapter 5 > > > 3. You're claiming that an animal, on average, eat at most only twice > > its weight in a year. And what about water? > > It rained for 40 days. Simple reservoirs and a piping system is all it \ would > really take. except, of course, the ark wouldn't have been seaworthy. it would have turned broadside to the seas and capsized. ever been in a boat that's suffered a steering casualty? not a pleasant prospect. === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit >>> All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. >>> >>> \ The average size of all animals, is the size of a sheep, some say >>> a small rodent. >> The inability to distinguish average from median is the first clue >> that there's something wrong with this. >> >>> One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would mean >>> that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. >> Where does the number 40,000 come from? >> >>> The arks total >>> capacity was 569 stock cars. The 40,000 animals would require less >>> than 30% of the ark's space. In other words all the animals could >>> fit on one of the ark's three decks. This would leave the other 70% >>> of the ark's space for Noah's family, food, supplies, and baggage. >>> >>> Many biologists state that the average size of most vertebrates is >>> the size of a sheep. Other sources state that the average size is >>> about the size of a small rabbit. Since there is some doubt as to >>> what is the average size of the animals that were brought into the >>> ark, and this paper is a conservative analysis of the carrying >>> capacity of the ark, we will use the larger sheep average.We will >>> also base our calculation on four different occupancy estimates. The >>> first is my own conservative estimate of 40,000. The second is the >>> estimate of Whitcomb at 35,000. The final two figures of 16,000 and >>> 2,000 are based on the work of Woodmorappe. The 16,000 figure is >>> based on the biblical kind being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of >>> genus. The second figure of 2,000 is based on the biblical kind >>> being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of family. \ >> Ah, pulled out of the nether regions of various creationists. >> >> There are a few problems with this analysis (aside from that >> difficulty with means and medians): >> >> 1. There was no flood, no ark, and no Noah. > > And you know this how? By all the evidence to be found in both geology and biology. We could discuss that at length if you really liked. > I am sure the the Arabs, the Persians will be intrested in this since you \ do > not believe the jewish version of Noah. The Arabs and Persians believe a version taken directly from the jewish version by the Prophet Mohammed (on whom be peace). I doubt many of them are unaware that modern science doesn't support their myths. >> 2. The numbers appear to refer only to land vertebrates, at the very >> most. This leaves all the land invertebrates, marine animals, and >> plants fbehind, not to mention protists, prokaryotes, and fungi. > > Right. Only the ones God told to kneel down in front the ark entered. If > others survived, then God must have handled it himself. So what you're saying is that god had Noah take only a tiny sample of the species, and then directly preserved the rest through various miracles. I wonder why he bothered with an ark at all. > See the book of Jasher, chapter 5 You are referring here to the 19th Century forgery? >> 3. You're claiming that an animal, on average, eat at most only twice >> its weight in a year. And what about water? > > It rained for 40 days. Simple reservoirs and a piping system is all it \ would > really take. Those 40 days were followed by something over a hundred days of non-rain. Are you saying that all the needed water was supplied by regular rains? Have you estimated how much would be needed? And you forgot entirely about the food problem. >> I could go on for quite a while, but why bother? > > Because you can't Of course I can. The flood is one of the silliest stories believed by creationists, and there are thousands of problems with it. Do a little web search. === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit >>>> All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. >>>> >>>> \ The average size of all animals, is the size of a sheep, some say >>>> a small rodent. >>> The inability to distinguish average from median is the first clue >>> that there's something wrong with this. >>> >>>> One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would mean >>>> that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. >>> Where does the number 40,000 come from? >>> >>>> The arks total >>>> capacity was 569 stock cars. The 40,000 animals would require less >>>> than 30% of the ark's space. In other words all the animals could >>>> fit on one of the ark's three decks. This would leave the other 70% >>>> of the ark's space for Noah's family, food, supplies, and baggage. >>>> >>>> Many biologists state that the average size of most vertebrates is >>>> the size of a sheep. Other sources state that the average size is >>>> about the size of a small rabbit. Since there is some doubt as to >>>> what is the average size of the animals that were brought into the >>>> ark, and this paper is a conservative analysis of the carrying >>>> capacity of the ark, we will use the larger sheep average.We will >>>> also base our calculation on four different occupancy estimates. >>>> The first is my own conservative estimate of 40,000. The second is >>>> the estimate of Whitcomb at 35,000. The final two figures of >>>> 16,000 and 2,000 are based on the work of Woodmorappe. The 16,000 >>>> figure is based on the biblical kind being equivalent to the >>>> taxonomic rank of genus. The second figure of 2,000 is based on >>>> the biblical kind being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of >>>> family. \ >>> Ah, pulled out of the nether regions of various creationists. >>> >>> There are a few problems with this analysis (aside from that >>> difficulty with means and medians): >>> >>> 1. There was no flood, no ark, and no Noah. >> >> And you know this how? > > By all the evidence to be found in both geology and biology. We could > discuss that at length if you really liked. You mean the evidences greatly distorted and damaged by such a flood? > >> I am sure the the Arabs, the Persians will be intrested in this >> since you do not believe the jewish version of Noah. > > The Arabs and Persians believe a version taken directly from the > jewish version by the Prophet Mohammed (on whom be peace). I doubt > many of them are unaware that modern science doesn't support their > myths. So the other traditions before Mohammed are lies? They hate the Jews. Why would they use the jewish version of their own history if they did not believe it? I'll tell ya why. Because their history and the Jews history are the same. The families all have the same traditions of the same events. THATS why > >>> 2. The numbers appear to refer only to land vertebrates, at the very >>> most. This leaves all the land invertebrates, marine animals, and >>> plants fbehind, not to mention protists, prokaryotes, and fungi. >> >> Right. Only the ones God told to kneel down in front the ark >> entered. If others survived, then God must have handled it himself. > > So what you're saying is that god had Noah take only a tiny sample of > the species, and then directly preserved the rest through various > miracles. I wonder why he bothered with an ark at all. Hell if I know. Maybe he wanted Noah to have something to do to pass the time. Plus, not all life was saved. God did allow many to go extinct. > >> See the book of Jasher, chapter 5 > > You are referring here to the 19th Century forgery? I reference one of the books handed down to Noah from Enoch through his grandfather. >>> 3. You're claiming that an animal, on average, eat at most only >>> twice its weight in a year. And what about water? >> >> It rained for 40 days. Simple reservoirs and a piping system is all >> it would really take. > > Those 40 days were followed by something over a hundred days of > non-rain. Are you saying that all the needed water was supplied by > regular rains? Have you estimated how much would be needed? And you > forgot entirely about the food problem. 40 days of eain water stored is nothing to sneeze at. It is not like there was not enough space on the ark. There was no food problem. There is every indication that animals were NOT carnovirous before the flood. For animals the average size of a sheep, two pounds of food per day would be \ more that adequate to keep them healthy. Remember, now, that /if/ animals were meat eaters at all before the Flood (and they may not have been) they were closer to their vegetarian diet in the Garden of Eden than they are now, by around 4,300 years. There is no animal, cat, dog, or any other that \ will not eat grain based foods and will not stay healthy on them, if that is \ all they can get. It is a recognized and mostly accepted concept that animals are less aggressive and more docile if they are not fed meat. That is not always desirable, but in this case it was. In order to feed 35,000 animals of that average size for 365 days Noah would \ have needed 25,550,000 lbs of grain. At 40 lbs per cubic foot, which is the \ approximate weight of dry grain, the feed would have taken up 638,750 cubic \ feet. This would have left a living area for Noah and his 7 relatives of 661,220 cubic feet. In the Ark, this was an area of 104'x320'x20'. That would have given each family a living area of approximately 8320 square feet, which is about 5 and 1/2 times as large as the average house in this vicinity. The feeding and watering is feasable. The alternative is to call all of the \ history of both Arabs and Jews, as well as the Persians a lie. > >>> I could go on for quite a while, but why bother? >> >> Because you can't > > Of course I can. The flood is one of the silliest stories believed by > creationists, and there are thousands of problems with it. Do a little > web search. The flood happened. There are _too many_ stories that are too similar in detail from around the world for it to have been a fairy tale. === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit >>>>> All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. >>>> 2. The numbers appear to refer only to land vertebrates, at the very >>>> most. This leaves all the land invertebrates, marine animals, and >>>> plants fbehind, not to mention protists, prokaryotes, and fungi. >>> >>> Right. Only the ones God told to kneel down in front the ark >>> entered. If others survived, then God must have handled it himself. >> >> So what you're saying is that god had Noah take only a tiny sample of >> the species, and then directly preserved the rest through various >> miracles. I wonder why he bothered with an ark at all. > >Hell if I know. Maybe he wanted Noah to have something to do to pass the >time. > >Plus, not all life was saved. God did allow many to go extinct. > >> >>> See the book of Jasher, chapter 5 >> >> You are referring here to the 19th Century forgery? > >I reference one of the books handed down to Noah from Enoch through his >grandfather. The Book of Jashar, which in part chronicles events during and after the Flood, was written before the Flood? Just how deluded are you? === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit >>>>> All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. >>>>> >>>>> \ The average size of all animals, is the size of a sheep, some say >>>>> a small rodent. >>>> The inability to distinguish average from median is the first clue >>>> that there's something wrong with this. >>>> >>>>> One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would mean >>>>> that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. >>>> Where does the number 40,000 come from? >>>> >>>>> The arks total >>>>> capacity was 569 stock cars. The 40,000 animals would require less >>>>> than 30% of the ark's space. In other words all the animals could >>>>> fit on one of the ark's three decks. This would leave the other 70% >>>>> of the ark's space for Noah's family, food, supplies, and baggage. >>>>> >>>>> Many biologists state that the average size of most vertebrates is >>>>> the size of a sheep. Other sources state that the average size is >>>>> about the size of a small rabbit. Since there is some doubt as to >>>>> what is the average size of the animals that were brought into the >>>>> ark, and this paper is a conservative analysis of the carrying >>>>> capacity of the ark, we will use the larger sheep average.We will >>>>> also base our calculation on four different occupancy estimates. >>>>> The first is my own conservative estimate of 40,000. The second is >>>>> the estimate of Whitcomb at 35,000. The final two figures of >>>>> 16,000 and 2,000 are based on the work of Woodmorappe. The 16,000 >>>>> figure is based on the biblical kind being equivalent to the >>>>> taxonomic rank of genus. The second figure of 2,000 is based on >>>>> the biblical kind being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of >>>>> family. \ >>>> Ah, pulled out of the nether regions of various creationists. >>>> >>>> There are a few problems with this analysis (aside from that >>>> difficulty with means and medians): >>>> >>>> 1. There was no flood, no ark, and no Noah. >>> And you know this how? >> By all the evidence to be found in both geology and biology. We could >> discuss that at length if you really liked. > > You mean the evidences greatly distorted and damaged by such a flood? No, I mean the complete absence of any such worldwide layer. Of course your version of the flood can present us with anything at all, being at once violent and tranquil, worldwide and local, salt and fresh water. Now a real global flood would generate a global flood deposit, sorted by this. Instead we see deep-sea sediments composed entirely of marine ooze, shallow marine deposits that vary in character with distance from shore, lots of terrestrial deposits, and a distribution of marine and terrestrial deposits that varies with time, along with changes in eustatic sea levels, local uplift and subsidence, and progradation. There is no worldwide layer. Fossils are sorted not by size but by age. >>> I am sure the the Arabs, the Persians will be intrested in this >>> since you do not believe the jewish version of Noah. >> The Arabs and Persians believe a version taken directly from the >> jewish version by the Prophet Mohammed (on whom be peace). I doubt >> many of them are unaware that modern science doesn't support their >> myths. > > So the other traditions before Mohammed are lies? What other traditions before Mohammed are you referring to here? What is your source? > They hate the Jews. Why would they use the jewish version of their own > history if they did not believe it? Some modern Arabs hate the Jews. This was not always the case, and certainly was not in Mohammed's time. Once the story entered the Qur'an, it was a Muslim story. > I'll tell ya why. Because their history and the Jews history are the same. \ > The families all have the same traditions of the same events. THATS why Please show some evidence for Arab belief in the same traditions that doesn't stem directly from Jewish scripture. >>>> 2. The numbers appear to refer only to land vertebrates, at the very >>>> most. This leaves all the land invertebrates, marine animals, and >>>> plants fbehind, not to mention protists, prokaryotes, and fungi. >>> Right. Only the ones God told to kneel down in front the ark >>> entered. If others survived, then God must have handled it himself. >> So what you're saying is that god had Noah take only a tiny sample of >> the species, and then directly preserved the rest through various >> miracles. I wonder why he bothered with an ark at all. > > Hell if I know. Maybe he wanted Noah to have something to do to pass the > time. Does that sound as stupid to you as it did to me? > Plus, not all life was saved. God did allow many to go extinct. Did he? But Noah was commanded to save every kind. >>> See the book of Jasher, chapter 5 >> You are referring here to the 19th Century forgery? > > I reference one of the books handed down to Noah from Enoch through his > grandfather. What evidence do you have for this claim? >>>> 3. You're claiming that an animal, on average, eat at most only >>>> twice its weight in a year. And what about water? >>> It rained for 40 days. Simple reservoirs and a piping system is all >>> it would really take. >> Those 40 days were followed by something over a hundred days of >> non-rain. Are you saying that all the needed water was supplied by >> regular rains? Have you estimated how much would be needed? And you >> forgot entirely about the food problem. > > 40 days of eain water stored is nothing to sneeze at. It is not like there \ > was not enough space on the ark. Whoops. The problem is that there's not enough space on the ark to save enough food and water for the animals. You haven't addressed that problem. > There was no food problem. There is every indication that animals were NOT \ > carnovirous before the flood. So much the worse. Herbivores need more food than carnivores, not less. And what indication is that? > For animals the average size of a sheep, two pounds of food per day would \ be > more that adequate to keep them healthy. Define \average\. I don't think you understand your source's confusion. > Remember, now, that /if/ animals > were meat eaters at all before the Flood (and they may not have been) What is the evidence for that? > they > were closer to their vegetarian diet in the Garden of Eden than they are > now, by around 4,300 years. What is the evidence for a vegetarian diet in the Garden of Eden, or for the existence of such a place? > There is no animal, cat, dog, or any other that > will not eat grain based foods and will not stay healthy on them, if that \ is > all they can get. What is your evidence for that? I defy you to feed a cat on grain. \Grain-based\ catfoods are highly modified from grain, mostly to add lots of protein and fat. Did Noah run a catfood factory? Will vampire bats eat grain? Hyenas? Anteaters? Hummingbirds? > It is a recognized and mostly accepted concept that > animals are less aggressive and more docile if they are not fed meat. That \ > is not always desirable, but in this case it was. > > In order to feed 35,000 animals of that average size for 365 days Noah \ would > have needed 25,550,000 lbs of grain. At 40 lbs per cubic foot, which is \ the > approximate weight of dry grain, the feed would have taken up 638,750 \ cubic > feet. This would have left a living area for Noah and his 7 relatives of > 661,220 cubic feet. In the Ark, this was an area of 104'x320'x20'. That > would have given each family a living area of approximately 8320 square > feet, which is about 5 and 1/2 times as large as the average house in this \ > vicinity. Garbage in, garbage out. You're packing everything solid, have used a very high estimate for grain density, and have picked a median rather than average size for the animals. Did wherever you plagiarized this from also deal with the water supply? You'll need a lot if you're feeding them dried grain. > The feeding and watering is feasable. The alternative is to call all of \ the > history of both Arabs and Jews, as well as the Persians a lie. No, the alternative is to call the flood story a legend. >>>> I could go on for quite a while, but why bother? >>> Because you can't >> Of course I can. The flood is one of the silliest stories believed by >> creationists, and there are thousands of problems with it. Do a little >> web search. > > The flood happened. There are _too many_ stories that are too similar in > detail from around the world for it to have been a fairy tale. > The stories that are similar are from a small region centered on the fertile crescent, and all descend from the Sumerian story. The stories from around the world are all different, except when creationists distort them. You really shouldn't prefer ancient legends to real, physical evidence. === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit >>>>>> All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. >>>>>> >>>>>> \ The average size of all animals, is the size of a sheep, some >>>>>> say a small rodent. >>>>> The inability to distinguish average from median is the first clue >>>>> that there's something wrong with this. >>>>> >>>>>> One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would mean >>>>>> that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. >>>>> Where does the number 40,000 come from? >>>>> >>>>>> The arks total >>>>>> capacity was 569 stock cars. The 40,000 animals would require >>>>>> less than 30% of the ark's space. In other words all the animals >>>>>> could fit on one of the ark's three decks. This would leave the >>>>>> other 70% of the ark's space for Noah's family, food, supplies, >>>>>> and baggage. Many biologists state that the average size of most >>>>>> vertebrates >>>>>> is the size of a sheep. Other sources state that the average >>>>>> size is about the size of a small rabbit. Since there is some >>>>>> doubt as to what is the average size of the animals that were >>>>>> brought into the ark, and this paper is a conservative analysis >>>>>> of the carrying capacity of the ark, we will use the larger >>>>>> sheep average.We will also base our calculation on four >>>>>> different occupancy estimates. The first is my own conservative >>>>>> estimate of 40,000. The second is the estimate of Whitcomb at >>>>>> 35,000. The final two figures of 16,000 and 2,000 are based on >>>>>> the work of Woodmorappe. The 16,000 figure is based on the >>>>>> biblical kind being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of genus. >>>>>> The second figure of 2,000 is based on the biblical kind being >>>>>> equivalent to the taxonomic rank of family. \ >>>>> Ah, pulled out of the nether regions of various creationists. >>>>> >>>>> There are a few problems with this analysis (aside from that >>>>> difficulty with means and medians): >>>>> >>>>> 1. There was no flood, no ark, and no Noah. >>>> And you know this how? >>> By all the evidence to be found in both geology and biology. We >>> could discuss that at length if you really liked. >> >> You mean the evidences greatly distorted and damaged by such a flood? > > No, I mean the complete absence of any such worldwide layer. Of course > your version of the flood can present us with anything at all, being > at once violent and tranquil, worldwide and local, salt and fresh > water. > Now a real global flood would generate a global flood deposit, sorted > none of this. Instead we see deep-sea sediments composed entirely of > marine ooze, shallow marine deposits that vary in character with distance > from shore, lots of terrestrial deposits, and a distribution of > marine and terrestrial deposits that varies with time, along with > changes in eustatic sea levels, local uplift and subsidence, and > progradation. There is no worldwide layer. Fossils are sorted not by size \ > but by > age. Has anyone be able to duplicate your assertions? If not, you do not know what evidence would be left behind > >>>> I am sure the the Arabs, the Persians will be intrested in this >>>> since you do not believe the jewish version of Noah. >>> The Arabs and Persians believe a version taken directly from the >>> jewish version by the Prophet Mohammed (on whom be peace). I doubt >>> many of them are unaware that modern science doesn't support their >>> myths. >> >> So the other traditions before Mohammed are lies? > > What other traditions before Mohammed are you referring to here? What > is your source? All of their traditions, folklore, handed down stories with in families. You \ think none of that exists? > >> They hate the Jews. Why would they use the jewish version of their >> own history if they did not believe it? > > Some modern Arabs hate the Jews. This was not always the case, and > certainly was not in Mohammed's time. Once the story entered the > Qur'an, it was a Muslim story. you are confused. The arabs and jews had the same father. And they have been fighting over birth rights for 4000 years. > >> I'll tell ya why. Because their history and the Jews history are the >> same. The families all have the same traditions of the same events. >> THATS why > > Please show some evidence for Arab belief in the same traditions that > doesn't stem directly from Jewish scripture. Wow. You really do have gaps in your edcuation. I guess that is what you get \ from spending all your time in a science labs that teach theory over reality. Abraham had two sons. Isaaic and Ishmaeal. One was the greatgrand-father of \ the modern day 12 tribes of Isreal, the other the father of the original 12 \ arab tribes.. They come from the same father. Why would you think they would have different traditions when they come from the same family? > >>>>> 2. The numbers appear to refer only to land vertebrates, at the >>>>> very most. This leaves all the land invertebrates, marine >>>>> animals, and plants fbehind, not to mention protists, >>>>> prokaryotes, and fungi. >>>> Right. Only the ones God told to kneel down in front the ark >>>> entered. If others survived, then God must have handled it himself. >>> So what you're saying is that god had Noah take only a tiny sample >>> of the species, and then directly preserved the rest through various >>> miracles. I wonder why he bothered with an ark at all. >> >> Hell if I know. Maybe he wanted Noah to have something to do to pass >> the time. > > Does that sound as stupid to you as it did to me? Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer. > >> Plus, not all life was saved. God did allow many to go extinct. > > Did he? But Noah was commanded to save every kind. Care to show where the bible says \every kind\? > >>>> See the book of Jasher, chapter 5 >>> You are referring here to the 19th Century forgery? >> >> I reference one of the books handed down to Noah from Enoch through >> his grandfather. > > What evidence do you have for this claim? Enoch was Noah's great grandfather. Why would he NOT pass down family traditions to his son who would in turn pass them on to his son and so forth? > >>>>> 3. You're claiming that an animal, on average, eat at most only >>>>> twice its weight in a year. And what about water? >>>> It rained for 40 days. Simple reservoirs and a piping system is all >>>> it would really take. >>> Those 40 days were followed by something over a hundred days of >>> non-rain. Are you saying that all the needed water was supplied by >>> regular rains? Have you estimated how much would be needed? And you >>> forgot entirely about the food problem. >> >> 40 days of eain water stored is nothing to sneeze at. It is not like >> there was not enough space on the ark. > > Whoops. The problem is that there's not enough space on the ark to > save enough food and water for the animals. You haven't addressed > that problem. I did below. > >> There was no food problem. There is every indication that animals >> were NOT carnovirous before the flood. > > So much the worse. Herbivores need more food than carnivores, not > less. And what indication is that? Grain. Animals can survive on grain. >> For animals the average size of a sheep, two pounds of food per day >> would be more that adequate to keep them healthy. > > Define \average\. I don't think you understand your source's > confusion. A sheep can only get so big >> Remember, now, that /if/ animals >> were meat eaters at all before the Flood (and they may not have been) > > What is the evidence for that? Genesis and a dozen other historical documents. Anything from Josephesus > >> they >> were closer to their vegetarian diet in the Garden of Eden than they >> are now, by around 4,300 years. > > What is the evidence for a vegetarian diet in the Garden of Eden, or > for the existence of such a place? > Genesis. Go read it. >> There is no animal, cat, dog, or any other that >> will not eat grain based foods and will not stay healthy on them, if >> that is all they can get. > > What is your evidence for that? I defy you to feed a cat on grain. > \Grain-based\ catfoods are highly modified from grain, mostly to add > lots of protein and fat. Did Noah run a catfood factory? Will vampire > bats eat grain? Hyenas? Anteaters? Hummingbirds? Put any of those animals in a boat with nothing else to eat and they will come around. > >> It is a recognized and mostly accepted concept that >> animals are less aggressive and more docile if they are not fed >> meat. That is not always desirable, but in this case it was. >> >> In order to feed 35,000 animals of that average size for 365 days >> Noah would have needed 25,550,000 lbs of grain. At 40 lbs per cubic >> foot, which is the approximate weight of dry grain, the feed would >> have taken up 638,750 cubic feet. This would have left a living area >> for Noah and his 7 relatives of 661,220 cubic feet. In the Ark, this >> was an area of 104'x320'x20'. That would have given each family a >> living area of approximately 8320 square feet, which is about 5 and >> 1/2 times as large as the average house in this vicinity. > > Garbage in, garbage out. You're packing everything solid, have used a > very high estimate for grain density, and have picked a median rather > than average size for the animals. Did wherever you plagiarized this > from also deal with the water supply? You'll need a lot if you're > feeding them dried grain. Median is average. Average is median. plagiarized ? The link is at da bottom. You asccused me of this one before \ and had to apologize that you over looked the link. Remember? > >> The feeding and watering is feasable. The alternative is to call all >> of the history of both Arabs and Jews, as well as the Persians a lie. > > No, the alternative is to call the flood story a legend. Right. It is a legend. A legent held true by most all in that region. But A \ hand full of American Atheists do not. How about THAT > >>>>> I could go on for quite a while, but why bother? >>>> Because you can't >>> Of course I can. The flood is one of the silliest stories believed >>> by creationists, and there are thousands of problems with it. Do a >>> little web search. >> >> The flood happened. There are _too many_ stories that are too >> similar in detail from around the world for it to have been a fairy >> tale. > > The stories that are similar are from a small region centered on the > fertile crescent, and all descend from the Sumerian story. The stories > from around the world are all different, except when creationists > distort them. You really shouldn't prefer ancient legends to real, > physical evidence. McFly... hello... Abraham was from UR. Ur was a Sumerian city. Now why do you think the Sumerian version would not be he same as the Hebrew version since Abraham is \ the father of the hebrews and was from UR?; The Abraham version that was basically the same story. === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit >>> All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. >>> >>> \ The average size of all animals, is the size of a sheep, some say >>> a small rodent. >> >> The inability to distinguish average from median is the first clue >> that there's something wrong with this. No comment on this rather basic problem? [...] >> 1. There was no flood, no ark, and no Noah. > > And you know this how? Because the (Christian) geologists who originally looked at the evidence (expecting to find a global flood) found that the evidence didn't support such a thing. And geologists ever since have found the same. There have been floods, obviously, just no global flood. [...] === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit > > All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. > > One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would mean > > that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. > > Where does the number 40,000 come from? Last time I checked, it was damn near close to 167*240. === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit >>> All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. > > > >>> One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would mean >>> that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. >> Where does the number 40,000 come from? > > Last time I checked, it was damn near close to 167*240. > Are you trying to say that the number of animals the ark had to carry was determined by adjusting it to fit the size of the ark? I don't think the author of the original piece would be happy with this accusation, though of course you're too stupid to realize that it's an accusation. === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit >>>> All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. >> >> >> >>>> One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would mean >>>> that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. >>> Where does the number 40,000 come from? >> >> Last time I checked, it was damn near close to 167*240. >> > Are you trying to say that the number of animals the ark had to carry > was determined by adjusting it to fit the size of the ark? I don't > think the author of the original piece would be happy with this > accusation, though of course you're too stupid to realize that it's > an accusation. That is eactly what happened. God himself did the adjusting. See The Book Of \ Jasher Chapter 5, but it is best to read the entire book. === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit > >>>> All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. > > >>>> One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would mean > >>>> that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. > >>> Where does the number 40,000 come from? > > >> Last time I checked, it was damn near close to 167*240. > > > Are you trying to say that the number of animals the ark had to carry > > was determined by adjusting it to fit the size of the ark? I don't > > think the author of the original piece would be happy with this > > accusation, though of course you're too stupid to realize that it's > > an accusation. > > That is eactly what happened. God himself did the adjusting. See The Book \ Of > Jasher Chapter 5, but it is best to read the entire book There is nothing there that is not in the bible already. Thee is nothing there that said god adjusted yhe size of anything, Chapter 6 is the actual account of the flood, and just a quick skimming showed a contradiction. I wonder how many are there if one were to study it intently. There is also a bit there that shows that the flood in a myth, also. More physical evidence that seems to be absent from the geological record: J 11: And on that day, the Lord caused the whole earth to shake, and the sun darkened, and the foundations of the world raged, and the whole earth was moved violently, and the lightning flashed, and the thunder roared, and all the fountains in the earth were broken up, such as was not known to the inhabitants before; and God did this mighty act, in order to terrify the sons of men, that there might be no more evil upon earth. Just like the evidence of a world wide flood itself, also absent from the geological record is the evidence for a massive world wide earthquake. Just a quick look suggests that the Book of Josher is not a good source to base any factual claims about the Genesis flood upon. Boikat === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit > >>>> All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. > >> > >> > >> > >>>> One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would mean > >>>> that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. > >>> Where does the number 40,000 come from? > >> > >> Last time I checked, it was damn near close to 167*240. > >> > > Are you trying to say that the number of animals the ark had to carry > > was determined by adjusting it to fit the size of the ark? I don't > > think the author of the original piece would be happy with this > > accusation, though of course you're too stupid to realize that it's > > an accusation. > > That is eactly what happened. God himself did the adjusting. See The Book \ Of > Jasher Chapter 5, but it is best to read the entire book. Not the bible then. And so in the beginning, when God created all the animals, he made exactly as many as would fit onto the Ark later when he destroyed all living things on land because of mankinds' sins? And then he created man? If I was the serpent I'd just bite Adam and watch him die. Problem solved. === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit >>>> On May 26, 2:04 pm, John Harshman >>>>>> All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would mean >>>>>> that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. >>>>> Where does the number 40,000 come from? >>>> >>>> Last time I checked, it was damn near close to 167*240. >>>> >>> Are you trying to say that the number of animals the ark had to >>> carry was determined by adjusting it to fit the size of the ark? I >>> don't think the author of the original piece would be happy with >>> this accusation, though of course you're too stupid to realize that >>> it's an accusation. >> >> That is eactly what happened. God himself did the adjusting. See The >> Book Of Jasher Chapter 5, but it is best to read the entire book. > > Not the bible then. > that dosen't matter, The bible version is a snyposis. Jasher is the full version of the event. > And so in the beginning, when God created all the animals, he made > exactly as many as would fit onto the Ark later when he destroyed all > living things on land because of mankinds' sins? > > And then he created man? > > If I was the serpent I'd just bite Adam and watch him die. Problem > solved. No wonder you believe evolution. You have no thinking abilties === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit >>>>> On May 26, 2:04 pm, John Harshman >>>>>>> All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would >>>>>>> mean that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. >>>>>> Where does the number 40,000 come from? >>>>> >>>>> Last time I checked, it was damn near close to 167*240. >>>>> >>>> Are you trying to say that the number of animals the ark had to >>>> carry was determined by adjusting it to fit the size of the ark? I >>>> don't think the author of the original piece would be happy with >>>> this accusation, though of course you're too stupid to realize that >>>> it's an accusation. >>> >>> That is eactly what happened. God himself did the adjusting. See The >>> Book Of Jasher Chapter 5, but it is best to read the entire book. >> >> Not the bible then. >> > > that dosen't matter, > The bible version is a snyposis. Jasher is the full version of the > event. upon what evidence do you base the assumption that the book of Jasher is an authentic history? It is referenced in Samuel and 2 Kings, I believe, but then disappears completely for 2000 years until it is printed in Venice in 1625. In the absence of any provenance for the work, it seems to me that the probability of forgery far outweighs the likelihood that the modern text has any resemblance at all to that referred to in the canonical books. Indeed, your acceptance of 'ancient texts' is singularly lacking in critcal assessment. > > >> And so in the beginning, when God created all the animals, he made >> exactly as many as would fit onto the Ark later when he destroyed all >> living things on land because of mankinds' sins? >> >> And then he created man? >> >> If I was the serpent I'd just bite Adam and watch him die. Problem >> solved. > > No wonder you believe evolution. You have no thinking abilties > > === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit : > >>>>>> On May 26, 2:04 pm, John Harshman >>>>>>>> All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would >>>>>>>> mean that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. >>>>>>> Where does the number 40,000 come from? >>>>>> >>>>>> Last time I checked, it was damn near close to 167*240. >>>>>> >>>>> Are you trying to say that the number of animals the ark had to >>>>> carry was determined by adjusting it to fit the size of the ark? I >>>>> don't think the author of the original piece would be happy with >>>>> this accusation, though of course you're too stupid to realize that >>>>> it's an accusation. >>>> >>>> That is eactly what happened. God himself did the adjusting. See The >>>> Book Of Jasher Chapter 5, but it is best to read the entire book. >>> >>> Not the bible then. >>> >> >> that dosen't matter, >> The bible version is a snyposis. Jasher is the full version of the >> event. > > > >upon what evidence do you base the assumption that the book of Jasher is >an authentic history? It is referenced in Samuel and 2 Kings, I >believe, but then disappears completely for 2000 years until it is >printed in Venice in 1625. In the absence of any provenance for the >work, it seems to me that the probability of forgery far outweighs the >likelihood that the modern text has any resemblance at all to that >referred to in the canonical books. Indeed, your acceptance of 'ancient >texts' is singularly lacking in critcal assessment. Keep in mind that [M]adman thinks that the Book of Enoch, which depicts the Sun as crossing the sky in a chariot, is a legitimate source of information. >>> And so in the beginning, when God created all the animals, he made >>> exactly as many as would fit onto the Ark later when he destroyed all >>> living things on land because of mankinds' sins? >>> >>> And then he created man? >>> >>> If I was the serpent I'd just bite Adam and watch him die. Problem >>> solved. >> >> No wonder you believe evolution. You have no thinking abilties Oh, the irony. === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit >> : >> >>> >>>>>>>> On May 26, 2:04 pm, John Harshman >>>>>>>>>> All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would >>>>>>>>>> mean that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. >>>>>>>>> Where does the number 40,000 come from? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Last time I checked, it was damn near close to 167*240. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Are you trying to say that the number of animals the ark had to >>>>>>> carry was determined by adjusting it to fit the size of the ark? >>>>>>> I don't think the author of the original piece would be happy >>>>>>> with this accusation, though of course you're too stupid to >>>>>>> realize that it's an accusation. >>>>>> >>>>>> That is eactly what happened. God himself did the adjusting. See >>>>>> The Book Of Jasher Chapter 5, but it is best to read the entire >>>>>> book. >>>>> >>>>> Not the bible then. >>>>> >>>> >>>> that dosen't matter, >>>> The bible version is a snyposis. Jasher is the full version of the >>>> event. >>> >>> >>> >>> upon what evidence do you base the assumption that the book of >>> Jasher is an authentic history? It is referenced in Samuel and 2 >>> Kings, I believe, but then disappears completely for 2000 years >>> until it is printed in Venice in 1625. In the absence of any >>> provenance for the work, it seems to me that the probability of >>> forgery far outweighs the likelihood that the modern text has any >>> resemblance at all to that referred to in the canonical books. >>> Indeed, your acceptance of 'ancient texts' is singularly lacking in >>> critcal assessment. >> >> Keep in mind that [M]adman thinks that the Book of Enoch, which >> depicts the Sun as crossing the sky in a chariot, is a legitimate >> source of information. > >evidence for that assertion please It would seem that you haven't actually read the book that you love to refer to. >>>>> And so in the beginning, when God created all the animals, he made >>>>> exactly as many as would fit onto the Ark later when he destroyed >>>>> all living things on land because of mankinds' sins? >>>>> >>>>> And then he created man? >>>>> >>>>> If I was the serpent I'd just bite Adam and watch him die. Problem >>>>> solved. >>>> >>>> No wonder you believe evolution. You have no thinking abilties >> >> Oh, the irony. And apparently, you're lazy as well. === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit > > : > > > >>>>>>> On May 26, 2:04 pm, John Harshman > >>>>>>>>> All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. > > >>>>>>>>> One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would > >>>>>>>>> mean that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. > >>>>>>>> Where does the number 40,000 come from? > > >>>>>>> Last time I checked, it was damn near close to 167*240. > > >>>>>> Are you trying to say that the number of animals the ark had to > >>>>>> carry was determined by adjusting it to fit the size of the ark? > >>>>>> I don't think the author of the original piece would be happy > >>>>>> with this accusation, though of course you're too stupid to > >>>>>> realize that it's an accusation. > > >>>>> That is eactly what happened. God himself did the adjusting. See > >>>>> The Book Of Jasher Chapter 5, but it is best to read the entire > >>>>> book. > > >>>> Not the bible then. > > >>> that dosen't matter, > >>> The bible version is a snyposis. Jasher is the full version of the > >>> event. > > >> upon what evidence do you base the assumption that the book of > >> Jasher is an authentic history? ÊIt is referenced in \ Samuel and 2 > >> Kings, I believe, but then disappears completely for 2000 years > >> until it is printed in Venice in 1625. ÊIn the absence of \ any > >> provenance for the work, it seems to me that the probability of > >> forgery far outweighs the likelihood that the modern text has any > >> resemblance at all to that referred to in the canonical books. > >> Indeed, your acceptance of 'ancient texts' is singularly lacking in > >> critcal assessment. > > > Keep in mind that [M]adman thinks that the Book of Enoch, which > > depicts the Sun as crossing the sky in a chariot, is a legitimate > > source of information. > > evidence for that assertion please > > > Chapter 75: For the signs and the times and the years and the days the angel Uriel showed to me, whom the Lord of glory hath set for ever over all the luminaries of the heaven, in the heaven and in the world, that they should rule on the face of the heaven and be seen on the earth, and be leaders for the day and the night, i.e. the sun, moon, and stars, and all the ministering creatures which make their revolution in all the chariots 4 of the heaven. In like manner twelve doors Uriel showed me, open in the circumference of the sun's chariot in the heaven, through which the rays of the sun break forth: and from them is warmth 5 diffused over the earth, when they are opened at their appointed seasons. [And for the winds and 6 the spirit of the dew when they are opened, standing open in the heavens === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit >>> : >> >> >>>>>>>>> On May 26, 2:04 pm, John Harshman >>>>>>>>>>> All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. >> >>>>>>>>>>> One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would >>>>>>>>>>> mean that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. >>>>>>>>>> Where does the number 40,000 come from? >> >>>>>>>>> Last time I checked, it was damn near close to 167*240. >> >>>>>>>> Are you trying to say that the number of animals the ark had to >>>>>>>> carry was determined by adjusting it to fit the size of the >>>>>>>> ark? I don't think the author of the original piece would be >>>>>>>> happy with this accusation, though of course you're too stupid >>>>>>>> to realize that it's an accusation. >> >>>>>>> That is eactly what happened. God himself did the adjusting. See >>>>>>> The Book Of Jasher Chapter 5, but it is best to read the entire >>>>>>> book. >> >>>>>> Not the bible then. >> >>>>> that dosen't matter, >>>>> The bible version is a snyposis. Jasher is the full version of the >>>>> event. >> >>>> upon what evidence do you base the assumption that the book of >>>> Jasher is an authentic history? It is referenced in Samuel and 2 >>>> Kings, I believe, but then disappears completely for 2000 years >>>> until it is printed in Venice in 1625. In the absence of any >>>> provenance for the work, it seems to me that the probability of >>>> forgery far outweighs the likelihood that the modern text has any >>>> resemblance at all to that referred to in the canonical books. >>>> Indeed, your acceptance of 'ancient texts' is singularly lacking in >>>> critcal assessment. >> >>> Keep in mind that [M]adman thinks that the Book of Enoch, which >>> depicts the Sun as crossing the sky in a chariot, is a legitimate >>> source of information. >> >> evidence for that assertion please >> >> >> > Chapter 75: > For the signs and the times and the years and the days the angel Uriel > showed to me, whom the Lord of glory hath set for ever over all the > luminaries of the heaven, in the heaven and in the world, that they > should rule on the face of the heaven and be seen on the earth, and be > leaders for the day and the night, i.e. the sun, moon, and stars, and > all the ministering creatures which make their revolution in all the > chariots 4 of the heaven. In like manner twelve doors Uriel showed > me, open in the circumference of the sun's chariot in the heaven, > through which the rays of the sun break forth: and from them is > warmth 5 diffused over the earth, when they are opened at their > appointed seasons. [And for the winds and 6 the spirit of the dew > when they are opened, standing open in the heavens Evidence that this is NOT a legitimate source of information You did not see Chris's sarcasm? === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit > >>> : > > > >>>>>>>>> On May 26, 2:04 pm, John Harshman > >>>>>>>>>>> All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. > > >>>>>>>>>>> One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would > >>>>>>>>>>> mean that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. > >>>>>>>>>> Where does the number 40,000 come from? > > >>>>>>>>> Last time I checked, it was damn near close to 167*240. > > >>>>>>>> Are you trying to say that the number of animals the ark had to > >>>>>>>> carry was determined by adjusting it to fit the size of the > >>>>>>>> ark? I don't think the author of the original piece would be > >>>>>>>> happy with this accusation, though of course you're too stupid > >>>>>>>> to realize that it's an accusation. > > >>>>>>> That is eactly what happened. God himself did the adjusting. See > >>>>>>> The Book Of Jasher Chapter 5, but it is best to read the entire > >>>>>>> book. > > >>>>>> Not the bible then. > > >>>>> that dosen't matter, > >>>>> The bible version is a snyposis. Jasher is the full version of the > >>>>> event. > > >>>> upon what evidence do you base the assumption that the book of > >>>> Jasher is an authentic history? It is referenced in Samuel and 2 > >>>> Kings, I believe, but then disappears completely for 2000 years > >>>> until it is printed in Venice in 1625. In the absence of any > >>>> provenance for the work, it seems to me that the probability of > >>>> forgery far outweighs the likelihood that the modern text has any > >>>> resemblance at all to that referred to in the canonical books. > >>>> Indeed, your acceptance of 'ancient texts' is singularly lacking in > >>>> critcal assessment. > > >>> Keep in mind that [M]adman thinks that the Book of Enoch, which > >>> depicts the Sun as crossing the sky in a chariot, is a legitimate > >>> source of information. > > >> evidence for that assertion please > > > Chapter 75: > > For the signs and the times and the years and the days the angel Uriel > > showed to me, whom the Lord of glory hath set for ever over all the > > luminaries of the heaven, in the heaven and in the world, that they > > should rule on the face of the heaven and be seen on the earth, and be > > leaders for the day and the night, i.e. the sun, moon, and stars, and > > all the ministering creatures which make their revolution in all the > > chariots 4 of the heaven. In like manner twelve doors Uriel showed > > me, open in the circumference of the sun's chariot in the heaven, > > through which the rays of the sun break forth: and from them is > > warmth 5 diffused over the earth, when they are opened at their > > appointed seasons. [And for the winds and 6 the spirit of the dew > > when they are opened, standing open in the heavens > > Evidence that this is NOT a legitimate source of information > Ibid. === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit >>>> : >>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> On May 26, 2:04 pm, John Harshman >>>>>>>>>>>> All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This >>>>>>>>>>>> would mean that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 >>>>>>>>>>>> railroad cars. >>>>>>>>>>> Where does the number 40,000 come from? >>> >>>>>>>>>> Last time I checked, it was damn near close to 167*240. >>> >>>>>>>>> Are you trying to say that the number of animals the ark had >>>>>>>>> to carry was determined by adjusting it to fit the size of the >>>>>>>>> ark? I don't think the author of the original piece would be >>>>>>>>> happy with this accusation, though of course you're too stupid >>>>>>>>> to realize that it's an accusation. >>> >>>>>>>> That is eactly what happened. God himself did the adjusting. >>>>>>>> See The Book Of Jasher Chapter 5, but it is best to read the >>>>>>>> entire book. >>> >>>>>>> Not the bible then. >>> >>>>>> that dosen't matter, >>>>>> The bible version is a snyposis. Jasher is the full version of >>>>>> the event. >>> >>>>> upon what evidence do you base the assumption that the book of >>>>> Jasher is an authentic history? It is referenced in Samuel and 2 >>>>> Kings, I believe, but then disappears completely for 2000 years >>>>> until it is printed in Venice in 1625. In the absence of any >>>>> provenance for the work, it seems to me that the probability of >>>>> forgery far outweighs the likelihood that the modern text has any >>>>> resemblance at all to that referred to in the canonical books. >>>>> Indeed, your acceptance of 'ancient texts' is singularly lacking >>>>> in critcal assessment. >>> >>>> Keep in mind that [M]adman thinks that the Book of Enoch, which >>>> depicts the Sun as crossing the sky in a chariot, is a legitimate >>>> source of information. >>> >>> evidence for that assertion please >>> >>> >>> >> Chapter 75: >> For the signs and the times and the years and the days the angel >> Uriel showed to me, whom the Lord of glory hath set for ever over >> all the luminaries of the heaven, in the heaven and in the world, >> that they should rule on the face of the heaven and be seen on the >> earth, and be leaders for the day and the night, i.e. the sun, moon, >> and stars, and all the ministering creatures which make their >> revolution in all the chariots 4 of the heaven. In like manner >> twelve doors Uriel showed me, open in the circumference of the sun's >> chariot in the heaven, through which the rays of the sun break >> forth: and from them is warmth 5 diffused over the earth, when they >> are opened at their appointed seasons. [And for the winds and 6 the >> spirit of the dew when they are opened, standing open in the heavens > > Evidence that this is NOT a legitimate source of information > > You did not see Chris's sarcasm? And BTW, If Chris (or even you) had been paying attention then both of you would realize that Chapter 72 is actually the begining of a book which is within the book of Enoch and goes through Chapter 75 and beyond as it describes some of the known astrology of that time period. For an ancient man, I think Enoch did a pretty good job describing what Uriel showed him with the \ words that he had at his disposal. Section III. Chapters LXXII - LXXXII The Book of the Heavenly Luminaries. Chapter 72 \1 The book of the courses of the luminaries of the heaven, the relations of each, according to their classes, their dominion and their seasons, according to their names and places of origin, and according to their months, which Uriel, the holy angel, who was with me, who is their guide, showed me; and he showed me all their laws exactly as they are, and how it is with regard to all the years of the world\ === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit > > : > > > >>>>>>> On May 26, 2:04 pm, John Harshman > >>>>>>>>> All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. > > >>>>>>>>> One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would > >>>>>>>>> mean that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. > >>>>>>>> Where does the number 40,000 come from? > > >>>>>>> Last time I checked, it was damn near close to 167*240. > > >>>>>> Are you trying to say that the number of animals the ark had to > >>>>>> carry was determined by adjusting it to fit the size of the ark? > >>>>>> I don't think the author of the original piece would be happy > >>>>>> with this accusation, though of course you're too stupid to > >>>>>> realize that it's an accusation. > > >>>>> That is eactly what happened. God himself did the adjusting. See > >>>>> The Book Of Jasher Chapter 5, but it is best to read the entire > >>>>> book. > > >>>> Not the bible then. > > >>> that dosen't matter, > >>> The bible version is a snyposis. Jasher is the full version of the > >>> event. > > >> upon what evidence do you base the assumption that the book of > >> Jasher is an authentic history? ÊIt is referenced in \ Samuel and 2 > >> Kings, I believe, but then disappears completely for 2000 years > >> until it is printed in Venice in 1625. ÊIn the absence of \ any > >> provenance for the work, it seems to me that the probability of > >> forgery far outweighs the likelihood that the modern text has any > >> resemblance at all to that referred to in the canonical books. > >> Indeed, your acceptance of 'ancient texts' is singularly lacking in > >> critcal assessment. > > > Keep in mind that [M]adman thinks that the Book of Enoch, which > > depicts the Sun as crossing the sky in a chariot, is a legitimate > > source of information. > > evidence for that assertion please dense that you haven't figured out that we remember the drivel you write? Chris Still feeling censored and silenced? 6000 posts in 4 months! Oppression! (mock mock) > > > > >>>> And so in the beginning, when God created all the animals, he made > >>>> exactly as many as would fit onto the Ark later when he destroyed > >>>> all living things on land because of mankinds' sins? > > >>>> And then he created man? > > >>>> If I was the serpent I'd just bite Adam and watch him die. \ ÊProblem > >>>> solved. > > >>> No wonder you believe evolution. You have no thinking abilties > > > Oh, the irony. === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit > > > > > > > > : > > > > >>>>>>> On May 26, 2:04 pm, John Harshman > > >>>>>>>>> All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. > > > >>>>>>>>> One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would > > >>>>>>>>> mean that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. > > >>>>>>>> Where does the number 40,000 come from? > > > >>>>>>> Last time I checked, it was damn near close to 167*240. > > > >>>>>> Are you trying to say that the number of animals the ark had to > > >>>>>> carry was determined by adjusting it to fit the size of the ark? > > >>>>>> I don't think the author of the original piece would be happy > > >>>>>> with this accusation, though of course you're too stupid to > > >>>>>> realize that it's an accusation. > > > >>>>> That is eactly what happened. God himself did the adjusting. See > > >>>>> The Book Of Jasher Chapter 5, but it is best to read the entire > > >>>>> book. > > > >>>> Not the bible then. > > > >>> that dosen't matter, > > >>> The bible version is a snyposis. Jasher is the full version of the > > >>> event. > > > >> upon what evidence do you base the assumption that the book of > > >> Jasher is an authentic history? ÊIt is referenced in \ Samuel and 2 > > >> Kings, I believe, but then disappears completely for 2000 years > > >> until it is printed in Venice in 1625. ÊIn the absence \ of any > > >> provenance for the work, it seems to me that the probability of > > >> forgery far outweighs the likelihood that the modern text has any > > >> resemblance at all to that referred to in the canonical books. > > >> Indeed, your acceptance of 'ancient texts' is singularly lacking in > > >> critcal assessment. > > > > Keep in mind that [M]adman thinks that the Book of Enoch, which > > > depicts the Sun as crossing the sky in a chariot, is a legitimate > > > source of information. > > > evidence for that assertion please > > dense that you haven't figured out that we remember the drivel you > write? > Like, the Book of Enoch is so yesterday! Like, the new Ancient Text du jour is The Book of Jastor, like, come on! === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit > > > > > > > > : > > > > > >>>>>>> On May 26, 2:04 pm, John Harshman > > > >>>>>>>>> All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. > > > > >>>>>>>>> One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This \ would > > > >>>>>>>>> mean that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad \ cars. > > > >>>>>>>> Where does the number 40,000 come from? > > > > >>>>>>> Last time I checked, it was damn near close to 167*240. > > > > >>>>>> Are you trying to say that the number of animals the ark had \ to > > > >>>>>> carry was determined by adjusting it to fit the size of the \ ark? > > > >>>>>> I don't think the author of the original piece would be happy > > > >>>>>> with this accusation, though of course you're too stupid to > > > >>>>>> realize that it's an accusation. > > > > >>>>> That is eactly what happened. God himself did the adjusting. \ See > > > >>>>> The Book Of Jasher Chapter 5, but it is best to read the entire > > > >>>>> book. > > > > >>>> Not the bible then. > > > > >>> that dosen't matter, > > > >>> The bible version is a snyposis. Jasher is the full version of \ the > > > >>> event. > > > > >> upon what evidence do you base the assumption that the book of > > > >> Jasher is an authentic history? ÊIt is referenced in \ Samuel and 2 > > > >> Kings, I believe, but then disappears completely for 2000 years > > > >> until it is printed in Venice in 1625. ÊIn the absence \ of any > > > >> provenance for the work, it seems to me that the probability of > > > >> forgery far outweighs the likelihood that the modern text has any > > > >> resemblance at all to that referred to in the canonical books. > > > >> Indeed, your acceptance of 'ancient texts' is singularly lacking \ in > > > >> critcal assessment. > > > > > Keep in mind that [M]adman thinks that the Book of Enoch, which > > > > depicts the Sun as crossing the sky in a chariot, is a legitimate > > > > source of information. > > > > evidence for that assertion please > > > dense that you haven't figured out that we remember the drivel you > > write? > > > > Like, the Book of Enoch is so yesterday! ÊLike, the new \ Ancient Text > du jour is The Book of Jastor, like, come on! > > Ooooh gag me with a parchment! === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit >> : >>>> The bible version is a snyposis. Jasher is the full version of the >>>> event. >>> >>> >>> upon what evidence do you base the assumption that the book of >>> Jasher is an authentic history? It is referenced in Samuel and 2 >>> Kings, I believe, but then disappears completely for 2000 years >>> until it is printed in Venice in 1625. In the absence of any >>> provenance for the work, it seems to me that the probability of >>> forgery far outweighs the likelihood that the modern text has any >>> resemblance at all to that referred to in the canonical books. >>> Indeed, your acceptance of 'ancient texts' is singularly lacking in >>> critcal assessment. >> Keep in mind that [M]adman thinks that the Book of Enoch, which >> depicts the Sun as crossing the sky in a chariot, is a legitimate >> source of information. > > evidence for that assertion please You referring to the Book of Enoch as though it contained information: The sun crossing the sky in a chariot: === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit > >>>> All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. > > >>>> One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would mean > >>>> that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. > >>> Where does the number 40,000 come from? > > >> Last time I checked, it was damn near close to 167*240. > > > Are you trying to say that the number of animals the ark had to carry > > was determined by adjusting it to fit the size of the ark? I don't > > think the author of the original piece would be happy with this > > accusation, though of course you're too stupid to realize that it's > > an accusation. > > That is eactly what happened. God himself did the adjusting. See The Book \ Of > Jasher Chapter 5, but it is best to read the entire book.- notice the circularity of the argument: god made the ark perfect the existence of a perfect ark proves god exists. creationism means never having to think. === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit > > > > All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. > > > One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would mean > > > that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. > > > Where does the number 40,000 come from? > > Last time I checked, it was damn near close to 167*240. Sounds like the number of neurons left in spintronic's cerebrum after the chemicals. (If you sum left and right hemispheres, that is.) Chris === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit >> >> > > All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. >> > > One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would mean >> > > that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. >> >> > Where does the number 40,000 come from? >> >> Last time I checked, it was damn near close to 167*240. > >Sounds like the number of neurons left in spintronic's cerebrum after >the chemicals. > >(If you sum left and right hemispheres, that is.) > >Chris I do think you are being over generous there. -- Bob. === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit >> All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. >> >> \ The average size of all animals, is the size of a sheep, some say a >> small rodent. > > The inability to distinguish average from median is the first clue > that there's something wrong with this. > >> One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would mean >> that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. > > Where does the number 40,000 come from? > >> The arks total >> capacity was 569 stock cars. The 40,000 animals would require less >> than 30% of the ark's space. In other words all the animals could fit >> on one of the ark's three decks. This would leave the other 70% of >> the ark's space for Noah's family, food, supplies, and baggage. >> >> Many biologists state that the average size of most vertebrates is >> the size of a sheep. Other sources state that the average size is >> about the size of a small rabbit. Since there is some doubt as to >> what is the average size of the animals that were brought into the >> ark, and this paper is a conservative analysis of the carrying >> capacity of the ark, we will use the larger sheep average.We will >> also base our calculation on four different occupancy estimates. The >> first is my own conservative estimate of 40,000. The second is the >> estimate of Whitcomb at 35,000. The final two figures of 16,000 and >> 2,000 are based on the work of Woodmorappe. The 16,000 figure is >> based on the biblical kind being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of >> genus. The second figure of 2,000 is based on the biblical kind being >> equivalent to the taxonomic rank of family. \ > > Ah, pulled out of the nether regions of various creationists. > > There are a few problems with this analysis (aside from that > difficulty with means and medians): > > 1. There was no flood, no ark, and no Noah. > > 2. The numbers appear to refer only to land vertebrates, at the very > most. This leaves all the land invertebrates, marine animals, and > plants fbehind, not to mention protists, prokaryotes, and fungi. Yes, but: Only land vertebrates (and fish?) have the 'breath of life' in that they obviously respire. Invertebrates, having neither blood nor breath, cannot be said to have the breath of life, therefore need not worry about the flood - God took care of them somehow. Similarly about plants, fungi, protists, and prokaryotes. Now that isn't quite what the story says, but it is an excuse. What interests me is the question of the difference between clean and unclean kinds, and the need to carry seven pairs of each of the clean kinds. Since the clean critters tend to be on the large end of the spectrum, this skews considerably the room requirements, and I have not heard any Ark apologist address this particular issue. I mean, we are *really* talking about seven pairs of sheep, goats, cattle, elephants, etc., and not just one pair. Of additional interest is the constraint cleanliness places on which critters can be of the same kind. For example, since carrion fowl are unclean and doves are clean, there must be at least two avian kinds. I wonder if the clean/unclean distinction follows any modern taxonomic pattern - i.e. are entire families unclean? Or is the distinction at the genus level? > 3. You're claiming that an animal, on average, eat at most only twice > its weight in a year. And what about water? > > I could go on for quite a while, but why bother? > >> http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html >> > > === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit : > >>> All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. >>> >>> \ The average size of all animals, is the size of a sheep, some say a >>> small rodent. >> >> The inability to distinguish average from median is the first clue >> that there's something wrong with this. >> >>> One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would mean >>> that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. >> >> Where does the number 40,000 come from? >> >>> The arks total >>> capacity was 569 stock cars. The 40,000 animals would require less >>> than 30% of the ark's space. In other words all the animals could fit >>> on one of the ark's three decks. This would leave the other 70% of >>> the ark's space for Noah's family, food, supplies, and baggage. >>> >>> Many biologists state that the average size of most vertebrates is >>> the size of a sheep. Other sources state that the average size is >>> about the size of a small rabbit. Since there is some doubt as to >>> what is the average size of the animals that were brought into the >>> ark, and this paper is a conservative analysis of the carrying >>> capacity of the ark, we will use the larger sheep average.We will >>> also base our calculation on four different occupancy estimates. The >>> first is my own conservative estimate of 40,000. The second is the >>> estimate of Whitcomb at 35,000. The final two figures of 16,000 and >>> 2,000 are based on the work of Woodmorappe. The 16,000 figure is >>> based on the biblical kind being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of >>> genus. The second figure of 2,000 is based on the biblical kind being >>> equivalent to the taxonomic rank of family. \ >> >> Ah, pulled out of the nether regions of various creationists. >> >> There are a few problems with this analysis (aside from that >> difficulty with means and medians): >> >> 1. There was no flood, no ark, and no Noah. >> >> 2. The numbers appear to refer only to land vertebrates, at the very >> most. This leaves all the land invertebrates, marine animals, and >> plants fbehind, not to mention protists, prokaryotes, and fungi. > >Yes, but: Only land vertebrates (and fish?) have the 'breath of life' >in that they obviously respire. Invertebrates, having neither blood nor >breath, cannot be said to have the breath of life, therefore need not >worry about the flood - God took care of them somehow. Similarly about >plants, fungi, protists, and prokaryotes. Now that isn't quite what the >story says, but it is an excuse. > >What interests me is the question of the difference between clean and >unclean kinds, and the need to carry seven pairs of each of the clean >kinds. Since the clean critters tend to be on the large end of the >spectrum, this skews considerably the room requirements, and I have not >heard any Ark apologist address this particular issue. I mean, we are >*really* talking about seven pairs of sheep, goats, cattle, elephants, >etc., and not just one pair. Keeping TomS's caveat in elephants would qualify as clean... but giraffes may very well have. >Of additional interest is the constraint >cleanliness places on which critters can be of the same kind. For >example, since carrion fowl are unclean and doves are clean, there must >be at least two avian kinds. I wonder if the clean/unclean distinction >follows any modern taxonomic pattern - i.e. are entire families unclean? >Or is the distinction at the genus level? > > > >> 3. You're claiming that an animal, on average, eat at most only twice >> its weight in a year. And what about water? >> >> I could go on for quite a while, but why bother? >> >>> http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html >>> >> >> === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit > >>> All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. >>> >>> \ The average size of all animals, is the size of a sheep, some say a >>> small rodent. >> The inability to distinguish average from median is the first clue >> that there's something wrong with this. >> >>> One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would mean >>> that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. >> Where does the number 40,000 come from? >> >>> The arks total >>> capacity was 569 stock cars. The 40,000 animals would require less >>> than 30% of the ark's space. In other words all the animals could fit >>> on one of the ark's three decks. This would leave the other 70% of >>> the ark's space for Noah's family, food, supplies, and baggage. >>> >>> Many biologists state that the average size of most vertebrates is >>> the size of a sheep. Other sources state that the average size is >>> about the size of a small rabbit. Since there is some doubt as to >>> what is the average size of the animals that were brought into the >>> ark, and this paper is a conservative analysis of the carrying >>> capacity of the ark, we will use the larger sheep average.We will >>> also base our calculation on four different occupancy estimates. The >>> first is my own conservative estimate of 40,000. The second is the >>> estimate of Whitcomb at 35,000. The final two figures of 16,000 and >>> 2,000 are based on the work of Woodmorappe. The 16,000 figure is >>> based on the biblical kind being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of >>> genus. The second figure of 2,000 is based on the biblical kind being >>> equivalent to the taxonomic rank of family. \ >> Ah, pulled out of the nether regions of various creationists. >> >> There are a few problems with this analysis (aside from that >> difficulty with means and medians): >> >> 1. There was no flood, no ark, and no Noah. >> >> 2. The numbers appear to refer only to land vertebrates, at the very >> most. This leaves all the land invertebrates, marine animals, and >> plants fbehind, not to mention protists, prokaryotes, and fungi. > > Yes, but: Only land vertebrates (and fish?) have the 'breath of life' > in that they obviously respire. Invertebrates, having neither blood nor > breath, cannot be said to have the breath of life, therefore need not > worry about the flood - God took care of them somehow. Similarly about > plants, fungi, protists, and prokaryotes. Now that isn't quite what the > story says, but it is an excuse. Actually, lots of invertebrates have blood, even if you only count fluids that contain hemoglobin. As for \breath of life\, what exactly does that mean? Lungs connected to a pharynx? Interestingly, Madman's source for this has the single sentence \All of the insects could survive outside the ark.\ So much for explaining the survival of the great majority of the world's animal species. Sure, we can invoke as many miracles as we like to explain the results of the flood. The point is to force the creationists to make all these miracles explicit. > What interests me is the question of the difference between clean and > unclean kinds, and the need to carry seven pairs of each of the clean > kinds. Since the clean critters tend to be on the large end of the > spectrum, this skews considerably the room requirements, and I have not > heard any Ark apologist address this particular issue. I mean, we are > *really* talking about seven pairs of sheep, goats, cattle, elephants, > etc., and not just one pair. Of additional interest is the constraint > cleanliness places on which critters can be of the same kind. For > example, since carrion fowl are unclean and doves are clean, there must > be at least two avian kinds. I wonder if the clean/unclean distinction > follows any modern taxonomic pattern - i.e. are entire families unclean? \ > Or is the distinction at the genus level? Hard to say, as there are no clear rules given for most species. >> 3. You're claiming that an animal, on average, eat at most only twice >> its weight in a year. And what about water? >> >> I could go on for quite a while, but why bother? >> >>> http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html >>> >> > === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit >> >>>> All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. >>>> >>>> \ The average size of all animals, is the size of a sheep, some say a >>>> small rodent. >>> The inability to distinguish average from median is the first clue >>> that there's something wrong with this. >>> >>>> One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would mean >>>> that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. >>> Where does the number 40,000 come from? >>> >>>> The arks total >>>> capacity was 569 stock cars. The 40,000 animals would require less >>>> than 30% of the ark's space. In other words all the animals could fit >>>> on one of the ark's three decks. This would leave the other 70% of >>>> the ark's space for Noah's family, food, supplies, and baggage. >>>> >>>> Many biologists state that the average size of most vertebrates is >>>> the size of a sheep. Other sources state that the average size is >>>> about the size of a small rabbit. Since there is some doubt as to >>>> what is the average size of the animals that were brought into the >>>> ark, and this paper is a conservative analysis of the carrying >>>> capacity of the ark, we will use the larger sheep average.We will >>>> also base our calculation on four different occupancy estimates. The >>>> first is my own conservative estimate of 40,000. The second is the >>>> estimate of Whitcomb at 35,000. The final two figures of 16,000 and >>>> 2,000 are based on the work of Woodmorappe. The 16,000 figure is >>>> based on the biblical kind being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of >>>> genus. The second figure of 2,000 is based on the biblical kind being >>>> equivalent to the taxonomic rank of family. \ >>> Ah, pulled out of the nether regions of various creationists. >>> >>> There are a few problems with this analysis (aside from that >>> difficulty with means and medians): >>> >>> 1. There was no flood, no ark, and no Noah. >>> >>> 2. The numbers appear to refer only to land vertebrates, at the very >>> most. This leaves all the land invertebrates, marine animals, and >>> plants fbehind, not to mention protists, prokaryotes, and fungi. >> >> Yes, but: Only land vertebrates (and fish?) have the 'breath of life' >> in that they obviously respire. Invertebrates, having neither blood nor \ >> breath, cannot be said to have the breath of life, therefore need not >> worry about the flood - God took care of them somehow. Similarly about >> plants, fungi, protists, and prokaryotes. Now that isn't quite what the \ >> story says, but it is an excuse. > >Actually, lots of invertebrates have blood, even if you only count >fluids that contain hemoglobin. As for \breath of life\, what exactly >does that mean? Lungs connected to a pharynx? I think it is pretty clear that it means doing stuff like humans. So birds and mammals are clearly of concern, reptiles and fish less so. It was not a biology lesson. BTW, as I keep pointing out, this blood and breath stuff is really important to the Torah, more important than the Flood. We have only the most rudimentary explanation for why the Flood: we know people did wrong, but we don't know what kind of wrong they did. But later on we get page after page on how to deal with blood and what happens if you screw up. And lots of rules for eating things that breath, but pretty much just ignoring the rest. Reading the Torah for what *it* (that is, the writers) care about is, to me at least, a fascinating insight into the minds of people in a very different society than ours. -- Matt Silberstein Do something today about the Darfur Genocide http://www.beawitness.org http://www.darfurgenocide.org http://www.savedarfur.org \Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop\ === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit > > >>> All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. > > >>> \ The average size of all animals, is the size of a sheep, some say \ a > >>> small rodent. > >> The inability to distinguish average from median is the first clue > >> that there's something wrong with this. > > >>> One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would mean > >>> that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. > >> Where does the number 40,000 come from? > > >>> The arks total > >>> capacity was 569 stock cars. The 40,000 animals would require less > >>> than 30% of the ark's space. In other words all the animals could fit > >>> on one of the ark's three decks. This would leave the other 70% of > >>> the ark's space for Noah's family, food, supplies, and baggage. > > >>> Many biologists state that the average size of most vertebrates is > >>> the size of a sheep. Other sources state that the average size is > >>> about the size of a small rabbit. Since there is some doubt as to > >>> what is the average size of the animals that were brought into the > >>> ark, and this paper is a conservative analysis of the carrying > >>> capacity of the ark, we will use the larger sheep average.We will > >>> also base our calculation on four different occupancy estimates. The > >>> first is my own conservative estimate of 40,000. The second is the > >>> estimate of Whitcomb at 35,000. The final two figures of 16,000 and > >>> 2,000 are based on the work of Woodmorappe. The 16,000 figure is > >>> based on the biblical kind being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of > >>> genus. The second figure of 2,000 is based on the biblical kind being > >>> equivalent to the taxonomic rank of family. \ > >> Ah, pulled out of the nether regions of various creationists. > > >> There are a few problems with this analysis (aside from that > >> difficulty with means and medians): > > >> 1. There was no flood, no ark, and no Noah. > > >> 2. The numbers appear to refer only to land vertebrates, at the very > >> most. This leaves all the land invertebrates, marine animals, and > >> plants fbehind, not to mention protists, prokaryotes, and fungi. > > > Yes, but: Only land vertebrates (and fish?) have the 'breath of life' > > in that they obviously respire. Invertebrates, having neither blood \ nor > > breath, cannot be said to have the breath of life, therefore need not > > worry about the flood - God took care of them somehow. Similarly about > > plants, fungi, protists, and prokaryotes. Now that isn't quite what \ the > > story says, but it is an excuse. > > Actually, lots of invertebrates have blood, even if you only count > fluids that contain hemoglobin. As for \breath of life\, what exactly > does that mean? Lungs connected to a pharynx? Isn't 'blood' generally accepted to mean fluid contained within a closed circulatory system? Even with that restriction, of course, plenty of invertebrates have blood- all the annelids, for instance. Not that it makes any sense to apply such a definition to anything biblical, but still... As for breath of live, it obviously was meant to mean inhale-exhale. If they knew about tracheal systems then, they didn't see fit to mention it, I guess. Chris > > Interestingly, Madman's source for this has the single sentence \All of > the insects could survive outside the ark.\ So much for explaining the > survival of the great majority of the world's animal species. > > Sure, we can invoke as many miracles as we like to explain the results > of the flood. The point is to force the creationists to make all these > miracles explicit. > > > What interests me is the question of the difference between clean and > > unclean kinds, and the need to carry seven pairs of each of the clean > > kinds. Since the clean critters tend to be on the large end of the > > spectrum, this skews considerably the room requirements, and I have not > > heard any Ark apologist address this particular issue. I mean, we are > > *really* talking about seven pairs of sheep, goats, cattle, elephants, > > etc., and not just one pair. Of additional interest is the constraint > > cleanliness places on which critters can be of the same kind. For > > example, since carrion fowl are unclean and doves are clean, there must > > be at least two avian kinds. I wonder if the clean/unclean distinction > > follows any modern taxonomic pattern - i.e. are entire families \ unclean? > > Or is the distinction at the genus level? > > Hard to say, as there are no clear rules given for most species. > > >> 3. You're claiming that an animal, on average, eat at most only twice > >> its weight in a year. And what about water? > > >> I could go on for quite a while, but why bother? > > >>>http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit >>>>> All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. >>>>> \ The average size of all animals, is the size of a sheep, some say \ a >>>>> small rodent. >>>> The inability to distinguish average from median is the first clue >>>> that there's something wrong with this. >>>>> One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would mean >>>>> that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. >>>> Where does the number 40,000 come from? >>>>> The arks total >>>>> capacity was 569 stock cars. The 40,000 animals would require less >>>>> than 30% of the ark's space. In other words all the animals could fit >>>>> on one of the ark's three decks. This would leave the other 70% of >>>>> the ark's space for Noah's family, food, supplies, and baggage. >>>>> Many biologists state that the average size of most vertebrates is >>>>> the size of a sheep. Other sources state that the average size is >>>>> about the size of a small rabbit. Since there is some doubt as to >>>>> what is the average size of the animals that were brought into the >>>>> ark, and this paper is a conservative analysis of the carrying >>>>> capacity of the ark, we will use the larger sheep average.We will >>>>> also base our calculation on four different occupancy estimates. The >>>>> first is my own conservative estimate of 40,000. The second is the >>>>> estimate of Whitcomb at 35,000. The final two figures of 16,000 and >>>>> 2,000 are based on the work of Woodmorappe. The 16,000 figure is >>>>> based on the biblical kind being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of >>>>> genus. The second figure of 2,000 is based on the biblical kind being >>>>> equivalent to the taxonomic rank of family. \ >>>> Ah, pulled out of the nether regions of various creationists. >>>> There are a few problems with this analysis (aside from that >>>> difficulty with means and medians): >>>> 1. There was no flood, no ark, and no Noah. >>>> 2. The numbers appear to refer only to land vertebrates, at the very >>>> most. This leaves all the land invertebrates, marine animals, and >>>> plants fbehind, not to mention protists, prokaryotes, and fungi. >>> Yes, but: Only land vertebrates (and fish?) have the 'breath of life' >>> in that they obviously respire. Invertebrates, having neither blood \ nor >>> breath, cannot be said to have the breath of life, therefore need not >>> worry about the flood - God took care of them somehow. Similarly about >>> plants, fungi, protists, and prokaryotes. Now that isn't quite what \ the >>> story says, but it is an excuse. >> Actually, lots of invertebrates have blood, even if you only count >> fluids that contain hemoglobin. As for \breath of life\, what exactly >> does that mean? Lungs connected to a pharynx? > > Isn't 'blood' generally accepted to mean fluid contained within a > closed circulatory system? Generally, I think it means fluid that transports oxygen. Fluid lacking that function is hemolymph. > Even with that restriction, of course, > plenty of invertebrates have blood- all the annelids, for instance. > Not that it makes any sense to apply such a definition to anything > biblical, but still... > > As for breath of live, it obviously was meant to mean inhale-exhale. > If they knew about tracheal systems then, they didn't see fit to > mention it, I guess. So, in other words, they're referring to tetrapods only. Hey, we're lucky if they even count frogs. === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit > > Interestingly, Madman's source for this has the single sentence \All of > the insects could survive outside the ark.\ So much for explaining the > survival of the great majority of the world's animal species. What kind of cruel god wouldn't let the dung beetles _on_ the ark? --Jeff -- The comfort of the wealthy has always depended upon an abundant supply of the poor. --Voltaire === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit , Jim Willemin \ stated...\ > > >>> All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. >>> >>> \ The average size of all animals, is the size of a sheep, some say a >>> small rodent. >> >> The inability to distinguish average from median is the first clue >> that there's something wrong with this. >> >>> One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would mean >>> that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. >> >> Where does the number 40,000 come from? >> >>> The arks total >>> capacity was 569 stock cars. The 40,000 animals would require less >>> than 30% of the ark's space. In other words all the animals could fit >>> on one of the ark's three decks. This would leave the other 70% of >>> the ark's space for Noah's family, food, supplies, and baggage. >>> >>> Many biologists state that the average size of most vertebrates is >>> the size of a sheep. Other sources state that the average size is >>> about the size of a small rabbit. Since there is some doubt as to >>> what is the average size of the animals that were brought into the >>> ark, and this paper is a conservative analysis of the carrying >>> capacity of the ark, we will use the larger sheep average.We will >>> also base our calculation on four different occupancy estimates. The >>> first is my own conservative estimate of 40,000. The second is the >>> estimate of Whitcomb at 35,000. The final two figures of 16,000 and >>> 2,000 are based on the work of Woodmorappe. The 16,000 figure is >>> based on the biblical kind being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of >>> genus. The second figure of 2,000 is based on the biblical kind being >>> equivalent to the taxonomic rank of family. \ >> >> Ah, pulled out of the nether regions of various creationists. >> >> There are a few problems with this analysis (aside from that >> difficulty with means and medians): >> >> 1. There was no flood, no ark, and no Noah. >> >> 2. The numbers appear to refer only to land vertebrates, at the very >> most. This leaves all the land invertebrates, marine animals, and >> plants fbehind, not to mention protists, prokaryotes, and fungi. > >Yes, but: Only land vertebrates (and fish?) have the 'breath of life' >in that they obviously respire. Invertebrates, having neither blood nor >breath, cannot be said to have the breath of life, therefore need not >worry about the flood - God took care of them somehow. Similarly about >plants, fungi, protists, and prokaryotes. Now that isn't quite what the >story says, but it is an excuse. > >What interests me is the question of the difference between clean and >unclean kinds, and the need to carry seven pairs of each of the clean >kinds. Since the clean critters tend to be on the large end of the >spectrum, this skews considerably the room requirements, and I have not >heard any Ark apologist address this particular issue. I mean, we are >*really* talking about seven pairs of sheep, goats, cattle, elephants, >etc., and not just one pair. Of additional interest is the constraint >cleanliness places on which critters can be of the same kind. For >example, since carrion fowl are unclean and doves are clean, there must >be at least two avian kinds. I wonder if the clean/unclean distinction >follows any modern taxonomic pattern - i.e. are entire families unclean? >Or is the distinction at the genus level? [...snip...] When the Biblical Noah story makes the distinction between animals taken by twos and those taken by sevens, it says that clean animals and birds are taken by sevens. It doesn't mention the clean:unclean distinction for birds in this story. As far as taxonomy in the Bible, I don't think there is any such thing. An animal which is otherwise clean can become unclean because of what happens to it. Cleanliness does not seem to be a property of any taxon, but rather of individuals. -- ---Tom S. \As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the \ demand.\ attributed to Josh Billings === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit > All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. > > \ The average size of all animals, is the size of a sheep, some say a \ small > rodent. One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would mean > that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. The arks total > capacity was 569 stock cars. The 40,000 animals would require less than \ 30% > of the ark's space. In other words all the animals could fit on one of \ the > ark's three decks. This would leave the other 70% of the ark's space for > Noah's family, food, supplies, and baggage. > > Many biologists state that the average size of most vertebrates is the \ size > of a sheep. Other sources state that the average size is about the size of \ a > small rabbit. Since there is some doubt as to what is the average size of > the animals that were brought into the ark, and this paper is a \ conservative > analysis of the carrying capacity of the ark, we will use the larger \ sheep > average.We will also base our calculation on four different occupancy > estimates. The first is my own conservative estimate of 40,000. The \ second > is the estimate of Whitcomb at 35,000. The final two figures of 16,000 \ and > 2,000 are based on the work of Woodmorappe. The 16,000 figure is based on > the biblical kind being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of genus. The > second figure of 2,000 is based on the biblical kind being equivalent to \ the > taxonomic rank of family. \ > > http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html Another silenced, censored post, eh Maddypoo? (mock mock) Chris === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit > All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. > > \ The average size of all animals, is the size of a sheep, some say a \ small > rodent. There is no possible way to determine this size without a definition of \kind.\ Considering that most species are nematodes or beetles or something, the average size of species is probably quite a bit smaller than that, but who knows what it would be for \kinds?\ > One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. Yeah, if you cram them in like fraternity students in a phone booth. > This would mean > that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. The arks total > capacity was 569 stock cars. The 40,000 animals would require less than \ 30% > of the ark's space. In other words all the animals could fit on one of \ the > ark's three decks. This would leave the other 70% of the ark's space for > Noah's family, food, supplies, and baggage. Where did you get the figure of 40,000 animals? And how are you figuring space? Are you counting floor space, or do you have the animals piled on top of each other? You also seem to not have any problem with the idea that a creature can survive on 2.3 times its own volume in food for a year, and even that figure assumes that the animals were not in cages (which would have taken up space) and that there was no aisles to walk down between the cages, but that they were just sort of piled in a heap. > Many biologists state that the average size of most vertebrates is the \ size > of a sheep. Name three of this biologists. Also, if they exist, they were almost certainly speaking of the average size of species. There are far more than 40,000 species. > Other sources state that the average size is about the size of a > small rabbit. Why don't you name this source? > Since there is some doubt as to what is the average size of > the animals that were brought into the ark, and this paper is a \ conservative > analysis of the carrying capacity of the ark, we will use the larger \ sheep > average. The Ark didn't exist, and thus no animals were brought aboard it. > We will also base our calculation on four different occupancy > estimates. The first is my own conservative estimate of 40,000. The \ second > is the estimate of Whitcomb at 35,000. The final two figures of 16,000 \ and > 2,000 are based on the work of Woodmorappe. The 16,000 figure is based on > the biblical kind being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of genus. The > second figure of 2,000 is based on the biblical kind being equivalent to \ the > taxonomic rank of family. \ > > http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html GIGO. === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit > All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. > > \ The average size of all animals, is the size of a sheep, some say a > small rodent. One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would \ > mean that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. The arks > total capacity was 569 stock cars. The 40,000 animals would require less > than 30% of the ark's space. In other words all the animals could fit on > one of the ark's three decks. This would leave the other 70% of the ark's \ > space for Noah's family, food, supplies, and baggage. > > Many biologists state that the average size of most vertebrates is the > size of a sheep. Other sources state that the average size is about the > size of a small rabbit. Since there is some doubt as to what is the > average size of the animals that were brought into the ark, and this paper \ > is a conservative analysis of the carrying capacity of the ark, we will > use the larger sheep average.We will also base our calculation on four > different occupancy estimates. The first is my own conservative estimate > of 40,000. The second is the estimate of Whitcomb at 35,000. The final two \ > figures of 16,000 and 2,000 are based on the work of Woodmorappe. The > 16,000 figure is based on the biblical kind being equivalent to the > taxonomic rank of genus. The second figure of 2,000 is based on the > biblical kind being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of family. \ > > http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html Do you realise that cramming 240 sheep into one rr stock car subjects them to extreme crowding, such that they cannot even turn around, and end up standing in a sea of shit and urine? And that there are laws against prolonging this, because of cruelty to animals? (No such laws in England regarding people, though--try the London Northern Line during evening rush hour). So how long is a sheep's last rail journey? Twelve hours? How long do you \ claim the voyage of the Ark took? A year? How many of these animals would \ die along the way from overcrowding, seasickness, etc? Who would shovel the \ shit? Do you realise that trying to maintain the literal truth of the Noah story is completely lunatic? -- Mike Dworetsky (Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply) === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit enriched this group when s/he >> All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. >> >> \ The average size of all animals, is the size of a sheep, some say a >> small rodent. One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This \ would >> mean that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. The arks >> total capacity was 569 stock cars. The 40,000 animals would require less \ >> than 30% of the ark's space. In other words all the animals could fit on \ >> one of the ark's three decks. This would leave the other 70% of the ark's \ >> space for Noah's family, food, supplies, and baggage. >> >> Many biologists state that the average size of most vertebrates is the >> size of a sheep. Other sources state that the average size is about the >> size of a small rabbit. Since there is some doubt as to what is the >> average size of the animals that were brought into the ark, and this \ paper >> is a conservative analysis of the carrying capacity of the ark, we will >> use the larger sheep average.We will also base our calculation on four >> different occupancy estimates. The first is my own conservative estimate \ >> of 40,000. The second is the estimate of Whitcomb at 35,000. The final \ two >> figures of 16,000 and 2,000 are based on the work of Woodmorappe. The >> 16,000 figure is based on the biblical kind being equivalent to the >> taxonomic rank of genus. The second figure of 2,000 is based on the >> biblical kind being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of family. \ >> >> http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html > >Do you realise that cramming 240 sheep into one rr stock car subjects them \ >to extreme crowding, such that they cannot even turn around, and end up >standing in a sea of shit and urine? And that there are laws against >prolonging this, because of cruelty to animals? (No such laws in England >regarding people, though--try the London Northern Line during evening rush \ >hour). At least there is no sea of shit and urine - it only smells like it. > >So how long is a sheep's last rail journey? Twelve hours? How long do you \ >claim the voyage of the Ark took? A year? How many of these animals would \ >die along the way from overcrowding, seasickness, etc? Who would shovel \ the >shit? > >Do you realise that trying to maintain the literal truth of the Noah story \ >is completely lunatic? Madman is like that. -- Bob. === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit > All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. The story goes that all humans were wiped out except for Noah and family. So how did the kangaroos get back to Australia? How did the elephants and giraffs and rhinos unclimb Mount Ararat? Doug Chandler === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit [M]adman schreef: > All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. > > \ The average size of all animals, is the size of a sheep, some say a \ small > rodent. One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would mean \ > that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. The arks total > capacity was 569 stock cars. The 40,000 animals would require less than \ 30% > of the ark's space. In other words all the animals could fit on one of the \ > ark's three decks. This would leave the other 70% of the ark's space for > Noah's family, food, supplies, and baggage. > > Many biologists state that the average size of most vertebrates is the \ size > of a sheep. Other sources state that the average size is about the size of \ a > small rabbit. Since there is some doubt as to what is the average size of \ > the animals that were brought into the ark, and this paper is a \ conservative > analysis of the carrying capacity of the ark, we will use the larger sheep \ > average.We will also base our calculation on four different occupancy > estimates. The first is my own conservative estimate of 40,000. The second \ > is the estimate of Whitcomb at 35,000. The final two figures of 16,000 and \ > 2,000 are based on the work of Woodmorappe. The 16,000 figure is based on \ > the biblical kind being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of genus. The > second figure of 2,000 is based on the biblical kind being equivalent to \ the > taxonomic rank of family. \ > > http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html > We are all in debt to Noah. The sheer knowledge that guy must have had about the animal kingdom is stagering. Picking a male and female of all species! I seriously doubt you believe yourself this actually happened... Erwin Moller -- \There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult.\ -- C.A.R. Hoare === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit Erwin Moller > [M]adman schreef: >> oh, you know, the usual crap > We are all in debt to Noah. > The sheer knowledge that guy must have had about the animal kingdom is > stagering. > Picking a male and female of all species! > > I seriously doubt you believe yourself this actually happened... 'Course he doesn't. But he gets lots of bites === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit > > We are all in debt to Noah. > The sheer knowledge that guy must have had about the animal kingdom is > stagering. He also must have invented an ultrasonic detector to distinguish the 45KHz and 55KHz pipistrelle bat species. -- Reentrant === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit > All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. > > \ The average size of all animals, is the size of a sheep, some say a \ small > rodent. One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would mean > that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. The arks total > capacity was 569 stock cars. The 40,000 animals would require less than \ 30% > of the ark's space. In other words all the animals could fit on one of \ the > ark's three decks. This would leave the other 70% of the ark's space for > Noah's family, food, supplies, and baggage. > > Many biologists state that the average size of most vertebrates is the \ size > of a sheep. Other sources state that the average size is about the size of \ a > small rabbit. Since there is some doubt as to what is the average size of > the animals that were brought into the ark, and this paper is a \ conservative > analysis of the carrying capacity of the ark, we will use the larger \ sheep > average.We will also base our calculation on four different occupancy > estimates. The first is my own conservative estimate of 40,000. The \ second > is the estimate of Whitcomb at 35,000. The final two figures of 16,000 \ and > 2,000 are based on the work of Woodmorappe. The 16,000 figure is based on > the biblical kind being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of genus. The > second figure of 2,000 is based on the biblical kind being equivalent to \ the > taxonomic rank of family. \ > > http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html > How long before the tuatara and kiwi kinds made the trek from New Zealand to the Ark? How did they get there? FedEx? === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit > > > > > All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. > > > \ The average size of all animals, is the size of a sheep, some say a \ small > > rodent. One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would \ mean > > that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. The arks total > > capacity was 569 stock cars. The 40,000 animals would require less than \ 30% > > of the ark's space. In other words all the animals could fit on one of \ the > > ark's three decks. This would leave the other 70% of the ark's space \ for > > Noah's family, food, supplies, and baggage. > > > Many biologists state that the average size of most vertebrates is the \ size > > of a sheep. Other sources state that the average size is about the size \ of a > > small rabbit. Since there is some doubt as to what is the average size \ of > > the animals that were brought into the ark, and this paper is a \ conservative > > analysis of the carrying capacity of the ark, we will use the larger \ sheep > > average.We will also base our calculation on four different occupancy > > estimates. The first is my own conservative estimate of 40,000. The \ second > > is the estimate of Whitcomb at 35,000. The final two figures of 16,000 \ and > > 2,000 are based on the work of Woodmorappe. The 16,000 figure is based \ on > > the biblical kind being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of genus. The > > second figure of 2,000 is based on the biblical kind being equivalent to \ the > > taxonomic rank of family. \ > > >http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html > > How long before the tuatara and kiwi kinds made the trek from New > Zealand to the Ark? How did they get there? FedEx?- How did they get back? I think that this estimate was before they had to start claiming that dinos and all the extinct fauna were on the Ark too. That seems to be fairly recent with the AIG claiming that the Flintsones really existed. You have to make room for Permian vertebrates too, the ones before the dinos that didn't make it when over 90 of the lifeforms on earth went extinct. The mammalian megafauna that evolved after the dinos bit the dust have to be on there too. Titanotheres stood 32 feet tall (25 feet at the shoulder) and were the largest land mammals known at this time. Since there are millions of extant species 40,000 means that there has been a lot of evolution since the flood among the fraction of \kinds\ on the ark that didn't go extinct after the flood like the dinos and mammalian megafauna. I think that adman should look up KSJJ he tried to defend this junk and failed pathetically. Every kind with the breath of life was on the Ark. I wonder what happens to an animal when it is crammed into a space where it can't turn around and exercise for a year, and who cleaned up all the poop and ventilated the lower levels when the Ark only had one window that Noah could open when he wanted to? Hey adman! Is this your honest and valid creationist argument? How did you validate it? Why do you think that it is honest, when you haven't found any honest arguments, yet? Ron Okimoto === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit rokimoto@cox.net stated...\ > >> >> >> >> > All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. >> >> > \ The average size of all animals, is the size of a sheep, some say a \ s= >mall >> > rodent. One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would \ me= >an >> > that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. The arks total >> > capacity was 569 stock cars. The 40,000 animals would require less \ than= > 30% >> > of the ark's space. In other words all the animals could fit on one of \ = >the >> > ark's three decks. This would leave the other 70% of the ark's space \ fo= >r >> > Noah's family, food, supplies, and baggage. >> >> > Many biologists state that the average size of most vertebrates is the \ = >size >> > of a sheep. Other sources state that the average size is about the \ size= > of a >> > small rabbit. Since there is some doubt as to what is the average size \ = >of >> > the animals that were brought into the ark, and this paper is a \ conserv= >ative >> > analysis of the carrying capacity of the ark, we will use the larger \ sh= >eep >> > average.We will also base our calculation on four different occupancy >> > estimates. The first is my own conservative estimate of 40,000. The \ sec= >ond >> > is the estimate of Whitcomb at 35,000. The final two figures of 16,000 \ = >and >> > 2,000 are based on the work of Woodmorappe. The 16,000 figure is based \ = >on >> > the biblical kind being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of genus. The >> > second figure of 2,000 is based on the biblical kind being equivalent \ t= >o the >> > taxonomic rank of family. \ >> >> >http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html >> >> How long before the tuatara and kiwi kinds made the trek from New >> Zealand to the Ark? How did they get there? FedEx?- > >How did they get back? > >I think that this estimate was before they had to start claiming that >dinos and all the extinct fauna were on the Ark too. That seems to be >fairly recent with the AIG claiming that the Flintsones really >existed. You have to make room for Permian vertebrates too, the ones >before the dinos that didn't make it when over 90 of the lifeforms on >earth went extinct. The mammalian megafauna that evolved after the >dinos bit the dust have to be on there too. Titanotheres stood 32 >feet tall (25 feet at the shoulder) and were the largest land mammals >known at this time. Since there are millions of extant species 40,000 >means that there has been a lot of evolution since the flood among the >fraction of \kinds\ on the ark that didn't go extinct after the flood >like the dinos and mammalian megafauna. > >I think that adman should look up KSJJ he tried to defend this junk >and failed pathetically. Every kind with the breath of life was on >the Ark. I wonder what happens to an animal when it is crammed into a >space where it can't turn around and exercise for a year, and who >cleaned up all the poop and ventilated the lower levels when the Ark >only had one window that Noah could open when he wanted to? > >Hey adman! Is this your honest and valid creationist argument? How >did you validate it? Why do you think that it is honest, when you >haven't found any honest arguments, yet? > >Ron Okimoto > The thing about the \average\ size of animal, I recall a long discussion about this on t.o several years ago, when it turned out that this \average\ was the *median*. That is, the estimate was that half of the species were larger than a sheep, and half were smaller. The median is the wrong figure for calculating the carrying capacity. The correct number to use is the arithmetic mean. All it takes is a few large animals - cattle, elephants, and so on to take up the volume. It doesn't matter that there are lots of small animals - mice and so on. You can't improve the carrying capacity of the Ark by adding on lots of small animals (and thereby reducing the median), if it's already over capacity with the large animals. That would be like trying to get more furniture into the moving van by filling it up with lots of confetti. -- ---Tom S. \As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the \ demand.\ attributed to Josh Billings === Subject: Chez Watt: Yes. They all fit In the nice metaphor category In message <253340603.00000858.081.0001@drn.newsguy.com>, TomS >You can't improve the carrying capacity of the Ark by adding on lots of >small animals (and thereby reducing the median), if it's already over >capacity with the large animals. That would be like trying to get more >furniture into the moving van by filling it up with lots of confetti. -- alias Ernest Major === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit > > > All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. > > > \ The average size of all animals, is the size of a sheep, some say a \ small > > rodent. One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would \ mean > > that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. The arks total > > capacity was 569 stock cars. The 40,000 animals would require less than \ 30% > > of the ark's space. In other words all the animals could fit on one of \ the > > ark's three decks. This would leave the other 70% of the ark's space \ for > > Noah's family, food, supplies, and baggage. > > > Many biologists state that the average size of most vertebrates is the \ size > > of a sheep. Other sources state that the average size is about the size \ of a > > small rabbit. Since there is some doubt as to what is the average size \ of > > the animals that were brought into the ark, and this paper is a \ conservative > > analysis of the carrying capacity of the ark, we will use the larger \ sheep > > average.We will also base our calculation on four different occupancy > > estimates. The first is my own conservative estimate of 40,000. The \ second > > is the estimate of Whitcomb at 35,000. The final two figures of 16,000 \ and > > 2,000 are based on the work of Woodmorappe. The 16,000 figure is based \ on > > the biblical kind being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of genus. The > > second figure of 2,000 is based on the biblical kind being equivalent to \ the > > taxonomic rank of family. \ > > >http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html > > How long before the tuatara and kiwi kinds made the trek from New > Zealand to the Ark? How did they get there? FedEx? Standard Creationist reply would be along the lines of \Goddidit\. === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit > > > > > > > > > All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. > > > > \ The average size of all animals, is the size of a sheep, some say a \ small > > > rodent. One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would \ mean > > > that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. The arks \ total > > > capacity was 569 stock cars. The 40,000 animals would require less \ than 30% > > > of the ark's space. In other words all the animals could fit on one of \ the > > > ark's three decks. This would leave the other 70% of the ark's space \ for > > > Noah's family, food, supplies, and baggage. > > > > Many biologists state that the average size of most vertebrates is the \ size > > > of a sheep. Other sources state that the average size is about the \ size of a > > > small rabbit. Since there is some doubt as to what is the average size \ of > > > the animals that were brought into the ark, and this paper is a \ conservative > > > analysis of the carrying capacity of the ark, we will use the larger \ sheep > > > average.We will also base our calculation on four different occupancy > > > estimates. The first is my own conservative estimate of 40,000. The \ second > > > is the estimate of Whitcomb at 35,000. The final two figures of 16,000 \ and > > > 2,000 are based on the work of Woodmorappe. The 16,000 figure is based \ on > > > the biblical kind being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of genus. \ The > > > second figure of 2,000 is based on the biblical kind being equivalent \ to the > > > taxonomic rank of family. \ > > > >http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html > > > How long before the tuatara and kiwi kinds made the trek from New > > Zealand to the Ark? How did they get there? FedEx? > > Standard Creationist reply would be along the lines of \Goddidit\.- Hide \ quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Thats because he did. === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit > > > > > > > > > All the animals fit in Noah's Ark. > > > > > \ The average size of all animals, is the size of a sheep, some say \ a small > > > > rodent. One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would \ mean > > > > that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. The arks \ total > > > > capacity was 569 stock cars. The 40,000 animals would require less \ than 30% > > > > of the ark's space. In other words all the animals could fit on one \ of the > > > > ark's three decks. This would leave the other 70% of the ark's space \ for > > > > Noah's family, food, supplies, and baggage. > > > > > Many biologists state that the average size of most vertebrates is \ the size > > > > of a sheep. Other sources state that the average size is about the \ size of a > > > > small rabbit. Since there is some doubt as to what is the average \ size of > > > > the animals that were brought into the ark, and this paper is a \ conservative > > > > analysis of the carrying capacity of the ark, we will use the larger \ sheep > > > > average.We will also base our calculation on four different \ occupancy > > > > estimates. The first is my own conservative estimate of 40,000. The \ second > > > > is the estimate of Whitcomb at 35,000. The final two figures of \ 16,000 and > > > > 2,000 are based on the work of Woodmorappe. The 16,000 figure is \ based on > > > > the biblical kind being equivalent to the taxonomic rank of genus. \ The > > > > second figure of 2,000 is based on the biblical kind being \ equivalent to the > > > > taxonomic rank of family. \ > > > > >http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html > > > > How long before the tuatara and kiwi kinds made the trek from New > > > Zealand to the Ark? How did they get there? FedEx? > > > Standard Creationist reply would be along the lines of \Goddidit\.- \ Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Thats because he did. Have you any evidence for that? === Subject: Re: Yes. They all fit > > > How long before the tuatara and kiwi kinds made the trek from New > > Zealand to the Ark? How did they get there? FedEx? > > Standard Creationist reply would be along the lines of \Goddidit\. I think the bible specifically says so. Let's remember too that the ancestors of modern horses are cute tiny little things. Wouldn't take up much room. God could do that to other species as well. If you have a Noah's Ark toy, are the animals present-day big? No! They are all small enough to pick up with one hand! My friends, that is actual size. Also, if species can evolve from land to water dwelling, or back, then it saves more space, 'cause water dwelling species don't need to be on the ark. They may have a problem with salt versus fresh water, when all the ocean is mixed up, and anyway I don't think that bible kinds are allowed to go between aquatic and terrestrial, but, well, consider it. But not for very long, obviously. It's a pity that the bible doesn't mention the ten additional arks that God miraculously provided, or the miraculous everlasting food supply, like the manna from heaven or Jesus's incredible expanding loaves and fishes. All of which I have just more or less invented into the story. === Subject: [OT] Israeli Nutzies Go On Jihad World Agenda: Israel's war effort gains religious imperative James Hider and Yonit Farrago During the Gaza war this year, Schmuel Kaufman, a military rabbi from a West Bank settlement, used to stride between the Israeli \ soldiersÕ tents and urge them to fight what he deemed an Òobligatory \ warÓ ordained by ancient scripture. ÒItÕs a holy war to protect women and children \ from the south of the country after a long period of endurance on our side,Ó he \ told The Times. ÒThe commander of the battalion asked me to blow the \ shofar [a ramÕs horn] every time before going into the fighting. \ IÕm blowing the shofar while 500 soldiers stand behind me praying. They went in wrapped in holiness.Ó Rabbi Kaufman and many other religious soldiers attributed \ IsraelÕs very low casualty rate in the month-long conflict to the newfound religiosity of its Armed Forces. In recent years, the army has become more devout, with an increasing number of recruits from religious and nationalist groups, including settlers. Even secular professional soldiers, who long formed the backbone of the Israeli Army, admire the motivation and zeal of their nationalist-religious comrades, and say that they were some of the most effective fighters in Gaza. -- The comfort of the wealthy has always depended upon an abundant supply of the poor. --Voltaire === Subject: [OT] Israeli Nutzies Shut Down Literature Festival http://progressive.org/wx052509.html Israel Sends Soldiers to Try to Shut Down Literature Festival By Matthew Rothschild, May 25, 2009 The Israeli government sent in troops on May 23 to try to break up the opening of the second annual Palestine Festival of Literature in East Jerusalem. Stephanie Saldana, an American writer living in Jerusalem, went to the Palestinian National Theater for what she thought was going to be the opening of the festival. ÒWe arrived and the place was swarming with the Israeli army, \ with in shock. To ban literature? To ban reading? How is this \ possible?Ó The Israeli minister of internal security ordered the busting of the literature festival, according to The Guardian newspaper. ÒShortly before the opening event was due to begin, a squad \ of around a dozen Israeli border police walked into the Palestinian National Theater, in East Jerusalem, and ordered it to be closed,Ó the \ Guardian reported. ÒPolice brought a letter from the Israeli minister \ of internal security which said the event could not be held because it was a political activity connected to the Palestinian Authority.Ó The Palestine Festival of Literature is supported by UNESCO and the British Council, among others. -- The comfort of the wealthy has always depended upon an abundant supply of the poor. --Voltaire === Subject: O. F. T. Re: Israeli Nutzies Shut Down Literature Festival > > > > > > >http://progressive.org/wx052509.html > > > Israel Sends Soldiers to Try to Shut Down Literature Festival > > By Matthew Rothschild, May 25, 2009 > > > The Israeli government sent in troops on May 23 to try to break up the > > opening of the second annual Palestine Festival of Literature in East > > Jerusalem. > > > Stephanie Saldana, an American writer living in Jerusalem, went to the > > Palestinian National Theater for what she thought was going to be the > > opening of the festival. > > > ÒWe arrived and the place was swarming with the Israeli \ army, with > > in shock. To ban literature? To ban reading? How is this \ possible?Ó > > > The Israeli minister of internal security ordered the busting of the > > literature festival, according to The Guardian newspaper. > > > ÒShortly before the opening event was due to begin, a \ squad of around a > > dozen Israeli border police walked into the Palestinian National > > Theater, in East Jerusalem, and ordered it to be closed,Ó \ the Guardian > > reported. ÒPolice brought a letter from the Israeli \ minister of internal > > security which said the event could not be held because it was a > > political activity connected to the Palestinian \ Authority.Ó > > To quote Boikat. > > \They broke the \code of conduct\, I beleive he also says \nuff > said\\. > > And what a stupid argument it is. If such is barred according to Israeli law,... your point would be? > > I believe he also says; > > \Stop whining, you don't see me gettin (sacked/blown up) and whining\. Actually, I'd say, \Off Fucking Topic\. Boikat === Subject: Re: Israeli Nutzies Shut Down Literature Festival > http://progressive.org/wx052509.html > > Israel Sends Soldiers to Try to Shut Down Literature Festival > By Matthew Rothschild, May 25, 2009 they should have followed hamas's example and just killed everyone. === Subject: Re: Israeli Nutzies Shut Down Literature Festival > http://progressive.org/wx052509.html > >> Israel Sends Soldiers to Try to Shut Down Literature Festival >> By Matthew Rothschild, May 25, 2009 > > they should have followed hamas's example and just killed everyone. > Still making shit up, eh? W. === Subject: Re: Israeli Nutzies Shut Down Literature Festival > > > >http://progressive.org/wx052509.html > > >> Israel Sends Soldiers to Try to Shut Down Literature Festival > >> By Matthew Rothschild, May 25, 2009 > > > they should have followed hamas's example and just killed everyone. > > Still making shit up, eh? > > W. IOW you don't know what hamas did to palestinian authority members during the recent war.... figures. you know nothing and consider yourself an expert, merely because you hate jews === Subject: Re: Israeli Nutzies Shut Down Literature Festival > http://progressive.org/wx052509.html > > Israel Sends Soldiers to Try to Shut Down Literature Festival > By Matthew Rothschild, May 25, 2009 > > The Israeli government sent in troops on May 23 to try to break up the > opening of the second annual Palestine Festival of Literature in East > Jerusalem. > > Stephanie Saldana, an American writer living in Jerusalem, went to the > Palestinian National Theater for what she thought was going to be the > opening of the festival. > > ÒWe arrived and the place was swarming with the Israeli \ army, with > in shock. To ban literature? To ban reading? How is this \ possible?Ó > > The Israeli minister of internal security ordered the busting of the > literature festival, according to The Guardian newspaper. > > ÒShortly before the opening event was due to begin, a squad \ of around a > dozen Israeli border police walked into the Palestinian National > Theater, in East Jerusalem, and ordered it to be closed,Ó \ the Guardian > reported. ÒPolice brought a letter from the Israeli \ minister of internal > security which said the event could not be held because it was a > political activity connected to the Palestinian \ Authority.Ó To quote Boikat. \They broke the \code of conduct\, I beleive he also says \nuff said\\. And what a stupid argument it is. I believe he also says; \Stop whining, you don't see me gettin (sacked/blown up) and whining\. === Subject: tool use: birds and hooks [This is close to the briefest way to point to this of places.] Other birds, lots of them, have been found to use tools, this is just one more, bringing the total to at least 39, but it sure puts a cork in the concept that tool use is some sign of human superiority, since this bird is one of the ones that not only uses tools but also makes those tools. xanthian. === Subject: Re: tool use: birds and hooks > > > [This is close to the briefest way to point to this > > of places.] > > > > Other birds, lots of them, have been found to use > > tools, this is just one more, bringing the total to > > at least 39, but it sure puts a cork in the concept > > that tool use is some sign of human superiority, > > since this bird is one of the ones that not only > > uses tools but also makes those tools. > > > xanthian. > > That flies in the face of your theory that humans developed > exponentially > after developing \tools\, such as \club\, \fire\ & \spearhead\. > > I wonder why these birds have remained \static\? You mean you get a shock if you touch them? Eric Root === Subject: Re: tool use: birds and hooks > > > [This is close to the briefest way to point to this > > of places.] > > > > Other birds, lots of them, have been found to use > > tools, this is just one more, bringing the total to > > at least 39, but it sure puts a cork in the concept > > that tool use is some sign of human superiority, > > since this bird is one of the ones that not only > > uses tools but also makes those tools. > > > xanthian. > > That flies in the face of your theory that humans developed > exponentially > after developing \tools\, such as \club\, \fire\ & \spearhead\. > > I wonder why these birds have remained \static\? Well, they don't show this behaviour in the wild, so no selective pressure. They by and large do OK as it is. === Subject: Re: tool use: birds and hooks > > > > > > > > > [This is close to the briefest way to point to this > > > of places.] > > > > > Other birds, lots of them, have been found to use > > > tools, this is just one more, bringing the total to > > > at least 39, but it sure puts a cork in the concept > > > that tool use is some sign of human superiority, > > > since this bird is one of the ones that not only > > > uses tools but also makes those tools. > > > > xanthian. > > > That flies in the face of your theory that humans developed > > exponentially > > after developing \tools\, such as \club\, \fire\ & \spearhead\. > > > I wonder why these birds have remained \static\? > > Because they, like you, are limited by brain size. Brain size has only 1 limitation. The size of a single neuron. > That, and they have only a beak to work with, Bears, I like bears. They have larger brains & have more than a \beak to work with\. So whats their problem? Why aren't they smart? > and even birds with relatively dexterous feet are still hampered > by lack of their claws getting in the way of \fine tuned\ manipulation, But they can build? According to the topic starter? > and for birds, the claws are more of an advantage. Nothin beats intelligence, you should put your handbag down & have a go some time. (You may like it) > I giggle at your tiny little brain, you silly tiny brained > immmmbacile! ÊPttttth!\ Lol. === Subject: Re: The Hydroplate Theory > http://www.thetaxpayerschannel.org/graphics/creation/fonte23.mov > > Always remember: Jesus loves you and so do I! Each and every one of you! Brother Theodore was funnier. Kermit === Subject: Re: The Hydroplate Theory > >http://www.thetaxpayerschannel.org/graphics/creation/fonte23.mov > > > Always remember: Jesus loves you and so do I! Each and every one of \ you! > > Otherwise known as continental shelf surfing. > > If you love me, how about lending me a few thousand dollars? If he really loved you he would just give it to you... gregwrld === Subject: Re: The Hydroplate Theory > Spindizzy (with apologies to Blish) is a member of the bible bob school \ of > science. > Bible Bob says, > \ A theory is a guess, speculation, abstract thought, a guess based on > some facts; but then facts are not truth so it is all about theory.\ I just watched a religious documentary on TV that talked about modern people blinded by facts. Maybe I'll say more about it later. === Subject: OT. (Who was the numpty, a while back, going on about how \ 'sensible' Melanie Phillips was...?!?!?) http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3643186/the-sexualisation-of-here\ sy.thtml Heh. W. === Subject: Re: OT. (Who was the numpty, a while back, going on about how \ 'sensible' Melanie Phillips was...?!?!?) In talk.origins I read this message from \websearch\ : >http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3643186/the-sexualisation-of-her\ esy.thtml > >Heh. I can't comment on the politics or individuals cited therein, knowing nothing about them, but Ms. Phillips quaint ideas about what is normative is odd. Does she know anyone who is not heterosexual? If she examined the lives of most of the gay folks I know, she would find them all too unremarkably \normal\. Susan Silberstein === Subject: Re: OT. (Who was the numpty, a while back, going on about how > In talk.origins ÊI read this message from \websearch\ > : > > >http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3643186/the-sexualisation-... > > >Heh. > > I can't comment on the politics or individuals cited therein, knowing > nothing about them, but Ms. Phillips quaint ideas about what is > normative is odd. Does she know anyone who is not heterosexual? If she > examined the lives of most of the gay folks I know, she would find them > all too unremarkably \normal\. \Does she know anyone who is not heterosexual?\ Whenever I see that question asked I assume it's rhetorical. The real question is, of course, is she unaware she knows homosexuals. Mitchell Coffey === Subject: Discrimination: for spintronic As an atheist, I feel I am being discriminated against because of this: http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-nih-collins23-2009may23,0,58891\ 22.story Not fair! === Subject: Re: Discrimination: for spintronic > As an atheist, I feel I am being discriminated against because of > this: > > \ http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-nih-collins23-2009may23,0,588912\ 2.story > > Not fair! here. have a tissue And here... have a glass for that whine you just poured. === Subject: Re: Discrimination: for spintronic > > As an atheist, I feel I am being discriminated against because of > > this: > > >http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-nih-collins23-2009may23,... > > > Not fair! > > here. have a tissue > > And here... have a glass for that whine you just poured. As usual, if there's a point, the creationists will miss it. Chris === Subject: Re: Discrimination: for spintronic On May 26, 6:44Êpm, chris thompson \ > As an atheist, I feel I am being discriminated against because of > this: > > http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-nih-collins23-2009may23,... > > Not fair! You're right. You should complain. :-0 === Subject: Re: Discrimination: for spintronic > As an atheist, I feel I am being discriminated against because of > this: > > http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-nih-collins23- 2009may23,0,5889122 > .story > > Not fair! > Quotations ? \Evolution is God's way of giving upgrades\ (Stephen \ Colbert Interview, December 7, 2006) ? \I concluded at the age of 15 or 16 that I had no interest \ in biology, or medicine, or any of those aspects of science that dealt with this messy \ thing called life. It just wasn't organized, and I wanted to stick with the nice pristine sciences of chemistry and physics, where everything made sense.\ ? \I wish I had learned sooner that biology could be fun as \ well.\ ? (When asked, \What do you say to your fellow Christians who \ say, 'Evolution is just a theory, and I can't put that together with my idea of a \ creator God'?\) \Well, evolution is a theory. It's a very compelling one. \ As somebody who studies DNA, the fact that we are 98.4 percent identical at the \ DNA level to a chimpanzee, it's pretty hard to ignore the fact that when I \ am studying a particular gene, I can go to the mouse and find it's the similar \ gene, and it's 90 percent the same. It's certainly compatible with the \ theory of evolution, although it will always be a theory that we cannot actually prove. I'm a theistic evolutionist. I take the view that God, in His wisdom, \ used evolution as His creative scheme. I don't see why that's such a bad idea. That's pretty amazingly creative on His part. And what is wrong with that as a way of putting together in a synthetic way the view of God who is \ interested in creating a group of individuals that He can have fellowship with -- us? Why is evolution not an appropriate way to get to that goal? I don't see a problem with that.\[13] ? \Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is \ clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the \ study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all \ other living things.\ Please note especially the first and last ones. I agree with him in all of the above. Especially the biology quote. -- email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com. === Subject: Re: Discrimination: for spintronic > As an atheist, I feel I am being discriminated against because of > this: > > http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-nih-collins23- 2009may23,0,5889122 > .story > > Not fair! > What's your problem with him? He rejects ID, he's not a creationist, he's an \ award-winning scientist... is your sole objection that he's a theist? If so, \ tough. -- email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com. === Subject: Re: Discrimination: for spintronic > >> As an atheist, I feel I am being discriminated against because of >> this: >> >> > http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-nih-collins23- > 2009may23,0,5889122 >> .story >> >> Not fair! >> > > What's your problem with him? He rejects ID, he's not a creationist, > he's an award-winning scientist... is your sole objection that he's a > theist? If so, tough. here... Pull my finger === Subject: Re: Discrimination: for spintronic > > > As an atheist, I feel I am being discriminated against because of > > this: > > http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-nih-collins23- > 2009may23,0,5889122 > > > .story > > > Not fair! > > What's your problem with him? He rejects ID, he's not a creationist, he's \ an > award-winning scientist... is your sole objection that he's a theist? If \ so, > tough. > > -- > email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com. I think Chris is pulling legs. Eric Root === Subject: Re: Discrimination: for spintronic >> >>> As an atheist, I feel I am being discriminated against because of >>> this: >> >> http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-nih-collins23- >> 2009may23,0,5889122 >> >>> .story >> >>> Not fair! >> >> What's your problem with him? He rejects ID, he's not a creationist, he's \ an >> award-winning scientist... is your sole objection that he's a theist? If \ so, >> tough. >> >> -- >> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com. > > I think Chris is pulling legs. > > Eric Root > Given certain recent comments, we'll just say that I'm not at all amused. -- email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com. === Subject: Re: Discrimination: for spintronic > > > > > >>> As an atheist, I feel I am being discriminated against because of > >>> this: > > >>http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-nih-collins23- > >> 2009may23,0,5889122 > > >>> .story > > >>> Not fair! > > >> What's your problem with him? He rejects ID, he's not a creationist, \ he's an > >> award-winning scientist... is your sole objection that he's a theist? \ If so, > >> tough. > > >> -- > >> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com. > > > I think Chris is pulling legs. > > > Eric Root > > Given certain recent comments, we'll just say that I'm not at all amused. > > -- > email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com. Well, it WAS specifically addressed to spintronic. And while you seem to have gotten tangled up in the net, both he and [M]addy-poo joined you willingly. Sorry if it bugged you (I have no issue with Collins at all; I really have no issue with religious fanatics until their fanaticism becomes public and influences policy) but irony is a longstanding tool on t.o., as you probably know better than me. Chris Chris === Subject: Re: Noachian flood question > YEC's won't give up the so-called worldwide flood, in spite of its > obvious problems. ÊMark Isaac has shown in great detail why \ it's just > a myth, and I can hardly add anything to what he has written. \ ÊBut > I'll try anyway. Ê :-) > > In order to maintain their belief in a world-wide flood, creationists > must somehow account for the formation of fossils. \ ÊScientists have > concluded that most fossils were formed over great stretches of time, > and creationists must somehow convince us that they were formed in > only a few thousand years. > > So, let's suppose that the geologists and paleontologists are all a > bunch of witless fools, and that in reality all the fossils ever > collected are exactly the same age -- Ê +/- a year or so, the \ duration > of the so-called Noachian flood. > > IIRC, the fact that certain types of organisms are all fossilized in > the same strata is 'explained' by a phenomenon known as \Hydrologic > sorting\. ÊIt remains a mystery that triceratops and \ elephants are > never found in the same stratum, even though their general size and > feeding habitrs were not much different. > > But, OK, maybe they just didn't like one another. ÊI can \ understand > that. ÊEarly in life I went to a zoo, and was appalled at how \ bad > elephants smelled. ÊPerhaps triceratops felt the same way. > > But there is one group of fossils that we would expect to find that > is, AFAIK, totally absent from the fossil record. ÊHumans. \ ÊYou know, > Noah's friends and neighbors. ÊYou would recognize these \ fossils by > their surroundings. ÊTools, cities, clothing, etc. > > Well, maybe there were not many human specimens available for > fossilization back in Noah's time. ÊStrange, isn't it, that \ not a > single human fossil that looks anything like the humans of 4000 - 6000 > years ago has ever been found? ÊNor has there ever been found \ a fossil > of domesticated livestock the were common in that period. \ ÊRemember, > it's those people that god was really pissed at. ÊYou'd think \ he would > fossilize one or two of them as examples for the rest of us, wouldn't > you? > > Think about it. ÊThe fossilized remains of allosaurs alone \ outnumber > all the fossils of modern humans and their barnyard companions. \ ÊWhat > a coincidence! > > So, [M]adman, Spinny, and yes, you too Tony Pagano: ÊHow do \ you > account for the complete absence of the fossils of Noah's butcher, > baker, and candlestick maker? > > Tim I've also heard from the YEC that the more mobile or smarter critters are found in the higher strata because they retreated to high ground when the flooding started. That would explain the sorting of the hominids! The non-human apes ran for high ground, but the ones that ran better than the others are found in the higher strata - they ran faster. Then the ones which were a lot like them but fully human, but who were kind of dumb (you can tell by their apish heads (God obviously used the same design for stupid people and apes)) ran a little further, and the more modern humans - excuse me, the smartest ones - ran to the highest ground. Kermit, still working on the triceratops - elephant problem === Subject: Re: Noachian flood question > YEC's won't give up the so-called worldwide flood, in spite of its > obvious problems. ÊMark Isaac has shown in great detail why \ it's just > a myth, and I can hardly add anything to what he has written. \ ÊBut > I'll try anyway. Ê :-) Humans did not mostly live in cities in any place or time before the 18th century. Maybe 19th. I say let creationists keep the flood belief. It just discredits them. Let them believe that the earth is fixed in the universe, that daylight and the blue sky were created before and independently of the sun, and that marrying either your brother or sister or some species of ape is acceptable to God. Let them believe that the world is a hollow sphere and we inside it; some have. === Subject: Re: Noachian flood question > YEC's won't give up the so-called worldwide flood, in spite of its > obvious problems. Mark Isaac has shown in great detail why it's just > a myth, and I can hardly add anything to what he has written. But > I'll try anyway. :-) > > In order to maintain their belief in a world-wide flood, creationists > must somehow account for the formation of fossils. Scientists have > concluded that most fossils were formed over great stretches of time, > and creationists must somehow convince us that they were formed in > only a few thousand years. > > So, let's suppose that the geologists and paleontologists are all a > bunch of witless fools, and that in reality all the fossils ever > collected are exactly the same age -- +/- a year or so, the duration > of the so-called Noachian flood. > > IIRC, the fact that certain types of organisms are all fossilized in > the same strata is 'explained' by a phenomenon known as \Hydrologic > sorting\. It remains a mystery that triceratops and elephants are > never found in the same stratum, even though their general size and > feeding habitrs were not much different. > > But, OK, maybe they just didn't like one another. I can understand > that. Early in life I went to a zoo, and was appalled at how bad > elephants smelled. Perhaps triceratops felt the same way. > > But there is one group of fossils that we would expect to find that > is, AFAIK, totally absent from the fossil record. Humans. You know, > Noah's friends and neighbors. You would recognize these fossils by > their surroundings. Tools, cities, clothing, etc. > > Well, maybe there were not many human specimens available for > fossilization back in Noah's time. Strange, isn't it, that not a > single human fossil that looks anything like the humans of 4000 - 6000 > years ago has ever been found? Nor has there ever been found a fossil > of domesticated livestock the were common in that period. Remember, > it's those people that god was really pissed at. You'd think he would > fossilize one or two of them as examples for the rest of us, wouldn't > you? > > Think about it. The fossilized remains of allosaurs alone outnumber > all the fossils of modern humans and their barnyard companions. What > a coincidence! > > So, [M]adman, Spinny, and yes, you too Tony Pagano: How do you > account for the complete absence of the fossils of Noah's butcher, > baker, and candlestick maker? I'm no creationist. But your challenge was replied to by creationists over 50 years ago (i.e., the ones who cheered William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes trial): God was so angry at the humans of Noah's time (excepting Noah & his family), that he decided to \make a good job of it\ and bury them & their artifacts so thoroughly that few of their remains have ever been found: \So the LORD said, 'I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earthÑmen and animals, and creatures that move \ along the ground, and birds of the airÑfor I am grieved that I have \ made them.'\ -- Genesis 6:05 -- Steven L. === Subject: Re: Noachian flood question > YEC's won't give up the so-called worldwide flood, in spite of its > obvious problems. ÊMark Isaac has shown in great detail why \ it's just > a myth, and I can hardly add anything to what he has written. \ ÊBut > I'll try anyway. Ê :-) > > In order to maintain their belief in a world-wide flood, creationists > must somehow account for the formation of fossils. \ ÊScientists have > concluded that most fossils were formed over great stretches of time, > and creationists must somehow convince us that they were formed in > only a few thousand years. > > So, let's suppose that the geologists and paleontologists are all a > bunch of witless fools, and that in reality all the fossils ever > collected are exactly the same age -- Ê +/- a year or so, the \ duration > of the so-called Noachian flood. > > IIRC, the fact that certain types of organisms are all fossilized in > the same strata is 'explained' by a phenomenon known as \Hydrologic > sorting\. ÊIt remains a mystery that triceratops and \ elephants are > never found in the same stratum, even though their general size and > feeding habitrs were not much different. > > But, OK, maybe they just didn't like one another. ÊI can \ understand > that. ÊEarly in life I went to a zoo, and was appalled at how \ bad > elephants smelled. ÊPerhaps triceratops felt the same way. > > But there is one group of fossils that we would expect to find that > is, AFAIK, totally absent from the fossil record. ÊHumans. \ ÊYou know, > Noah's friends and neighbors. ÊYou would recognize these \ fossils by > their surroundings. ÊTools, cities, clothing, etc. > > Well, maybe there were not many human specimens available for > fossilization back in Noah's time. ÊStrange, isn't it, that \ not a > single human fossil that looks anything like the humans of 4000 - 6000 > years ago has ever been found? ÊNor has there ever been found \ a fossil > of domesticated livestock the were common in that period. \ ÊRemember, > it's those people that god was really pissed at. ÊYou'd think \ he would > fossilize one or two of them as examples for the rest of us, wouldn't > you? > > Think about it. ÊThe fossilized remains of allosaurs alone \ outnumber > all the fossils of modern humans and their barnyard companions. \ ÊWhat > a coincidence! > > So, [M]adman, Spinny, and yes, you too Tony Pagano: ÊHow do \ you > account for the complete absence of the fossils of Noah's butcher, > baker, and candlestick maker? > > Tim All the humans only lived in a small area, most of them East of Eden. If you believe the kooks with the hydroplate theory the Allosaurs lived far away on another part of the continent (Gondwanaland). Somehow the continents moved to their present locations in less than a year without melting the crust. There was something from the ICR (institute of creation research) that I saw that claimed that flood sediments were from the Pleistocene on up and that older sediments were preflood. There was a lot of extinction and fossilization in the couple thousand years before the flood after the fall and a lot of preflooding. Of course you have the guys at the AIG claiming that dinos were on the Ark along with all the other extinct kinds, but consistency isn't what YEC is all about. Ron Okimoto === Subject: Re: Noachian flood question > YEC's won't give up the so-called worldwide flood, in spite of its > obvious problems. Mark Isaac has shown in great detail why it's just > a myth, and I can hardly add anything to what he has written. But > I'll try anyway. :-) > > In order to maintain their belief in a world-wide flood, creationists > must somehow account for the formation of fossils. Scientists have > concluded that most fossils were formed over great stretches of time, > and creationists must somehow convince us that they were formed in > only a few thousand years. > > So, let's suppose that the geologists and paleontologists are all a > bunch of witless fools, and that in reality all the fossils ever > collected are exactly the same age -- +/- a year or so, the duration > of the so-called Noachian flood. > > IIRC, the fact that certain types of organisms are all fossilized in > the same strata is 'explained' by a phenomenon known as \Hydrologic > sorting\. It remains a mystery that triceratops and elephants are > _never_ found in the same stratum, even though their general size and > feeding habitrs were not much different. > > But, OK, maybe they just didn't like one another. I can understand > that. Early in life I went to a zoo, and was appalled at how bad > elephants smelled. Perhaps triceratops felt the same way. > > But there is one group of fossils that we would expect to find that > is, AFAIK, totally absent from the fossil record. Humans. You know, > Noah's friends and neighbors. You would recognize these fossils by > their surroundings. Tools, cities, clothing, etc. > > Well, maybe there were not many human specimens available for > fossilization back in Noah's time. Strange, isn't it, that not a > single human fossil that looks anything like the humans of 4000 - 6000 > years ago has ever been found? Nor has there ever been found a fossil > of domesticated livestock the were common in that period. Remember, > it's those people that god was really pissed at. You'd think he would > fossilize one or two of them as examples for the rest of us, wouldn't > you? > > Think about it. The fossilized remains of allosaurs alone outnumber > all the fossils of modern humans and their barnyard companions. What > a coincidence! > > So, [M]adman, Spinny, and yes, you too Tony Pagano: How do you > account for the complete absence of the fossils of Noah's butcher, > baker, and candlestick maker? > > Tim Look up under water cities. Most humans lived at or near the water back then. === Subject: Re: Noachian flood question > > YEC's won't give up the so-called worldwide flood, in spite of its > > obvious problems. ÊMark Isaac has shown in great detail why \ it's just > > a myth, and I can hardly add anything to what he has written. \ ÊBut > > I'll try anyway. Ê :-) > > > In order to maintain their belief in a world-wide flood, creationists > > must somehow account for the formation of fossils. \ ÊScientists have > > concluded that most fossils were formed over great stretches of time, > > and creationists must somehow convince us that they were formed in > > only a few thousand years. > > > So, let's suppose that the geologists and paleontologists are all a > > bunch of witless fools, and that in reality all the fossils ever > > collected are exactly the same age -- Ê +/- a year or so, \ the duration > > of the so-called Noachian flood. > > > IIRC, the fact that certain types of organisms are all fossilized in > > the same strata is 'explained' by a phenomenon known as \Hydrologic > > sorting\. ÊIt remains a mystery that triceratops and \ elephants are > > never found in the same stratum, even though their general size and > > feeding habitrs were not much different. > > > But, OK, maybe they just didn't like one another. ÊI can \ understand > > that. ÊEarly in life I went to a zoo, and was appalled at \ how bad > > elephants smelled. ÊPerhaps triceratops felt the same way. > > > But there is one group of fossils that we would expect to find that > > is, AFAIK, totally absent from the fossil record. ÊHumans. \ ÊYou know, > > Noah's friends and neighbors. ÊYou would recognize these \ fossils by > > their surroundings. ÊTools, cities, clothing, etc. > > > Well, maybe there were not many human specimens available for > > fossilization back in Noah's time. ÊStrange, isn't it, that \ not a > > single human fossil that looks anything like the humans of 4000 - 6000 > > years ago has ever been found? ÊNor has there ever been \ found a fossil > > of domesticated livestock the were common in that period. \ ÊRemember, > > it's those people that god was really pissed at. ÊYou'd \ think he would > > fossilize one or two of them as examples for the rest of us, wouldn't > > you? > > > Think about it. ÊThe fossilized remains of allosaurs alone \ outnumber > > all the fossils of modern humans and their barnyard companions. \ ÊWhat > > a coincidence! > > > So, [M]adman, Spinny, and yes, you too Tony Pagano: ÊHow do \ you > > account for the complete absence of the fossils of Noah's butcher, > > baker, and candlestick maker? > > > Tim > > Look up under water cities. Most humans lived at or near the water back > then.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Did you intend this as a serious answer? In what way is this even remotely relevant? Tim === Subject: Re: Noachian flood question >>> YEC's won't give up the so-called worldwide flood, in spite of its >>> obvious problems. Mark Isaac has shown in great detail why it's just >>> a myth, and I can hardly add anything to what he has written. But >>> I'll try anyway. :-) >> >>> In order to maintain their belief in a world-wide flood, >>> creationists must somehow account for the formation of fossils. >>> Scientists have concluded that most fossils were formed over great >>> stretches of time, and creationists must somehow convince us that >>> they were formed in only a few thousand years. >> >>> So, let's suppose that the geologists and paleontologists are all a >>> bunch of witless fools, and that in reality all the fossils ever >>> collected are exactly the same age -- +/- a year or so, the duration >>> of the so-called Noachian flood. >> >>> IIRC, the fact that certain types of organisms are all fossilized in >>> the same strata is 'explained' by a phenomenon known as \Hydrologic >>> sorting\. It remains a mystery that triceratops and elephants are >>> _never_ found in the same stratum, even though their general size >>> and feeding habitrs were not much different. >> >>> But, OK, maybe they just didn't like one another. I can understand >>> that. Early in life I went to a zoo, and was appalled at how bad >>> elephants smelled. Perhaps triceratops felt the same way. >> >>> But there is one group of fossils that we would expect to find that >>> is, AFAIK, totally absent from the fossil record. Humans. You know, >>> Noah's friends and neighbors. You would recognize these fossils by >>> their surroundings. Tools, cities, clothing, etc. >> >>> Well, maybe there were not many human specimens available for >>> fossilization back in Noah's time. Strange, isn't it, that not a >>> single human fossil that looks anything like the humans of 4000 - >>> 6000 years ago has ever been found? Nor has there ever been found a >>> fossil of domesticated livestock the were common in that period. >>> Remember, it's those people that god was really pissed at. You'd >>> think he would fossilize one or two of them as examples for the >>> rest of us, wouldn't you? >> >>> Think about it. The fossilized remains of allosaurs alone outnumber >>> all the fossils of modern humans and their barnyard companions. What >>> a coincidence! >> >>> So, [M]adman, Spinny, and yes, you too Tony Pagano: How do you >>> account for the complete absence of the fossils of Noah's butcher, >>> baker, and candlestick maker? >> >>> Tim >> >> Look up under water cities. Most humans lived at or near the water >> back then.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Did you intend this as a serious answer? In what way is this even > remotely relevant? > > Tim Try thinking about it. I know that will be painful, but it may work. === Subject: Re: Noachian flood question > >>> YEC's won't give up the so-called worldwide flood, in spite of its > >>> obvious problems. Mark Isaac has shown in great detail why it's just > >>> a myth, and I can hardly add anything to what he has written. But > >>> I'll try anyway. :-) > > >>> In order to maintain their belief in a world-wide flood, > >>> creationists must somehow account for the formation of fossils. > >>> Scientists have concluded that most fossils were formed over great > >>> stretches of time, and creationists must somehow convince us that > >>> they were formed in only a few thousand years. > > >>> So, let's suppose that the geologists and paleontologists are all a > >>> bunch of witless fools, and that in reality all the fossils ever > >>> collected are exactly the same age -- +/- a year or so, the duration > >>> of the so-called Noachian flood. > > >>> IIRC, the fact that certain types of organisms are all fossilized in > >>> the same strata is 'explained' by a phenomenon known as \Hydrologic > >>> sorting\. It remains a mystery that triceratops and elephants are > >>> never found in the same stratum, even though their general size > >>> and feeding habitrs were not much different. > > >>> But, OK, maybe they just didn't like one another. I can understand > >>> that. Early in life I went to a zoo, and was appalled at how bad > >>> elephants smelled. Perhaps triceratops felt the same way. > > >>> But there is one group of fossils that we would expect to find that > >>> is, AFAIK, totally absent from the fossil record. Humans. You know, > >>> Noah's friends and neighbors. You would recognize these fossils by > >>> their surroundings. Tools, cities, clothing, etc. > > >>> Well, maybe there were not many human specimens available for > >>> fossilization back in Noah's time. Strange, isn't it, that not a > >>> single human fossil that looks anything like the humans of 4000 - > >>> 6000 years ago has ever been found? Nor has there ever been found a > >>> fossil of domesticated livestock the were common in that period. > >>> Remember, it's those people that god was really pissed at. You'd > >>> think he would fossilize one or two of them as examples for the > >>> rest of us, wouldn't you? > > >>> Think about it. The fossilized remains of allosaurs alone outnumber > >>> all the fossils of modern humans and their barnyard companions. What > >>> a coincidence! > > >>> So, [M]adman, Spinny, and yes, you too Tony Pagano: How do you > >>> account for the complete absence of the fossils of Noah's butcher, > >>> baker, and candlestick maker? > > >>> Tim > > >> Look up under water cities. Most humans lived at or near the water > >> back then.- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > Did you intend this as a serious answer? ÊIn what way is \ this even > > remotely relevant? > > > Tim > > Try thinking about it. I know that will be painful, but it may work.- Hide \ quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Ah! A non-answer that totally evades the question. Should I have expected better? (Hint: no) Tim === Subject: Re: Noachian flood question >>>>> YEC's won't give up the so-called worldwide flood, in spite of its >>>>> obvious problems. Mark Isaac has shown in great detail why it's >>>>> just a myth, and I can hardly add anything to what he has >>>>> written. But I'll try anyway. :-) >> >>>>> In order to maintain their belief in a world-wide flood, >>>>> creationists must somehow account for the formation of fossils. >>>>> Scientists have concluded that most fossils were formed over great >>>>> stretches of time, and creationists must somehow convince us that >>>>> they were formed in only a few thousand years. >> >>>>> So, let's suppose that the geologists and paleontologists are all >>>>> a bunch of witless fools, and that in reality all the fossils ever >>>>> collected are exactly the same age -- +/- a year or so, the >>>>> duration of the so-called Noachian flood. >> >>>>> IIRC, the fact that certain types of organisms are all fossilized >>>>> in the same strata is 'explained' by a phenomenon known as >>>>> \Hydrologic sorting\. It remains a mystery that triceratops and >>>>> elephants are _never_ found in the same stratum, even though >>>>> their general size and feeding habitrs were not much different. >> >>>>> But, OK, maybe they just didn't like one another. I can understand >>>>> that. Early in life I went to a zoo, and was appalled at how bad >>>>> elephants smelled. Perhaps triceratops felt the same way. >> >>>>> But there is one group of fossils that we would expect to find >>>>> that is, AFAIK, totally absent from the fossil record. Humans. >>>>> You know, Noah's friends and neighbors. You would recognize these >>>>> fossils by their surroundings. Tools, cities, clothing, etc. >> >>>>> Well, maybe there were not many human specimens available for >>>>> fossilization back in Noah's time. Strange, isn't it, that not a >>>>> single human fossil that looks anything like the humans of 4000 - >>>>> 6000 years ago has ever been found? Nor has there ever been found >>>>> a fossil of domesticated livestock the were common in that period. >>>>> Remember, it's those people that god was really pissed at. You'd >>>>> think he would fossilize one or two of them as examples for the >>>>> rest of us, wouldn't you? >> >>>>> Think about it. The fossilized remains of allosaurs alone >>>>> outnumber all the fossils of modern humans and their barnyard >>>>> companions. What a coincidence! >> >>>>> So, [M]adman, Spinny, and yes, you too Tony Pagano: How do you >>>>> account for the complete absence of the fossils of Noah's butcher, >>>>> baker, and candlestick maker? >> >>>>> Tim >> >>>> Look up under water cities. Most humans lived at or near the water >>>> back then.- Hide quoted text - >> >>>> - Show quoted text - >> >>> Did you intend this as a serious answer? In what way is this even >>> remotely relevant? >> >>> Tim >> >> Try thinking about it. I know that will be painful, but it may >> work.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Ah! A non-answer that totally evades the question. Should I have > expected better? (Hint: no) > > Tim I gave you an answer. Look up under water cities. Most humans lived at or near the water Now do your part and think. === Subject: Re: Noachian flood question > >>>>> YEC's won't give up the so-called worldwide flood, in spite of its > >>>>> obvious problems. Mark Isaac has shown in great detail why it's > >>>>> just a myth, and I can hardly add anything to what he has > >>>>> written. But I'll try anyway. :-) > > >>>>> In order to maintain their belief in a world-wide flood, > >>>>> creationists must somehow account for the formation of fossils. > >>>>> Scientists have concluded that most fossils were formed over great > >>>>> stretches of time, and creationists must somehow convince us that > >>>>> they were formed in only a few thousand years. > > >>>>> So, let's suppose that the geologists and paleontologists are all > >>>>> a bunch of witless fools, and that in reality all the fossils ever > >>>>> collected are exactly the same age -- +/- a year or so, the > >>>>> duration of the so-called Noachian flood. > > >>>>> IIRC, the fact that certain types of organisms are all fossilized > >>>>> in the same strata is 'explained' by a phenomenon known as > >>>>> \Hydrologic sorting\. It remains a mystery that triceratops and > >>>>> elephants are never found in the same stratum, even though > >>>>> their general size and feeding habitrs were not much different. > > >>>>> But, OK, maybe they just didn't like one another. I can understand > >>>>> that. Early in life I went to a zoo, and was appalled at how bad > >>>>> elephants smelled. Perhaps triceratops felt the same way. > > >>>>> But there is one group of fossils that we would expect to find > >>>>> that is, AFAIK, totally absent from the fossil record. Humans. > >>>>> You know, Noah's friends and neighbors. You would recognize these > >>>>> fossils by their surroundings. Tools, cities, clothing, etc. > > >>>>> Well, maybe there were not many human specimens available for > >>>>> fossilization back in Noah's time. Strange, isn't it, that not a > >>>>> single human fossil that looks anything like the humans of 4000 - > >>>>> 6000 years ago has ever been found? Nor has there ever been found > >>>>> a fossil of domesticated livestock the were common in that period. > >>>>> Remember, it's those people that god was really pissed at. You'd > >>>>> think he would fossilize one or two of them as examples for the > >>>>> rest of us, wouldn't you? > > >>>>> Think about it. The fossilized remains of allosaurs alone > >>>>> outnumber all the fossils of modern humans and their barnyard > >>>>> companions. What a coincidence! > > >>>>> So, [M]adman, Spinny, and yes, you too Tony Pagano: How do you > >>>>> account for the complete absence of the fossils of Noah's butcher, > >>>>> baker, and candlestick maker? > > >>>>> Tim > > >>>> Look up under water cities. Most humans lived at or near the water > >>>> back then.- Hide quoted text - > > >>>> - Show quoted text - > > >>> Did you intend this as a serious answer? In what way is this even > >>> remotely relevant? > > >>> Tim > > >> Try thinking about it. I know that will be painful, but it may > >> work.- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > Ah! ÊA non-answer that totally evades the question. \ ÊShould I have > > expected better? Ê(Hint: no) > > > Tim > > I gave you an answer. ÊLook up under water cities. Most \ humans lived at or > near the water > > Now do your part and think.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - There are no under water cities. All human cities are above sea level. Unless you are just trying to pretend that you have a ghost of an argument, please explain. Tim === Subject: Re: Noachian flood question >>>>>>> YEC's won't give up the so-called worldwide flood, in spite of >>>>>>> its obvious problems. Mark Isaac has shown in great detail why >>>>>>> it's just a myth, and I can hardly add anything to what he has >>>>>>> written. But I'll try anyway. :-) >> >>>>>>> In order to maintain their belief in a world-wide flood, >>>>>>> creationists must somehow account for the formation of fossils. >>>>>>> Scientists have concluded that most fossils were formed over >>>>>>> great stretches of time, and creationists must somehow convince >>>>>>> us that they were formed in only a few thousand years. >> >>>>>>> So, let's suppose that the geologists and paleontologists are >>>>>>> all a bunch of witless fools, and that in reality all the >>>>>>> fossils ever collected are exactly the same age -- +/- a year >>>>>>> or so, the duration of the so-called Noachian flood. >> >>>>>>> IIRC, the fact that certain types of organisms are all >>>>>>> fossilized in the same strata is 'explained' by a phenomenon >>>>>>> known as \Hydrologic sorting\. It remains a mystery that >>>>>>> triceratops and elephants are _never_ found in the same >>>>>>> stratum, even though their general size and feeding habitrs >>>>>>> were not much different. >> >>>>>>> But, OK, maybe they just didn't like one another. I can >>>>>>> understand that. Early in life I went to a zoo, and was >>>>>>> appalled at how bad elephants smelled. Perhaps triceratops felt >>>>>>> the same way. >> >>>>>>> But there is one group of fossils that we would expect to find >>>>>>> that is, AFAIK, totally absent from the fossil record. Humans. >>>>>>> You know, Noah's friends and neighbors. You would recognize >>>>>>> these fossils by their surroundings. Tools, cities, clothing, >>>>>>> etc. >> >>>>>>> Well, maybe there were not many human specimens available for >>>>>>> fossilization back in Noah's time. Strange, isn't it, that not a >>>>>>> single human fossil that looks anything like the humans of 4000 >>>>>>> - 6000 years ago has ever been found? Nor has there ever been >>>>>>> found a fossil of domesticated livestock the were common in >>>>>>> that period. Remember, it's those people that god was really >>>>>>> pissed at. You'd think he would fossilize one or two of them as >>>>>>> examples for the rest of us, wouldn't you? >> >>>>>>> Think about it. The fossilized remains of allosaurs alone >>>>>>> outnumber all the fossils of modern humans and their barnyard >>>>>>> companions. What a coincidence! >> >>>>>>> So, [M]adman, Spinny, and yes, you too Tony Pagano: How do you >>>>>>> account for the complete absence of the fossils of Noah's >>>>>>> butcher, baker, and candlestick maker? >> >>>>>>> Tim >> >>>>>> Look up under water cities. Most humans lived at or near the >>>>>> water back then.- Hide quoted text - >> >>>>>> - Show quoted text - >> >>>>> Did you intend this as a serious answer? In what way is this even >>>>> remotely relevant? >> >>>>> Tim >> >>>> Try thinking about it. I know that will be painful, but it may >>>> work.- Hide quoted text - >> >>>> - Show quoted text - >> >>> Ah! A non-answer that totally evades the question. Should I have >>> expected better? (Hint: no) >> >>> Tim >> >> I gave you an answer. Look up under water cities. Most humans lived >> at or near the water >> >> Now do your part and think.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > There are no under water cities. All human cities are above sea > level. Unless you are just trying to pretend that you have a ghost of > an argument, please explain. > > Tim Ancient cities have been found under the water off the coast of India, Japan \ and other places when water levels were lower. Such as before the flood.. Nimrod ( who lived after the flood) rebuild the cities that Cain ( who lived \ before the flood) built after leaving the garden. But forget that for the moment. Read these in their entirety for evidence of \ man before the flood. === Subject: Re: Noachian flood question > >>>>>>> YEC's won't give up the so-called worldwide flood, in spite of > >>>>>>> its obvious problems. Mark Isaac has shown in great detail why > >>>>>>> it's just a myth, and I can hardly add anything to what he has > >>>>>>> written. But I'll try anyway. :-) > > >>>>>>> In order to maintain their belief in a world-wide flood, > >>>>>>> creationists must somehow account for the formation of fossils. > >>>>>>> Scientists have concluded that most fossils were formed over > >>>>>>> great stretches of time, and creationists must somehow convince > >>>>>>> us that they were formed in only a few thousand years. > > >>>>>>> So, let's suppose that the geologists and paleontologists are > >>>>>>> all a bunch of witless fools, and that in reality all the > >>>>>>> fossils ever collected are exactly the same age -- +/- a year > >>>>>>> or so, the duration of the so-called Noachian flood. > > >>>>>>> IIRC, the fact that certain types of organisms are all > >>>>>>> fossilized in the same strata is 'explained' by a phenomenon > >>>>>>> known as \Hydrologic sorting\. It remains a mystery that > >>>>>>> triceratops and elephants are never found in the same > >>>>>>> stratum, even though their general size and feeding habitrs > >>>>>>> were not much different. > > >>>>>>> But, OK, maybe they just didn't like one another. I can > >>>>>>> understand that. Early in life I went to a zoo, and was > >>>>>>> appalled at how bad elephants smelled. Perhaps triceratops felt > >>>>>>> the same way. > > >>>>>>> But there is one group of fossils that we would expect to find > >>>>>>> that is, AFAIK, totally absent from the fossil record. Humans. > >>>>>>> You know, Noah's friends and neighbors. You would recognize > >>>>>>> these fossils by their surroundings. Tools, cities, clothing, > >>>>>>> etc. > > >>>>>>> Well, maybe there were not many human specimens available for > >>>>>>> fossilization back in Noah's time. Strange, isn't it, that not a > >>>>>>> single human fossil that looks anything like the humans of 4000 > >>>>>>> - 6000 years ago has ever been found? Nor has there ever been > >>>>>>> found a fossil of domesticated livestock the were common in > >>>>>>> that period. Remember, it's those people that god was really > >>>>>>> pissed at. You'd think he would fossilize one or two of them as > >>>>>>> examples for the rest of us, wouldn't you? > > >>>>>>> Think about it. The fossilized remains of allosaurs alone > >>>>>>> outnumber all the fossils of modern humans and their barnyard > >>>>>>> companions. What a coincidence! > > >>>>>>> So, [M]adman, Spinny, and yes, you too Tony Pagano: How do you > >>>>>>> account for the complete absence of the fossils of Noah's > >>>>>>> butcher, baker, and candlestick maker? > > >>>>>>> Tim > > >>>>>> Look up under water cities. Most humans lived at or near the > >>>>>> water back then.- Hide quoted text - > > >>>>>> - Show quoted text - > > >>>>> Did you intend this as a serious answer? In what way is this even > >>>>> remotely relevant? > > >>>>> Tim > > >>>> Try thinking about it. I know that will be painful, but it may > >>>> work.- Hide quoted text - > > >>>> - Show quoted text - > > >>> Ah! A non-answer that totally evades the question. Should I have > >>> expected better? (Hint: no) > > >>> Tim > > >> I gave you an answer. Look up under water cities. Most humans lived > >> at or near the water > > >> Now do your part and think.- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > There are no under water cities. ÊAll human cities are \ above sea > > level. ÊUnless you are just trying to pretend that you have \ a ghost of > > an argument, please explain. > > > Tim > > Ancient cities have been found under the water off the coast of India, \ Japan > and other places when water levels were lower. Such as before the flood.. > > Nimrod ( who lived after the flood) rebuild the cities that Cain ( who \ lived > before the flood) built after leaving the garden. > > But forget that for the moment. Read these in their entirety for evidence \ of > man before the flood. > > \ > > \ > > \ - \ Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - There is not a shred of evidence to support any of this claptrap, which is totally irrelevant to my original question anyway. Quoting the miserable creationist party line is not an answer. To get back to my original question: You have still not offered any attempt whatsoever at an explanation of the total absence of human (or their domesticated animals) fossils resulting from the Noachian flood. In fact, you have assiduously avoided this question. Do you have an answer, or are you just going to bleat the tired creationist line once again? It's time to put up or shut up. Tim Tim === Subject: Re: Noachian flood question > > > > > > > >>>>>>> YEC's won't give up the so-called worldwide flood, in spite of > > >>>>>>> its obvious problems. Mark Isaac has shown in great detail why > > >>>>>>> it's just a myth, and I can hardly add anything to what he has > > >>>>>>> written. But I'll try anyway. :-) > > > >>>>>>> In order to maintain their belief in a world-wide flood, > > >>>>>>> creationists must somehow account for the formation of fossils. > > >>>>>>> Scientists have concluded that most fossils were formed over > > >>>>>>> great stretches of time, and creationists must somehow convince > > >>>>>>> us that they were formed in only a few thousand years. > > > >>>>>>> So, let's suppose that the geologists and paleontologists are > > >>>>>>> all a bunch of witless fools, and that in reality all the > > >>>>>>> fossils ever collected are exactly the same age -- +/- a year > > >>>>>>> or so, the duration of the so-called Noachian flood. > > > >>>>>>> IIRC, the fact that certain types of organisms are all > > >>>>>>> fossilized in the same strata is 'explained' by a phenomenon > > >>>>>>> known as \Hydrologic sorting\. It remains a mystery that > > >>>>>>> triceratops and elephants are never found in the same > > >>>>>>> stratum, even though their general size and feeding habitrs > > >>>>>>> were not much different. > > > >>>>>>> But, OK, maybe they just didn't like one another. I can > > >>>>>>> understand that. Early in life I went to a zoo, and was > > >>>>>>> appalled at how bad elephants smelled. Perhaps triceratops felt > > >>>>>>> the same way. > > > >>>>>>> But there is one group of fossils that we would expect to find > > >>>>>>> that is, AFAIK, totally absent from the fossil record. Humans. > > >>>>>>> You know, Noah's friends and neighbors. You would recognize > > >>>>>>> these fossils by their surroundings. Tools, cities, clothing, > > >>>>>>> etc. > > > >>>>>>> Well, maybe there were not many human specimens available for > > >>>>>>> fossilization back in Noah's time. Strange, isn't it, that not \ a > > >>>>>>> single human fossil that looks anything like the humans of 4000 > > >>>>>>> - 6000 years ago has ever been found? Nor has there ever been > > >>>>>>> found a fossil of domesticated livestock the were common in > > >>>>>>> that period. Remember, it's those people that god was really > > >>>>>>> pissed at. You'd think he would fossilize one or two of them as > > >>>>>>> examples for the rest of us, wouldn't you? > > > >>>>>>> Think about it. The fossilized remains of allosaurs alone > > >>>>>>> outnumber all the fossils of modern humans and their barnyard > > >>>>>>> companions. What a coincidence! > > > >>>>>>> So, [M]adman, Spinny, and yes, you too Tony Pagano: How do you > > >>>>>>> account for the complete absence of the fossils of Noah's > > >>>>>>> butcher, baker, and candlestick maker? > > > >>>>>>> Tim > > > >>>>>> Look up under water cities. Most humans lived at or near the > > >>>>>> water back then.- Hide quoted text - > > > >>>>>> - Show quoted text - > > > >>>>> Did you intend this as a serious answer? In what way is this even > > >>>>> remotely relevant? > > > >>>>> Tim > > > >>>> Try thinking about it. I know that will be painful, but it may > > >>>> work.- Hide quoted text - > > > >>>> - Show quoted text - > > > >>> Ah! A non-answer that totally evades the question. Should I have > > >>> expected better? (Hint: no) > > > >>> Tim > > > >> I gave you an answer. Look up under water cities. Most humans lived > > >> at or near the water > > > >> Now do your part and think.- Hide quoted text - > > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > > There are no under water cities. ÊAll human cities are \ above sea > > > level. ÊUnless you are just trying to pretend that you \ have a ghost of > > > an argument, please explain. > > > > Tim > > > Ancient cities have been found under the water off the coast of India, \ Japan > > and other places when water levels were lower. Such as before the \ flood.. > > > Nimrod ( who lived after the flood) rebuild the cities that Cain ( who \ lived > > before the flood) built after leaving the garden. > > > But forget that for the moment. Read these in their entirety for \ evidence of > > man before the flood. > > > \ > > > \ > > > \ - \ Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > There is not a shred of evidence to support any of this claptrap, > which is totally irrelevant to my original question anyway. \ ÊQuoting > the miserable creationist party line is not an answer. > > To get back to my original question: ÊYou have still not \ offered any > attempt whatsoever at an explanation of the total absence of human (or > their domesticated animals) fossils resulting from the Noachian > flood. ÊIn fact, you have assiduously avoided this question. \ ÊDo you > have an answer, or are you just going to bleat the tired creationist > line once again? > > It's time to put up or shut up. > > Tim > I think his answer is that a few ancient ruins have been found underwater, therefore all ancient people and their livestocks were right near the edge of the water when the flood happened, without exception. I think he then assumes that the water level rose somewhat after the flood, so all the human fossils would be under water. It makes sense when you think about it. Of course every human in existence would be right near the edge of the water, and of course they would all have weights tied around them so they would sink immediately rather than float and wash around. And of course their loyal domesticated animals would stick close by, also wear weights, and there wouldn't be any wild relatives of them roaming the higher lands. === Subject: Re: Noachian flood question >>>>>>>>> YEC's won't give up the so-called worldwide flood, in spite of >>>>>>>>> its obvious problems. Mark Isaac has shown in great detail why >>>>>>>>> it's just a myth, and I can hardly add anything to what he has >>>>>>>>> written. But I'll try anyway. :-) >> >>>>>>>>> In order to maintain their belief in a world-wide flood, >>>>>>>>> creationists must somehow account for the formation of >>>>>>>>> fossils. Scientists have concluded that most fossils were >>>>>>>>> formed over great stretches of time, and creationists must >>>>>>>>> somehow convince us that they were formed in only a few >>>>>>>>> thousand years. >> >>>>>>>>> So, let's suppose that the geologists and paleontologists are >>>>>>>>> all a bunch of witless fools, and that in reality all the >>>>>>>>> fossils ever collected are exactly the same age -- +/- a year >>>>>>>>> or so, the duration of the so-called Noachian flood. >> >>>>>>>>> IIRC, the fact that certain types of organisms are all >>>>>>>>> fossilized in the same strata is 'explained' by a phenomenon >>>>>>>>> known as \Hydrologic sorting\. It remains a mystery that >>>>>>>>> triceratops and elephants are _never_ found in the same >>>>>>>>> stratum, even though their general size and feeding habitrs >>>>>>>>> were not much different. >> >>>>>>>>> But, OK, maybe they just didn't like one another. I can >>>>>>>>> understand that. Early in life I went to a zoo, and was >>>>>>>>> appalled at how bad elephants smelled. Perhaps triceratops >>>>>>>>> felt the same way. >> >>>>>>>>> But there is one group of fossils that we would expect to find >>>>>>>>> that is, AFAIK, totally absent from the fossil record. Humans. >>>>>>>>> You know, Noah's friends and neighbors. You would recognize >>>>>>>>> these fossils by their surroundings. Tools, cities, clothing, >>>>>>>>> etc. >> >>>>>>>>> Well, maybe there were not many human specimens available for >>>>>>>>> fossilization back in Noah's time. Strange, isn't it, that >>>>>>>>> not a single human fossil that looks anything like the humans >>>>>>>>> of 4000 - 6000 years ago has ever been found? Nor has there >>>>>>>>> ever been found a fossil of domesticated livestock the were >>>>>>>>> common in that period. Remember, it's those people that god >>>>>>>>> was really pissed at. You'd think he would fossilize one or >>>>>>>>> two of them as examples for the rest of us, wouldn't you? >> >>>>>>>>> Think about it. The fossilized remains of allosaurs alone >>>>>>>>> outnumber all the fossils of modern humans and their barnyard >>>>>>>>> companions. What a coincidence! >> >>>>>>>>> So, [M]adman, Spinny, and yes, you too Tony Pagano: How do you >>>>>>>>> account for the complete absence of the fossils of Noah's >>>>>>>>> butcher, baker, and candlestick maker? >> >>>>>>>>> Tim >> >>>>>>>> Look up under water cities. Most humans lived at or near the >>>>>>>> water back then.- Hide quoted text - >> >>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >> >>>>>>> Did you intend this as a serious answer? In what way is this >>>>>>> even remotely relevant? >> >>>>>>> Tim >> >>>>>> Try thinking about it. I know that will be painful, but it may >>>>>> work.- Hide quoted text - >> >>>>>> - Show quoted text - >> >>>>> Ah! A non-answer that totally evades the question. Should I have >>>>> expected better? (Hint: no) >> >>>>> Tim >> >>>> I gave you an answer. Look up under water cities. Most humans lived >>>> at or near the water >> >>>> Now do your part and think.- Hide quoted text - >> >>>> - Show quoted text - >> >>> There are no under water cities. All human cities are above sea >>> level. Unless you are just trying to pretend that you have a ghost >>> of an argument, please explain. >> >>> Tim >> >> Ancient cities have been found under the water off the coast of >> India, Japan >> and other places when water levels were lower. Such as before the >> flood.. >> >> Nimrod ( who lived after the flood) rebuild the cities that Cain ( >> who lived >> before the flood) built after leaving the garden. >> >> But forget that for the moment. Read these in their entirety for >> evidence of >> man before the flood. >> >> \ >> >> \ >> >> \ - >> Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > There is not a shred of evidence to support any of this claptrap, > which is totally irrelevant to my original question anyway. Quoting > the miserable creationist party line is not an answer. > > To get back to my original question: You have still not offered any > attempt whatsoever at an explanation of the total absence of human (or > their domesticated animals) fossils resulting from the Noachian > flood. In fact, you have assiduously avoided this question. Do you > have an answer, or are you just going to bleat the tired creationist > line once again? > > It's time to put up or shut up. You must be an ignorant fool === Subject: Re: Noachian flood question >> >> It's time to put up or shut up. > > You must be an ignorant fool Considering the effort he's expending trying to get an answer from you, the \fool\ epithet may be accurate. --Jeff -- The comfort of the wealthy has always depended upon an abundant supply of the poor. --Voltaire === Subject: Re: Noachian flood question > >>>>>>>>> YEC's won't give up the so-called worldwide flood, in spite of > >>>>>>>>> its obvious problems. Mark Isaac has shown in great detail why > >>>>>>>>> it's just a myth, and I can hardly add anything to what he has > >>>>>>>>> written. But I'll try anyway. :-) > > >>>>>>>>> In order to maintain their belief in a world-wide flood, > >>>>>>>>> creationists must somehow account for the formation of > >>>>>>>>> fossils. Scientists have concluded that most fossils were > >>>>>>>>> formed over great stretches of time, and creationists must > >>>>>>>>> somehow convince us that they were formed in only a few > >>>>>>>>> thousand years. > > >>>>>>>>> So, let's suppose that the geologists and paleontologists are > >>>>>>>>> all a bunch of witless fools, and that in reality all the > >>>>>>>>> fossils ever collected are exactly the same age -- +/- a year > >>>>>>>>> or so, the duration of the so-called Noachian flood. > > >>>>>>>>> IIRC, the fact that certain types of organisms are all > >>>>>>>>> fossilized in the same strata is 'explained' by a phenomenon > >>>>>>>>> known as \Hydrologic sorting\. It remains a mystery that > >>>>>>>>> triceratops and elephants are never found in the same > >>>>>>>>> stratum, even though their general size and feeding habitrs > >>>>>>>>> were not much different. > > >>>>>>>>> But, OK, maybe they just didn't like one another. I can > >>>>>>>>> understand that. Early in life I went to a zoo, and was > >>>>>>>>> appalled at how bad elephants smelled. Perhaps triceratops > >>>>>>>>> felt the same way. > > >>>>>>>>> But there is one group of fossils that we would expect to find > >>>>>>>>> that is, AFAIK, totally absent from the fossil record. Humans. > >>>>>>>>> You know, Noah's friends and neighbors. You would recognize > >>>>>>>>> these fossils by their surroundings. Tools, cities, clothing, > >>>>>>>>> etc. > > >>>>>>>>> Well, maybe there were not many human specimens available for > >>>>>>>>> fossilization back in Noah's time. Strange, isn't it, that > >>>>>>>>> not a single human fossil that looks anything like the humans > >>>>>>>>> of 4000 - 6000 years ago has ever been found? Nor has there > >>>>>>>>> ever been found a fossil of domesticated livestock the were > >>>>>>>>> common in that period. Remember, it's those people that god > >>>>>>>>> was really pissed at. You'd think he would fossilize one or > >>>>>>>>> two of them as examples for the rest of us, wouldn't you? > > >>>>>>>>> Think about it. The fossilized remains of allosaurs alone > >>>>>>>>> outnumber all the fossils of modern humans and their barnyard > >>>>>>>>> companions. What a coincidence! > > >>>>>>>>> So, [M]adman, Spinny, and yes, you too Tony Pagano: How do you > >>>>>>>>> account for the complete absence of the fossils of Noah's > >>>>>>>>> butcher, baker, and candlestick maker? > > >>>>>>>>> Tim > > >>>>>>>> Look up under water cities. Most humans lived at or near the > >>>>>>>> water back then.- Hide quoted text - > > >>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - > > >>>>>>> Did you intend this as a serious answer? In what way is this > >>>>>>> even remotely relevant? > > >>>>>>> Tim > > >>>>>> Try thinking about it. I know that will be painful, but it may > >>>>>> work.- Hide quoted text - > > >>>>>> - Show quoted text - > > >>>>> Ah! A non-answer that totally evades the question. Should I have > >>>>> expected better? (Hint: no) > > >>>>> Tim > > >>>> I gave you an answer. Look up under water cities. Most humans lived > >>>> at or near the water > > >>>> Now do your part and think.- Hide quoted text - > > >>>> - Show quoted text - > > >>> There are no under water cities. All human cities are above sea > >>> level. Unless you are just trying to pretend that you have a ghost > >>> of an argument, please explain. > > >>> Tim > > >> Ancient cities have been found under the water off the coast of > >> India, Japan > >> and other places when water levels were lower. Such as before the > >> flood.. > > >> Nimrod ( who lived after the flood) rebuild the cities that Cain ( > >> who lived > >> before the flood) built after leaving the garden. > > >> But forget that for the moment. Read these in their entirety for > >> evidence of > >> man before the flood. > > >> \ > > >> \ > > >> \ - > >> Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > There is not a shred of evidence to support any of this claptrap, > > which is totally irrelevant to my original question anyway. \ ÊQuoting > > the miserable creationist party line is not an answer. > > > To get back to my original question: ÊYou have still not \ offered any > > attempt whatsoever at an explanation of the total absence of human (or > > their domesticated animals) fossils resulting from the Noachian > > flood. ÊIn fact, you have assiduously avoided this \ question. ÊDo you > > have an answer, or are you just going to bleat the tired creationist > > line once again? > > > It's time to put up or shut up. > > You must be an ignorant fool- Then how come you are the one who cannot answer his question? Boikat === Subject: Re: Noachian flood question Damn be the creationists Damned by God they will be. Damned be the atheists Damned by God they will be. YOU hate each other so much that you ignore all I have stated for 12 years online. The 6 days before Adam until Eve was created and began the 7th day are not 144 hours. But nor are the 65 million years. The one tries to spred true time and the other tries to crunch it. GOD means power and of what power does either side of you have by this war and this destruction you cause to real truth. The one hates the Bible and calls it myth, and the other makes myths out of Bible truth they insist are true by words they insist are their way. How is it the Red Sea can turn into blood, was it cows blood, human blood , what type blood, and yet you insist it was not red bacteria as our current water keeps turning in my house and the house i once lived in next door. The writer of the Douglas Bible dictionary saw a sequence of natural events predicted by Moses. If the blood were actually blood then i wish to know when the moon will turn into a 2200 mile diameter of liquid blood as it is written. God does not care if creationists claim all fossils were created in the Flood and so are the same age. That isn't the issue to man's creation, man's existence, and man's future salvation from global death. The enemy, you evolutionary atheists, lies as Moses told us you lie when he said the liar is a serpent who says is it not true God says you cant eat any fruit at all from any tree anywhere? This is what you men do here with evil intent. Are you jealous of how crooked clergy makes the tons of money you cant make on your lazy ass. I know street people who praise other con artists for being harder workers at stealing than you gripers at home. You will lie and say that all creationists or any Bible trust and faith will say all fossils are the same year of the Flood, or are all the same year as Adam. The 6 days of creation are from global ocean in darkness to Adam awaking. They are not the age of Earth and sun and galaxy. The fact that the surface of an ocean would be dark until light is a reality. And thousands of our days are still daylight without sun being seen. Happens all the time. And when the sun was made to come out it stayed out because the sky was one color and no clouds under a vapor canopy. Before you slam the vapor canopy, i can slam creationists myself. Any creationist that can reduce 40 feet of fresh water pressure as 14.5 pounds of weight on top of the atmosphere to saying it would have to be only 10cm has already lost God. How does 10cm rain in 40 days at 1/4 cm per day. What is that per hour, a sneeze? The 40 feet rains at 1/2 inch per hour for 40 days increaing the oceans by 40 feet. This would drown everyone even now in our day if it were up and fell that fast. That it was intended to come down is proven by God as much as a penis promises Adam he'll wake up beside a woman; water is the only solid that expands to get lighter and float with intent to prevent freezing by avoiding sinking resulting in more and more surface ice until frozen solid. Instead the temperature to making solid ice results from outside temp inward so that the ice becomes an insulator. That is prophecy, it is word stating the canopy will be gone some day. So even though God now puts it back up for about 1000 years, it will disapate down again. As for heat, the web already verifies that 25% solar constant passes thru the canopy while 75% is reflected by outer ice crystals which sink 40 feet while vapors rise 40 feet to freeze. As for fossils NO ONE CAN CLAIM THEY WERE MADE all by the Flood, nor can they claim they were all made 6 days of 144 hours before Adam. Anything dead in the Flood with carbon will date as 20,000 years for that year 2370 BC. then 10,000 years for 2320 BC, 7000 years for 2237 BC, 3000 years for 2170 BC until 2030 BC proves accurate in mummies. Therefore fossils of carbon older than 20,000 are older than the Flood 2370 BC. However, some claim the 65 million years are that Flood (2370 BC). of that curve I do not know, but obviously none of you are any better at it. So i am even willing to bet i will find the curve before you do, because both sides, you creationists and you atheists are laughing too hard to even consider my words as words of Jehovah. Well Jehovah is now going to save his people, and its these words of mine designed to instill hate between all sides. We will live and you will die. We will express Jehovah's words with intent to offend you so that you will not listen and you will positively all die this year. You bring this on yourself. A true Christian says these words are true, they do not get offended. The offended one is like Judas and as such your death has arrived. You stay in Sodom, you stay off the ark, you say you know science better, and you say you know God better, and with that we are happy our culture and our world leaves you behind in death. You who argue fossils. As for the water. Upon asteroid impact the fire of Noahs was in america and it was put out by the collapsing water. So it did not reach the ark in Asia. And while the canopy collapsed 7 days as it sweeped toward Asia in both directions east of america and west of america, it reached Asia the same day (7 days) that the mantle below the oceans had melted and then met under the continents causing them to collapse from lunar gravity by 40 feet every 12 hours. (Data: the fault in India lifted a cliff 45 feet and flooded the coast 3000 miles with a 30 foot wave.) So that at 80 feet per day, these waves of 40 feet that hit the ark twice a day and dropped the continents to ocean depth of 2km or 2 miles from base of mount Ararat to peak in 150 days. This appeared as a global ocean to those on the ark 380 miles from Ararat having drifted only 140 miles. It only took 15 cubits (7 meters or 22.5 feet) of water to save those 8 people because on the first day when 80 feet covered the city Surupak, only 22 feet proved need to float them. And when the grounded on Ararat 150 days later, the mountain peak was 22 feet below surface sea level because the ark bottom rested on it, it had dropped 2 miles into the ocean. Matters not whether Ararat was formed during those 150 days, it was dormant on day 150, full height, inactive under the ark bottom. In the next 74 days the ark was hit by waves and it was pushed onto the plateau down below where it could see both mountain peaks and sat until 1840 AD. The lessen is the rainbow promises no global rain, no rain of 40 feet, no global rain of 40 feet, no flooding from 40 feet of rain, no global rain for 40 days steady.... rare conditions required just to do this locally. What the rainbow doe snot promise, but these facts do promise is that asteroid impact will sink continents again up to 11,000 feet maximum. And for sure because the continental plateau is 5000 feet higher than preFlood it guarantees that in 7 days you better be on mountains or 5000-6000 feet are promised to be under water for 5 months again and take another additional 7 months before you ever see NYC again. ELIJAH i am seeing i am going to have to die this year before this happens to get anyone to listen, and i really do not wish to die nor make my death happen. But I know you people do hate, and you people do kill. It was proven before by John and Jesus. === Subject: Re: Noachian flood question In message >YOU hate each other so much that you ignore >all I have stated for 12 years online. Perhaps because you are an obvious loon and your prophesies up to now have been completely wrong? -- Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today * === Subject: Re: Noachian flood question > Damn be the creationists > Damned by God they will be. There's no evidence of a worldwide flood created by any of the gods. === Subject: Re: Noachian flood question > i am seeing i am going to have to die this year before this happens > to get anyone to listen, and i really do not wish to die nor make > my death happen. But I know you people do hate, and you people > do kill. It was proven before by John and Jesus. Hey Eli, please, if you are considering suicide, thinking that that will sway opinions to your side, please go get some help. Your death is not likely to sway opinions and this is not an issue you should die over even if it would. -- Greg http://www.spencerbooksellers.com newsguy -at- spencersoft -dot- com === Subject: Re: Noachian flood question > Damn be the creationists > Damned by God they will be. > Damned be the atheists > Damned by God they will be. > YOU hate each other so much that you ignore > all I have stated for 12 years online. > > The 6 days before Adam until Eve was created > and began the 7th day are not 144 hours. > But nor are the 65 million years. The one tries > to spred true time and the other tries to crunch it. > GOD means power and of what power does either > side of you have by this war and this destruction > you cause to real truth. The one hates the Bible > and calls it myth, and the other makes myths out > of Bible truth they insist are true by words they insist > are their way. How is it the Red Sea can turn into blood, > was it cows blood, human blood , what type blood, and > yet you insist it was not red bacteria as our current water > keeps turning in my house and the house i once lived in > next door. The writer of the Douglas Bible dictionary saw > a sequence of natural events predicted by Moses. If the blood > were actually blood then i wish to know when the moon will > turn into a 2200 mile diameter of liquid blood as it is written. > > God does not care if creationists claim all fossils were created > in the Flood and so are the same age. That isn't the issue to > man's creation, man's existence, and man's future salvation > from global death. The enemy, you evolutionary atheists, lies > as Moses told us you lie when he said the liar is a serpent > who says is it not true God says you cant eat any fruit at all > from any tree anywhere? This is what you men do here with > evil intent. Are you jealous of how crooked clergy makes the > tons of money you cant make on your lazy ass. I know street > people who praise other con artists for being harder workers > at stealing than you gripers at home. You will lie and say that > all creationists or any Bible trust and faith will say all fossils are > the same year of the Flood, or are all the same year as Adam. > The 6 days of creation are from global ocean in darkness to > Adam awaking. They are not the age of Earth and sun and galaxy. > The fact that the surface of an ocean would be dark until light > is a reality. And thousands of our days are still daylight > without sun being seen. Happens all the time. And when the sun > was made to come out it stayed out because the sky was one > color and no clouds under a vapor canopy. Before you slam the vapor > canopy, i can slam creationists myself. Any creationist that can > reduce 40 feet of fresh water pressure as 14.5 pounds of weight on top > of the atmosphere to saying it would have to be only 10cm has already > lost God. How does 10cm rain in 40 days at 1/4 cm per day. What is > that per hour, a sneeze? The 40 feet rains at 1/2 inch per hour for 40 > days increaing the oceans by 40 feet. This would drown everyone even > now in our day if it were up and fell that fast. That it was intended > to come down is proven by God as much as a penis promises Adam he'll > wake up beside a woman; water is the only solid that expands to get > lighter and float with intent to prevent freezing by avoiding sinking > resulting in more and more surface ice until frozen solid. Instead the > temperature to making solid ice results from outside temp inward so > that the ice becomes an insulator. That is prophecy, it is word > stating the canopy will be gone some day. So even though God now puts > it back up for about 1000 years, it will disapate down again. As for > heat, the web already verifies that 25% solar constant passes thru the > canopy while 75% is reflected by outer ice crystals which sink 40 feet > while vapors rise 40 feet to freeze. > > As for fossils NO ONE CAN CLAIM THEY WERE MADE all by the Flood, nor > can they claim they were all made 6 days of 144 hours before Adam. > Anything dead in the Flood with carbon will date as 20,000 years for > that year 2370 BC. then 10,000 years for 2320 BC, 7000 years for 2237 > BC, 3000 years for 2170 BC until 2030 BC proves accurate in mummies. > > Therefore fossils of carbon older than 20,000 are older than the Flood > 2370 BC. > However, some claim the 65 million years are that Flood (2370 BC). of > that curve I do not know, > but obviously none of you are any better at it. So i am even willing > to bet i will find the curve before you do, because both sides, you > creationists and you atheists are laughing too hard to even consider > my words as words of Jehovah. Well Jehovah is now going to save his > people, and its these words of mine designed to instill hate between > all sides. We will live and you will die. We will express Jehovah's > words with intent to offend you so that you will not listen and you > will positively all die this year. You bring this on yourself. A true > Christian says these words are true, they do not get offended. The > offended one is like Judas and as such your death has arrived. You > stay in Sodom, you stay off the ark, you say you know science better, > and you say you know God better, and with that we are happy our > culture and our world leaves you behind in death. You who argue > fossils. > > As for the water. Upon asteroid impact the fire of Noahs was in > america and it was put out by the collapsing water. So it did not > reach the ark in Asia. And while the canopy collapsed 7 days as it > sweeped toward Asia in both directions east of america and west of > america, it reached Asia the same day (7 days) that the mantle below > the oceans had melted and then met under the continents causing them > to collapse from lunar gravity by 40 feet every 12 hours. (Data: the > fault in India lifted a cliff 45 feet and flooded the coast 3000 miles > with a 30 foot wave.) So that at 80 feet per day, these waves of 40 > feet that hit the ark twice a day and dropped the continents to ocean > depth of 2km or 2 miles from base of mount Ararat to peak in 150 days. > This appeared as a global ocean to those on the ark 380 miles from > Ararat having drifted only 140 miles. It only took 15 cubits (7 meters > or 22.5 feet) of water to save those 8 people because on the first day > when 80 feet covered the city Surupak, only 22 feet proved need to > float them. And when the grounded on Ararat 150 days later, the > mountain peak was 22 feet below surface sea level because the ark > bottom rested on it, it had dropped 2 miles into the ocean. Matters > not whether Ararat was formed during those 150 days, it was dormant on > day 150, full height, inactive under the ark bottom. In the next 74 > days the ark was hit by waves and it was pushed onto the plateau down > below where it could see both mountain peaks and sat until 1840 AD. > The lessen is the rainbow promises no global rain, no rain of 40 feet, > no global rain of 40 feet, no flooding from 40 feet of rain, no global > rain for 40 days steady.... rare conditions required just to do this > locally. What the rainbow doe snot promise, but these facts do promise > is that asteroid impact will sink continents again up to 11,000 feet > maximum. And for sure because the continental plateau is 5000 feet > higher than preFlood it guarantees that in 7 days you better be on > mountains or 5000-6000 feet are promised to be under water for 5 > months again and take another additional 7 months before you ever see > NYC again. > ELIJAH > > i am seeing i am going to have to die this year before this happens > to get anyone to listen, and i really do not wish to die nor make > my death happen. But I know you people do hate, and you people > do kill. It was proven before by John and Jesus. You seem to believe that the atheist and the creationist are wrong. OK. Maybe they are. But so are you God made a promise that he would not destroy the earth again by water. This eon. the last eon, will end by fire. 2Peter: 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief; in the which the heavens \ shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall be dissolved with \ fervent heat, and the earth and the works that are therein shall be burned up. \Elements\ sound a lot like what we see from this perspective. So we do not need to \be on mountains or 5000-6000 feet\ to escape. Because the mountains will be no place for us to be: Rev 6:16 \and they said to the mountains and to the rocks, \Fall on us and hide us \ from the presence of Him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb;\ There will be no escape. Everyone that is alive, or has ever been alive, will have to stand before thrown of judgment. And since so many choose to take he wide road, the popular road, the road that leads to destruction, then many have a really big suprice in store. adman. === Subject: Re: Noachian flood question Dwib === Subject: Re: Noachian flood question > > Dwib You will enjoy these more: === Subject: Re: Noachian flood question > > > Dwib > > You will enjoy these more: > > \ > > \ > > \ Nothing found in any of these links comes close to answering my original question: Why are there not fossils found of the humans or their livestock that were purportedly drowned in the Noachian flood? Tim === Subject: Re: Noachian flood question >> >>> Dwib >> >> You will enjoy these more: >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Nothing found in any of these links comes close to answering my > original question: Why are there not fossils found of the humans or > their livestock that were purportedly drowned in the Noachian flood? > > Tim Not only that; what about ALL of life drowned in the flood? Herds of wild animals like buffalo, bison, deer and so on - in uncuntable millions, all over Africa, America, Asia, Europe? Add trees and vegetation, there ought \ to be veritable heaps of drowned life all over the planet. Life in the seas would also be affected. Despite attempts by creationists to refute dendrochronoogy by highlighting possible sources of error, we can safely conclude that we have a reliable record of a continous, unbroken sequence of trees spanning the past 10.000 years or so. With no interruption that would have to be caused by a flood. Today we can observe what happens during a climate change on Greenland. The processes going on there are similar to the processes that created Norway's famous fjords.We actually find confirmation of our theories about how the fjords were created during repeated ice ages; now we see the same thing happening on Greenland. But no signs of The Flood. === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? > > > > > > Afghanistan didn't attack us either. > > > > > Uh yeah it did. > > > > When. > > > > Oh, and feel free to call me a \douchebag\ if you like. (shrug) > > > The ring leaders were based in Afghanistan under the protection and > > aid of the > > Taliban govt. > > My roommate is based in my house under my protection and aid. > > If he robs a bank, am I responsible for it? If you knew what was he was up to and then didn't fess up when asked or played dumb as to his whereabouts thats hindering an investigation. You don't pass go, you don't collect 200. > > >That their henchman came from different places is > > irrelevant. With respect to holding Yemen and Saudi Arabia > > responsible, if any evidence comes to light that those govts had > > anything to do with 9/11, then that issue needs to be revisited. > > Um, dude, there is no evidence that the AFGHAN government had anything > to do with it -- not a shred of evdience that they helped mplan it, > not a shred of evdience that they knew about it before George Bush > did. Uh dude. Consult the wiki on Mullah Omar. \Taliban of Afghanistan and was Afghanistan's de facto head of state, and was recognized by three states, from 1996 to 2001, under the official title of Head of the Supreme Council. He held the title Commander of the Faithful from the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. He is wanted by U.S. authorities for defending Afghanistan from a NATO invasion. He is believed to be directing the Taliban in their war against occupational forces and Hamid Karzai's Government in Afghanistan from Pakistan.[2]\ > > Not a shred. > > > > > If I hire somebody to commit murder, I am just as guilty as they are > > in the eyes > > of the law. > > Very true. > > Alas, the Afghan government didn't hire the Taliban to do anything. > No, the Afghan govt. was subservient to the Taliban. They could not be separated, the Taliban had just as much if not more influence in Kabul than the Afghan \govt\. Afghanistan doesn't get a pass. Sorry. > > > Using your logic, we didn't attack Afghanistan. We just blew up what > > military assets we could find and drove the Taliban from power; at > > least in Kabul and nearby areas. If we attacked Afghanistan, most of > > it would still be a smoldering dung heap. > > If you say so . . . . . (shrug) I do say so. > Stuart === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? > > > > > > > > > > > > Ê Afghanistan didn't attack us either. > > > > > > Uh yeah it did. > > > > > When. > > > > > Oh, and feel free to call me a \douchebag\ if you like. \ Ê(shrug) > > > > The ring leaders were based in Afghanistan under the protection \ Êand > > > aid of the > > > Taliban govt. > > > My roommate Êis based in my house under my protection and \ aid. > > > If he robs a bank, am I responsible for it? > > If you knew what was he was up to and then didn't fess up when asked > or played > dumb as to his whereabouts thats hindering an investigation. You don't > pass go, you don't collect 200. > > > > > >That their henchman came from different places is > > > irrelevant. With respect to holding Yemen and Saudi Arabia > > > responsible, if any evidence comes to light that those govts had > > > anything to do with 9/11, then that issue needs to be revisited. > > > Um, dude, there is no evidence that the AFGHAN government had anything > > to do with it -- not a shred of evdience that they helped mplan it, > > not a shred of evdience that they knew about it before George Bush > > did. > > Uh dude. Consult the wiki on Mullah Omar. > > \Taliban of Afghanistan and was Afghanistan's de facto head of state, > and was recognized by three states, from 1996 to 2001, under the > official title of Head of the Supreme Council. He held the title > Commander of the Faithful from the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. He > is wanted by U.S. authorities for defending Afghanistan from a NATO > invasion. He is believed to be directing the Taliban in their war > against occupational forces and Hamid Karzai's Government in > Afghanistan from Pakistan.[2]\ > > I don't see anything in there indicating he knew about the attack beforehand or had any role in planning it. Perhaps you could underline that part . . . ? Oh, and in case you didn't notice, \defending Afghanistan from NATO forces\ happened long AFTER the 9-11 attacks, as did \directing the Taliban in their war against occupational forces\ and \Hamid Karza's government\. Try again. Lenny Flank \There are no loose threads in the web of life\ Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? > > > > > > > > > > > > Ê Afghanistan didn't attack us either. > > > > > > Uh yeah it did. > > > > > When. > > > > > Oh, and feel free to call me a \douchebag\ if you like. \ Ê(shrug) > > > > The ring leaders were based in Afghanistan under the protection \ Êand > > > aid of the > > > Taliban govt. > > > My roommate Êis based in my house under my protection and \ aid. > > > If he robs a bank, am I responsible for it? > > If you knew what was he was up to and then didn't fess up when asked > or played > dumb as to his whereabouts thats hindering an investigation. What \investigation\ . . . . . ? Was there supposed to be an extradition and a trial and all that? That's certainly not what Bush said at the time. Make up your damn mind --- was this a CRIMINAL matter? Or was it \an act of war\ and therefore a MILITARY matter? You cant have it both ways. >You don't > pass go, you don't collect 200. > OK. No one has presented any evidence that anyone in the Taliban knew of the 9-11 plans beforehand. None. Zip Zero. Zilch. Nada. That takes care of the first part of your statement. The Taliban offered within two days of the attack to turn over Bin Laden for trial IF they were shown evidence indicating that he did it (a not unreasonable request that is made routinely by every other government on the planet that extradites someone to another country for trial). That takes care of the second part of your statement. So what is it you are bitching about? It seems to me that the only thing the Taliban is \guilty\ of is refusing a unilateral demand by the US to turn over Bin Laden without the niceties of a legal extradition -- a demand which the US had no legal right to make in the first place. Or is it your opinion that anyone who refuses any demand made by the US is, by definition, \guilty\ of something . . . ? Lenny Flank \There are no loose threads in the web of life\ Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com === Subject: Re: The Existance of Morality Proves There is a God > > > I wonder though, is morality innate or is it learned? If you were to > > take a child and raise it without human interaction, would it grow up > > to be a moral adult? > > I suspect any child that grew up without human interaction, if it lived, > would be one mean SOB. ÊI don't think that would answer your \ first > question, however. > > --Jeff > > -- > The comfort of the wealthy has always > depended upon an abundant supply of > the poor. --Voltaire Like this kid: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor of Aveyron The of course there is Genie, who had limited interaction (a very sad story): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie (feral child) === Subject: Re: The Existance of Morality Proves There is a God > > >> There is a lineage that is evolved from a monkey which is laughingly > >> called a 'common ancestor'; and then, there are those that are from > >> Adam's lineage; which of course were created by God. > > >> Therein lays the disparity between the two moral belief systems. > > > Your 2-lineage comment seems to go unnoticed. > > He will eventually get around to answering. He will probably in the usual > \Set yourself on Fire Adman\ way. > > > > > If a Creator is inferred both lineages would of course have to be > > created - whether in a one second, one day or one billion year act - > > whats the difference any way in time-relative terms? > > Perhaps the time element is one of the differences between Chapter and \ and > chapter 2 in the bible. What about this angle: We are not yet finished with either chapter. Think about: The \7th day rest\ is still to come. Adam is - at this very moment - still busy with naming each new species discovered every day. > > One can go further with this meta-physical hypothesis to combine both > > spirit\. > > > Interesting angle to think about. > > I have thought about it. My conclusion is: > > Perhaps a blending /is/ part of the corruption unleashed on the earth due \ to > Adam being driven from the garden; which is mentioned in the Hebrew bible \ as > well as other ancient texts. That is of course if part of mankind was > created as described in the bible with the others being evolved from > monkeys. Other ancient texts would include the thousands of tablets found at Ebla (adamu). By the way: At 2300 BC the oldest ever law code found pre-dating Hammurabi and Moses. Why would the one group be created instantaneously (whatever that means) and the other over a long period (whatever that means). I was referring to the creation in the image as not being physical as we know it, but take the description of the \clothes of skin\ to its fullest meaning. The bond between spirit and body (calls for evidence right here folks) is particularly curious. During casting-out events it seems particularly unpleasant not to be in a body - judging by the mad-pig screeching involved. In the occult out-of-body experiences are common. > How else could evolution be true and the bible be true at the same time? > > Scientists are serious that evolution has happened although I have my \ doubts > about some of the macro-evolution part. OnTheOtherHand, I see no reason \ for > so much recorded history to all be lies either. I also see no reason for \ an > exaggeration of the ancient traditions to have taken place to the point \ that > the traditions are no longer true either. > > That means that both science and the bible could be correct. If so, \ then > Adam's family would have mated with the evolved monkeys once leaving the > garden. Which could have been where Cain found his wife when he was first > driven from the garden as well. Plus, Cain was concerned about someone > killing him for murdering his brother should he leave the garden. So God > placed a mark on him as a warning for no one to harm him.Who was he so > concerned about living outside of the garden? Yep - according to the text the earth was inhabited at the time of the fall. > ÊThe result of blending the created with the evolved is what \ we see every > morning when looking in the mirror while brushing our teeth. In my case not a particularly pleasant sight. > Also. The bible clearly tells two tales of creation. In Chapter 1 we see \ man > and woman being created along with the rest of the universe and life. \ Then > in Chapter 2 we see Adam being created from mud (elements in the mud?) \ then > Eve being made from Adam's rib (DNA?) latter after Adam named the animals \ in > the garden. This would explain the two different types of male and female > created as outlined in chap.1 and 2. > DNA evolved, though with a meta-code nobody understands yet, though an exciting prospect. > Then in the book of Enoch it describes how Adam's family stayed in the \ Cave > of Treasures on God's mountain after leaving the garden of Eden. They \ lived > on the mountain for 2 generations before finally going down the mountain \ to > mix with those that lived at the foot of the mountain. This suggest there > was a separation between the two peoples for quite some time considering \ the > ages they supposedly lived to. It also suggest that the two eventually > mixed. > > There are other reasons but this is a good synopsis of my theory. Sam === Subject: Re: The Existance of Morality Proves There is a God Likewise, the existence of immorality proves that there is not a god. -- Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net \It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems.\ - D. Hume === Subject: Re: The Existance of Morality Proves There is a God In message , \[M]adman\ >> In message >>>> >>>>>> If we were just animals that happened here by chance or worse by >>>>>> survival of the fittest we would behave like animals. There would >>>>>> be no morality. It would only be dog eat dog, so to speak. There >>>>>> would be no conscience, no kindness, nothing of any thing worth >>>>>> living. >>>> >>>>> None of this proves anything of what you claim. Social animals all >>>>> have ways of living together. This does not prove that you are >>>>> _wrong_ just that your argument doesn't do the job. >>>> >>>>>> Always remember: Jesus loves you and so do I! Each and every one >>>>>> of you! >>>> >>>>> That's nice. >>>> >>>> Since the average atheist does not have the same moral standards as >>>> those that have been created By God one must therefore assume that >>>> the average atheist is actually evolved from a monkey. >>> >>> Your statement about the moral standards of the \average atheist\ is >>> unverifiable and likely to be untrue. Not that this would stop you >>> from claiming it because you are quite happy to lie, either to >>> promote your cause or to seem to be promoting a cause while making >>> it look even dumber than it is. >> >> The lie lies in his introducing a dichotomy between those created by >> God and atheists. As this dichotomy is false the rest of his claim is >> meaningless. That said, it is true that the average atheist has >> different moral standards than does M/adman. But then so does the >> average Christian. I'd hope that even the average creationist is more >> moral than he is. > >proof this is false please > Proof that what is false? If you mean the dichotomy between those created by God and atheists, I would have thought that the existence of atheists with Christian parents, and vice versa, would make its falsity self-evident. > >>> >>> Of course, the average atheist, being human, _is_ evolved from a >>> monkey. People who oppose this because they find the concept >>> grotesque are even more pitiful than those who oppose it because >>> they believe it contradicts ancient texts, which they pretend are >>> infallible. Free will means we are free to choose our _response_ to >>> reality, not free to alter reality to our will. >>> >>> -- >>> Will in New Haven > -- alias Ernest Majpr === Subject: Re: The Existance of Morality Proves There is a God > > >> If we were just animals that happened here by chance or worse by > >> survival of the fittest we would behave like animals. There would be > >> no morality. It would only be dog eat dog, so to speak. There would > >> be no conscience, no kindness, nothing of any thing worth living. > > > None of this proves anything of what you claim. Social animals all > > have ways of living together. This does not prove that you are wrong > > just that your argument doesn't do the job. > > >> Always remember: Jesus loves you and so do I! Each and every one of > >> you! > > > That's nice. > > Since the average atheist does not have the same moral standards as those > that have been created By God one must therefore assume that the average > atheist is actually evolved from a monkey. With \not having the same moral standards\, you mean atheists have higher moral standards than religious folks? Personally I would not go that far myself. But then again: http://www.kiva.org/community go team atheism - now $130000 ahead! === Subject: Re: The Existance of Morality Proves There is a God > If we were just animals that happened here by chance or worse by > survival of the fittest we would behave like animals. There would be > no morality. It would only be dog eat dog, so to speak. There would be > no conscience, no kindness, nothing of any thing worth living. > > Always remember: Jesus loves you and so do I! Each and every one of you! I'd say that by and large, humans have invented more and more sophisticated ways of being cruel and unkind to other humans than any other animal. Does this imply your hypothesied designer God is really the devil? === Subject: Re: The Existance of Morality Proves There is a God >> >>> Funny. I have never seen a human beat another human because they >>> found a left over slice of pizza in the fridge. >> >> Evidently you never lived in a college dorm. >> > > I was thinking exactly the same thing.. And his comment just reeks of > comfort.. He has never seen a human beat another human for food, but > thats because he can buy it in the store. And he never watches the news. -- Dick #1349 \They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.\ ~Benjamin Franklin Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com email: dickcr@gmail.com === Subject: Re: The Existance of Morality Proves There is a God >> In message >>>> >>>>>> If we were just animals that happened here by chance or worse by >>>>>> survival of the fittest we would behave like animals. There would >>>>>> be no morality. It would only be dog eat dog, so to speak. There >>>>>> would be no conscience, no kindness, nothing of any thing worth >>>>>> living. >>>> >>>>> None of this proves anything of what you claim. Social animals all >>>>> have ways of living together. This does not prove that you are >>>>> wrong just that your argument doesn't do the job. >>>> >>>>>> Always remember: Jesus loves you and so do I! Each and every one >>>>>> of you! >>>> >>>>> That's nice. >>>> >>>> Since the average atheist does not have the same moral standards as >>>> those that have been created By God one must therefore assume that >>>> the average atheist is actually evolved from a monkey. >>> >>> Your statement about the moral standards of the \average atheist\ is >>> unverifiable and likely to be untrue. Not that this would stop you >>> from claiming it because you are quite happy to lie, either to >>> promote your cause or to seem to be promoting a cause while making >>> it look even dumber than it is. >> >> The lie lies in his introducing a dichotomy between those created by >> God and atheists. As this dichotomy is false the rest of his claim is >> meaningless. That said, it is true that the average atheist has >> different moral standards than does M/adman. But then so does the >> average Christian. I'd hope that even the average creationist is more >> moral than he is. > >proof this is false please Morality predates religion. Humans are not the only animal that exhibits moral behaviour after all. Your own posts give evidence to the claim that the average atheist has higher morals than you do. Your lies, homophobia, anger and hatred are clear from even a few days worth of your posts. Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:- That 3.5% actually means 25%... That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist... That \Dr.\ Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries... That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited some facet of some religion... To have a \higher education\ than most posters to this news group... To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of rock... That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me laugh] And that he has \created genes\ and not evolved ape genes... Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to? Certainly I don't. -- Bob. === Subject: Re: The Existance of Morality Proves There is a God > > > > > > > >>>> If we were just animals that happened here by chance or worse by > >>>> survival of the fittest we would behave like animals. There would > >>>> be no morality. It would only be dog eat dog, so to speak. There > >>>> would be no conscience, no kindness, nothing of any thing worth > >>>> living. > > >>> None of this proves anything of what you claim. Social animals all > >>> have ways of living together. This does not prove that you are > >>> wrong just that your argument doesn't do the job. > > >>>> Always remember: Jesus loves you and so do I! Each and every one of > >>>> you! > > >>> That's nice. > > >> Since the average atheist does not have the same moral standards as > >> those that have been created By God one must therefore assume that > >> the average atheist is actually evolved from a monkey. > > > Your statement about the moral standards of the \average atheist\ is > > unverifiable and likely to be untrue. Not that this would stop you > > from claiming it because you are quite happy to lie, either to promote > > your cause or to seem to be promoting a cause while making it look > > even dumber than it is. > > > Of course, the average atheist, being human, is evolved from a > > monkey. People who oppose this because they find the concept grotesque > > are even more pitiful than those who oppose it because they believe it > > contradicts ancient texts, which they pretend are infallible. Free > > will means we are free to choose our response to reality, not free > > to alter reality to our will. > > Not really. > > There is a lineage that is evolved from a monkey which is laughingly \ called > a 'common ancestor'; and then, there are those that are from Adam's \ lineage; > which of course were created by God. Bullshit. Provide the evidence. (the myths from the Bibbbble is not \evidence\, so don't even try.) > > Therein lays the disparity between the two moral belief systems. > Yes. One is base on evidence, the other is based upon myths and ancient comic books. > While I do admit that the monkeys have evolved in the moral department \ quite > a bit over time, those of Adam's lineage far surpass those that were \ evolved > from this common monkey ancestor. After all, just how much can one expect \ a > monkey to evolve. There are limits I would suppose. Since your basic premise is in doubt, unless you have some valid and testible evidence, your assertion is based upon fantasies of bronze age goat herders. > > The difference between the two moral belief systems is in your phrase: \ \ we > are free to choose our response to reality\. Which also happens to be \ your > clue. What? Menaingless platitudes constitute clues to reality? Maybe in your mythical and delusion packed version of reality. > > A monkey believes that this reality is all there is. Please present evidence to the contrary. > So he/she feels free to > make choices based on this reality alone. That reality would include \what will the other monkeys think if I decide to do this?\ > While those that were created by > God know that this reality will pass in less then 100 years or so. Death is part of realty. > Therefore > those that are created make their moral choices based on this reality as > well as the next reality. This second reality will be on the last day of > time as we understand it from this perspective. There yougo, pushing mind altering drugs again. > > ÊAll in all though, I have to admit that the monkeys do try \ to have the > proper moral values. They just cannot reach beyond this current \ perspective > of understanding because they have no understanding of the next.. Any time you have any valid, objective and testabe evidence of the \next reality\, you should present it. Boikat === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? > >>>>>>> the study finds a confounding effect in the role of fuel > >>>>>>> exports (making money from selling fuel seems to delay the \ development > >>>>>>> of democratic institutions). > >>>>>> Correction: having fuel to sell *makes you the recipient of a \ US-friendly > >>>>>> tyrant*. > >>>>>> Once again, the elephant in the room is ignored -- in the interests \ of > >>>>>> someone's politico-patriotic religion. > >>>>>> Fuel-rich nations mostly become tyrannies because the USA wants \ them to be: > >>>>>> Uncle Sam is terrified of what democratic control of those \ resources would > >>>>>> lead to. > >>>>>> Questions...? > >>>>>> W. > >>>>> Yes why make an ass of yourself? The emergence of nondemocratic \ oil > >>>>> rich countries in the Mideast is orthogonal to US influence. All \ 20th > >>>>> century oil rich countries started as nondemocratic. > >>>> Even Norway? The US has no interest in democracy at home, much less > >>>> elsewhere. It supports non-democratic governments even against \ their > >>>> own people. The point being to reap oil sales on the most favorable > >>>> terms. > >>> Funny talk from somebody who things Hugo Chavez is a supporter of > >>> democracy. > >> Considering you think America and Israel do, you're ar least twice the > >> fool. > > > yeah they do. Thats why they don't recognize Hamas. > > Because Hamas won a free and fair election? No because they are a group that sponsors terrorism. Getting elected doesn't change that. Anymore than getting elected change the nazis. Because the only reason > Hamas was in the position to do so, in the first place, was because > Israel didn't want to deal with Fatah, and so bankrolled Hamas? That's > democracy for ya. LOL. 30 years ago, and that was long before Hamas was Hamas. Do you not have any better arguments? > > > Your problem is, is that you have no idea what you're talking about. > > The uber left talking pts you use simply don't work here. > > I know you're into doublethink. You've got yourself brainwashed not > to see the truth. I know you have a poor command of the facts, as illustrated above. > > > Maybe you and Ward Churchill should get a room together. > > Maybe you and a psychotherapist should get together. Dude, given your bigotry, your the one with a need for serious couch time. Stuart === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? >>>>>>>>> the study finds a confounding effect in the role of fuel >>>>>>>>> exports (making money from selling fuel seems to delay the \ development >>>>>>>>> of democratic institutions). >>>>>>>> Correction: having fuel to sell *makes you the recipient of a \ US-friendly >>>>>>>> tyrant*. >>>>>>>> Once again, the elephant in the room is ignored -- in the interests \ of >>>>>>>> someone's politico-patriotic religion. >>>>>>>> Fuel-rich nations mostly become tyrannies because the USA wants \ them to be: >>>>>>>> Uncle Sam is terrified of what democratic control of those \ resources would >>>>>>>> lead to. >>>>>>>> Questions...? >>>>>>>> W. >>>>>>> Yes why make an ass of yourself? The emergence of nondemocratic \ oil >>>>>>> rich countries in the Mideast is orthogonal to US influence. All \ 20th >>>>>>> century oil rich countries started as nondemocratic. >>>>>> Even Norway? The US has no interest in democracy at home, much less >>>>>> elsewhere. It supports non-democratic governments even against \ their >>>>>> own people. The point being to reap oil sales on the most favorable >>>>>> terms. >>>>> Funny talk from somebody who things Hugo Chavez is a supporter of >>>>> democracy. >>>> Considering you think America and Israel do, you're ar least twice the >>>> fool. >>> yeah they do. Thats why they don't recognize Hamas. >> Because Hamas won a free and fair election? > > No because they are a group that sponsors terrorism. Getting elected > doesn't > change that. Anymore than getting elected change the nazis. So when Israel elected Begin PM they ceased to be a democracy? What about when the last PM refused to investigate war crimes charges against the IDF in the invasion of Gaza? Has Israel forfeited their claim to be a democracy? >> Because the only reason >> Hamas was in the position to do so, in the first place, was because >> Israel didn't want to deal with Fatah, and so bankrolled Hamas? That's >> democracy for ya. > > LOL. 30 years ago, and that was long before Hamas was Hamas. > > Do you not have any better arguments? Better than yours? Obviously. >>> Your problem is, is that you have no idea what you're talking about. >>> The uber left talking pts you use simply don't work here. >> I know you're into doublethink. You've got yourself brainwashed not >> to see the truth. > > I know you have a poor command of the facts, as illustrated above. > >>> Maybe you and Ward Churchill should get a room together. >> Maybe you and a psychotherapist should get together. > > Dude, given your bigotry, your the one with a need for serious couch > time. Too funny. --Jeff -- The comfort of the wealthy has always depended upon an abundant supply of the poor. --Voltaire === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? > >>>>>>>>> the study finds a confounding effect in the role of fuel > >>>>>>>>> exports (making money from selling fuel seems to delay the \ development > >>>>>>>>> of democratic institutions). > >>>>>>>> Correction: having fuel to sell *makes you the recipient of a \ US-friendly > >>>>>>>> tyrant*. > >>>>>>>> Once again, the elephant in the room is ignored -- in the \ interests of > >>>>>>>> someone's politico-patriotic religion. > >>>>>>>> Fuel-rich nations mostly become tyrannies because the USA wants \ them to be: > >>>>>>>> Uncle Sam is terrified of what democratic control of those \ resources would > >>>>>>>> lead to. > >>>>>>>> Questions...? > >>>>>>>> W. > >>>>>>> Yes why make an ass of yourself? The emergence of nondemocratic \ oil > >>>>>>> rich countries in the Mideast is orthogonal to US influence. All \ 20th > >>>>>>> century oil rich countries started as nondemocratic. > >>>>>> Even Norway? The US has no interest in democracy at home, much \ less > >>>>>> elsewhere. It supports non-democratic governments even against \ their > >>>>>> own people. The point being to reap oil sales on the most \ favorable > >>>>>> terms. > >>>>> Funny talk from somebody who things Hugo Chavez is a supporter of > >>>>> democracy. > >>>> Considering you think America and Israel do, you're ar least twice \ the > >>>> fool. > >>> yeah they do. Thats why they don't recognize Hamas. > >> Because Hamas won a free and fair election? > > > No because they are a group that sponsors terrorism. Getting elected > > doesn't > > change that. Anymore than getting elected change the nazis. > > So when Israel elected Begin PM they ceased to be a democracy? Nope. Nice turnspeak though. I don't recall Begin killing off his political opponents and intimidating the opposition. And of course Begin signed a peace treaty. And Hamas won't recognize Israel. What > about when the last PM refused to investigate war crimes charges > against the IDF in the invasion of Gaza? Has Israel forfeited their > claim to be a democracy? What war crimes? And when will NATO be prosecuted for war crimes in Serbia? You know, the war that europe wanted to have against a country that did not in fact attack it? And yet dickheads like yourself question the legality or moral legitimacy of the US driving the Taliban out of power? Or the Israeli invasion of Gaza? You're a maze of contradictions, a manifestation of an inability to think straight due to blind hatred. Yeah, you definitely need some couch time. Stuart === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? >>>>>>>>>>> the study finds a confounding effect in the role of fuel >>>>>>>>>>> exports (making money from selling fuel seems to delay the \ development >>>>>>>>>>> of democratic institutions). >>>>>>>>>> Correction: having fuel to sell *makes you the recipient of a \ US-friendly >>>>>>>>>> tyrant*. >>>>>>>>>> Once again, the elephant in the room is ignored -- in the \ interests of >>>>>>>>>> someone's politico-patriotic religion. >>>>>>>>>> Fuel-rich nations mostly become tyrannies because the USA wants \ them to be: >>>>>>>>>> Uncle Sam is terrified of what democratic control of those \ resources would >>>>>>>>>> lead to. >>>>>>>>>> Questions...? >>>>>>>>>> W. >>>>>>>>> Yes why make an ass of yourself? The emergence of nondemocratic \ oil >>>>>>>>> rich countries in the Mideast is orthogonal to US influence. All \ 20th >>>>>>>>> century oil rich countries started as nondemocratic. >>>>>>>> Even Norway? The US has no interest in democracy at home, much \ less >>>>>>>> elsewhere. It supports non-democratic governments even against \ their >>>>>>>> own people. The point being to reap oil sales on the most \ favorable >>>>>>>> terms. >>>>>>> Funny talk from somebody who things Hugo Chavez is a supporter of >>>>>>> democracy. >>>>>> Considering you think America and Israel do, you're ar least twice \ the >>>>>> fool. >>>>> yeah they do. Thats why they don't recognize Hamas. >>>> Because Hamas won a free and fair election? >>> No because they are a group that sponsors terrorism. Getting elected >>> doesn't >>> change that. Anymore than getting elected change the nazis. >> So when Israel elected Begin PM they ceased to be a democracy? > > Nope. > > Nice turnspeak though. I don't recall Begin killing off his > political opponents and intimidating the opposition. > > And of course Begin signed a peace treaty. And Hamas won't recognize > Israel. And Israel won't recognize Palestine. Has Canada formally recognized the United States' right to exist? Can you point me to the document? >> What >> about when the last PM refused to investigate war crimes charges >> against the IDF in the invasion of Gaza? Has Israel forfeited their >> claim to be a democracy? > > What war crimes? Are you the first or the second monkey? > And when will NATO be prosecuted for war crimes in Serbia? You know, > the war that europe wanted to have against a country that did not in > fact attack it? I'm all for it. > And yet dickheads like yourself question the legality or moral > legitimacy > of the US driving the Taliban out of power? Or the Israeli invasion of > Gaza? Yes. > You're a maze of contradictions, a manifestation of an inability to > think straight due to blind hatred. > > Yeah, you definitely need some couch time. Heal thyself. I'd mention the beam in your eye, but I don't know if you've read that far. --Jeff -- The comfort of the wealthy has always depended upon an abundant supply of the poor. --Voltaire === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? > > > > And of course Begin signed a peace treaty. And Hamas won't recognize > > Israel. > > And Israel won't recognize Palestine. Ê ROFLMAO!! not only has hamas not recognized israel, they want to DESTROY israel. how do you recognize someone who wants you dead?? > > > What war crimes? > > Are you the first or the second monkey? IOW you didn't answer the question > > > And when will NATO be prosecuted for war crimes in Serbia? You know, > > the war that europe wanted to have against a country that did not in > > fact attack it? > > I'm all for it. > > > And yet dickheads like yourself question the legality or moral > > legitimacy > > of the US driving the Taliban out of power? Or the Israeli invasion of > > Gaza? > > Yes. IOW he thinks only nazis, terrorists, genocidal killers have rights. everyone else has to surrender. === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? > > > Afghanistan didn't attack us either. > > > Uh yeah it did. > > When. > > Oh, and feel free to call me a \douchebag\ if you like. (shrug) > The ring leaders were based in Afghanistan under the protection and aid of the Taliban govt. That their henchman came from different places is irrelevant. With respect to holding Yemen and Saudi Arabia responsible, if any evidence comes to light that those govts had anything to do with 9/11, then that issue needs to be revisited. If I hire somebody to commit murder, I am just as guilty as they are in the eyes of the law. Using your logic, we didn't attack Afghanistan. We just blew up what military assets we could find and drove the Taliban from power; at least in Kabul and nearby areas. If we attacked Afghanistan, most of it would still be a smoldering dung heap. douchebag. And yes, I do feel better , even though the Yankees winning streak was snapped. Stuart === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? > > > > Ê Afghanistan didn't attack us either. > > > > Uh yeah it did. > > > When. > > > Oh, and feel free to call me a \douchebag\ if you like. \ Ê(shrug) > > The ring leaders were based in Afghanistan under the protection \ Êand > aid of the > Taliban govt. My roommate is based in my house under my protection and aid. If he robs a bank, am I responsible for it? >That their henchman came from different places is > irrelevant. With respect to holding Yemen and Saudi Arabia > responsible, if any evidence comes to light that those govts had > anything to do with 9/11, then that issue needs to be revisited. Um, dude, there is no evidence that the AFGHAN government had anything to do with it -- not a shred of evdience that they helped mplan it, not a shred of evdience that they knew about it before George Bush did. Not a shred. > > If I hire somebody to commit murder, I am just as guilty as they are > in the eyes > of the law. Very true. Alas, the Afghan government didn't hire the Taliban to do anything. > > Using your logic, we didn't attack Afghanistan. We just blew up what > military assets we could find and drove the Taliban from power; at > least in Kabul and nearby areas. If we attacked Afghanistan, most of > it would still be a smoldering dung heap. > If you say so . . . . . (shrug) > douchebag. ÊAnd yes, I do feel better , even though \ the Yankees > winning streak was snapped. > Call me \momma's boy\ and \pussy\, too. It helps your arguments. Lenny Flank \There are no loose threads in the web of life\ Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? > > > > > ÊÊAfghanistan didn't attack us either. > > > > Uh yeah it did. > > > When. > > apparently lenny has been on mars for the last 8 years > And I am a douchebag. (shrug) Uh, when did Afghanistan attack us . . . . ? Lenny Flank \There are no loose threads in the web of life\ Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? > > > > > > > ÊÊAfghanistan didn't attack us either. > > > > > Uh yeah it did. > > > > When. > > > apparently lenny has been on mars for the last 8 years > > And I am a douchebag. (shrug) > > Uh, when did Afghanistan attack us . . . . ? > sorry they don't have the internet on your planet === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? >> >> >> >> > > > ÊÊAfghanistan didn't attack us either. >> >> > > > Uh yeah it did. >> >> > > When. >> >> > apparently lenny has been on mars for the last 8 years >> >> And I am a douchebag. (shrug) >> >> Uh, when did Afghanistan attack us . . . . ? >> >> > sorry they don't have the internet on your planet Providing a date would have been a little more useful. A date and citation would have been more useful still. I think you'll have a difficult time providing one, though. No Afghanistan government attacked the US until after the US began bombing the Afghanistan government. Rather than dragging out another attempted witticism, could you please provide a citation to the contrary? === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? > > > > >> > > > Afghanistan didn't attack us either. > > >> > > > Uh yeah it did. > > >> > > When. > > >> > apparently lenny has been on mars for the last 8 years > > >> And I am a douchebag. (shrug) > > >> Uh, when did Afghanistan attack us . . . . ? > > > sorry they don't have the internet on your planet > > Providing a date would have been a little more useful. > > A date and citation would have been more useful still. > > I think you'll have a difficult time providing one, though. No > Afghanistan government attacked the US until after the US began bombing > the Afghanistan government. > > Rather than dragging out another attempted witticism, could you please > provide a citation to the contrary? \Taliban of Afghanistan and was Afghanistan's de facto head of state, and was recognized by three states, from 1996 to 2001, under the official title of Head of the Supreme Council. He held the title Commander of the Faithful from the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. He is wanted by U.S. authorities for defending Afghanistan from a NATO invasion. He is believed to be directing the Taliban in their war against occupational forces and Hamid Karzai's Government in Afghanistan from Pakistan.[2]\ Stuart === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? > > > Rather than dragging out another attempted witticism, could you please > > provide a citation to the contrary? > > > \Taliban of Afghanistan and was Afghanistan's de facto head of state, > and was recognized by three states, from 1996 to 2001, under the > official title of Head of the Supreme Council. He held the title > Commander of the Faithful from the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. He > is wanted by U.S. authorities for defending Afghanistan from a NATO > invasion. He is believed to be directing the Taliban in their war > against occupational forces and Hamid Karzai's Government in > Afghanistan from Pakistan.[2]\ > to garamond and the other legalistic fundies, this constitutes proof positive that the US should have surrendered to the moral superiority of the taliban.. === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? > > >> > Rather than dragging out another attempted witticism, could you >> > please provide a citation to the contrary? >> >> >> \Taliban of Afghanistan and was Afghanistan's de facto head of state, >> and was recognized by three states, from 1996 to 2001, under the >> official title of Head of the Supreme Council. He held the title >> Commander of the Faithful from the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. He >> is wanted by U.S. authorities for defending Afghanistan from a NATO >> invasion. He is believed to be directing the Taliban in their war >> against occupational forces and Hamid Karzai's Government in >> Afghanistan from Pakistan.[2]\ >> >> > to garamond and the other legalistic fundies, this constitutes proof > positive that the US should have surrendered to the moral superiority of > the taliban.. How? === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? > > >> > Rather than dragging out another attempted witticism, could you > >> > please provide a citation to the contrary? > > > >> \Taliban of Afghanistan and was Afghanistan's de facto head of state, > >> and was recognized by three states, from 1996 to 2001, under the > >> official title of Head of the Supreme Council. He held the title > >> Commander of the Faithful from the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. He > >> is wanted by U.S. authorities for defending Afghanistan from a NATO > >> invasion. He is believed to be directing the Taliban in their war > >> against occupational forces and Hamid Karzai's Government in > >> Afghanistan from Pakistan.[2]\ > > > to garamond and the other legalistic fundies, this constitutes proof > > positive that the US should have surrendered to the moral superiority \ of > > the taliban.. > > How?- by negotiating with them instead of killing them === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? > > >> > Rather than dragging out another attempted witticism, could you > >> > please provide a citation to the contrary? > > > >> \Taliban of Afghanistan and was Afghanistan's de facto head of state, > >> and was recognized by three states, from 1996 to 2001, under the > >> official title of Head of the Supreme Council. He held the title > >> Commander of the Faithful from the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. He > >> is wanted by U.S. authorities for defending Afghanistan from a NATO > >> invasion. He is believed to be directing the Taliban in their war > >> against occupational forces and Hamid Karzai's Government in > >> Afghanistan from Pakistan.[2]\ > > > to garamond and the other legalistic fundies, this constitutes proof > > positive that the US should have surrendered to the moral superiority \ of > > the taliban.. > > How? I take it you have no comment on the relationship between the Taliban and the de-facto govt of Afghanistan? Your point is specious regardless. Govts have responsibilities. If Americans launch a cross border raid into Mexico, regardless of whether the US govt. supported them or not, the US govt is responsible for cleaning up the mess. Its quite clear that some folks really believe that only the US govt has responsibilities for anything. Everybody else gets an excuse. Stuart === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? >> >> >> > Rather than dragging out another attempted witticism, could you >> >> > please provide a citation to the contrary? >> >> >> >> \Taliban of Afghanistan and was Afghanistan's de facto head of >> >> state, and was recognized by three states, from 1996 to 2001, under >> >> the official title of Head of the Supreme Council. He held the title >> >> Commander of the Faithful from the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. >> >> He is wanted by U.S. authorities for defending Afghanistan from a >> >> NATO invasion. He is believed to be directing the Taliban in their >> >> war against occupational forces and Hamid Karzai's Government in >> >> Afghanistan from Pakistan.[2]\ >> >> > to garamond and the other legalistic fundies, this constitutes proof >> > positive that the US should have surrendered to the moral superiority >> > of the taliban.. >> >> How? > > I take it you have no comment on the relationship between the Taliban > and the de-facto govt of Afghanistan? The Taliban was the de facto (and perhaps de jure) government. They might have thought bin Laden was a swell guy. They might have been happy that the US was attacked. The (de facto) government of Afghanistan did not, however, attack the US. > > Your point is specious regardless. Govts have responsibilities. If > Americans launch a cross border raid into Mexico, regardless of whether > the US govt. supported them or not, the US govt is responsible for > cleaning up the mess. There was certainly a legal case to be made for declaring war on Afghanistan at the time, but that case wasn't made, nor was it obvious (and if I remember correctly, Congress did not declare war). This is orthogonal to whether or not engaging in war, declared or not, advanced the interests of the US. > > Its quite clear that some folks really believe that only the US govt has > responsibilities for anything. Everybody else gets an excuse. The US has interests. The previous administration was not adept at identifying, prioritizing, or pursuing those interests. > > Stuart === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? > > >> >> > Rather than dragging out another attempted witticism, could you > >> >> > please provide a citation to the contrary? > > > >> >> \Taliban of Afghanistan and was Afghanistan's de facto head of > >> >> state, and was recognized by three states, from 1996 to 2001, under > >> >> the official title of Head of the Supreme Council. He held the \ title > >> >> Commander of the Faithful from the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. > >> >> He is wanted by U.S. authorities for defending Afghanistan from a > >> >> NATO invasion. He is believed to be directing the Taliban in their > >> >> war against occupational forces and Hamid Karzai's Government in > >> >> Afghanistan from Pakistan.[2]\ > > >> > to garamond and the other legalistic fundies, this constitutes proof > >> > positive that the US should have surrendered to the moral \ superiority > >> > of the taliban.. > > >> How? > > > I take it you have no comment on the relationship between the Taliban > > and the de-facto govt of Afghanistan? > > The Taliban was the de facto (and perhaps de jure) government. They > might have thought bin Laden was a swell guy. Um no, there was more to it than that. Mullah Omar was part of Bin Laden's inner circle. When you sleep with dogs, you wake up with fleas. If the Taliban wanted to survive, and prove they had nothing to do with this, they should have handed Omar and Bin Laden over to the US without hesitation. They might have been happy > that the US was attacked. The (de facto) government of Afghanistan did > not, however, attack the US. > > > > > Your point is specious regardless. Govts have responsibilities. If > > Americans launch a cross border raid into Mexico, regardless of whether > > the US govt. supported them or not, the US govt is responsible for > > cleaning up the mess. > > There was certainly a legal case to be made for declaring war on > Afghanistan at the time, but that case wasn't made, nor was it obvious > (and if I remember correctly, Congress did not declare war). Congress didn't bother with an official declaration of war. Congress did authorize military action on Sept. 14, 2001, and I believe with no \no-votes\. > > This is orthogonal to whether or not engaging in war, declared or not, > advanced the interests of the US. > Now you're off course. The argument had to do with was the US was justified in bombing the Taliban out of Afghanistan. > > > > Its quite clear that some folks really believe that only the US govt \ has > > responsibilities for anything. Everybody else gets an excuse. > > The US has interests. The previous administration was not adept at > identifying, prioritizing, or pursuing those interests. > No argument from me on that point. Subsequent to driving out the Taliban, the US veered off course itself. Stuart === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? > > Its quite clear that some folks really believe that only the US govt > has responsibilities for anything. Everybody else gets an excuse. > abso-fucking-lutely true notice how, even when it's pointed out the taliban is not a govt, they insist we treat it as such? notice how, even when given proof that an act of war was committed, they INSIST we treat it as a legal issue they INSIST we NEGOTIATE even when international law recognizes the right of self defense IOW they consider the US must surrender THEN talk === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? > > > > >> > > > ÊÊAfghanistan didn't attack us either. > > >> > > > Uh yeah it did. > > >> > > When. > > >> > apparently lenny has been on mars for the last 8 years > > >> And I am a douchebag. (shrug) > > >> Uh, when did Afghanistan attack us . . . . ? > > > sorry they don't have the internet on your planet > > Providing a date would have been a little more useful. > > A date and citation would have been more useful still. > > I think you'll have a difficult time providing one, though. \ ÊNo > Afghanistan government attacked the US until after the US began bombing > the Afghanistan government. until and unless you can prove bin laden was living on mars, the fact is he was in afghanistan. the taliban were complicit in the attack. and the govt of afghanistan was not the taliban. > > Rather than dragging out another attempted witticism, could you please > provide a citation to the contrary?- can you provide a citation showing the martian residence of bin laden? === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? >> >> >> > On May 23, 11:34Êam, \'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank\ \ >> >> >> >> > > > ÊÊAfghanistan didn't attack us \ either. >> >> >> > > > Uh yeah it did. >> >> >> > > When. >> >> >> > apparently lenny has been on mars for the last 8 years >> >> >> And I am a douchebag. (shrug) >> >> >> Uh, when did Afghanistan attack us . . . . ? >> >> > sorry they don't have the internet on your planet >> >> Providing a date would have been a little more useful. >> >> A date and citation would have been more useful still. >> >> I think you'll have a difficult time providing one, though. \ ÊNo >> Afghanistan government attacked the US until after the US began bombing >> the Afghanistan government. > > until and unless you can prove bin laden was living on mars, the fact is > he was in afghanistan. the taliban were complicit in the attack. > > and the govt of afghanistan was not the taliban. And when did Afghanistan attack us? > > >> Rather than dragging out another attempted witticism, could you please >> provide a citation to the contrary?- > > can you provide a citation showing the martian residence of bin laden? As such a citation wouldn't answer my question, I'm not particularly motivated to try. === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? > > >> >> > On May 23, 11:34Êam, \'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank\ \ > > > >> >> > > > ÊÊAfghanistan didn't attack us \ either. > > >> >> > > > Uh yeah it did. > > >> >> > > When. > > >> >> > apparently lenny has been on mars for the last 8 years > > >> >> And I am a douchebag. (shrug) > > >> >> Uh, when did Afghanistan attack us . . . . ? > > >> > sorry they don't have the internet on your planet > > >> Providing a date would have been a little more useful. > > >> A date and citation would have been more useful still. > > >> I think you'll have a difficult time providing one, though. \ ÊNo > >> Afghanistan government attacked the US until after the US began \ bombing > >> the Afghanistan government. > > > until and unless you can prove bin laden was living on mars, the fact \ is > > he was in afghanistan. the taliban were complicit in the attack. > > > and the govt of afghanistan was not the taliban. > > And when did Afghanistan attack us? Ê on 911 > > > > >> Rather than dragging out another attempted witticism, could you please > >> provide a citation to the contrary?- > > > can you provide a citation showing the martian residence of bin laden? > > As such a citation wouldn't answer my question, I'm not particularly > motivated to try.- IOW you have no answers so just want to dodge the question === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? >> >> > On May 23, 12:30Êpm, \'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank\ \ >> >> >> >> > On May 23, 11:34Êam, \'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank\ \ >> >> >> >> >> > > > ÊÊAfghanistan didn't attack us \ either. >> >> >> >> > > > Uh yeah it did. >> >> >> >> > > When. >> >> >> >> > apparently lenny has been on mars for the last 8 years >> >> >> >> And I am a douchebag. (shrug) >> >> >> >> Uh, when did Afghanistan attack us . . . . ? >> >> >> > sorry they don't have the internet on your planet >> >> >> Providing a date would have been a little more useful. >> >> >> A date and citation would have been more useful still. >> >> >> I think you'll have a difficult time providing one, though. \ ÊNo >> >> Afghanistan government attacked the US until after the US began >> >> bombing the Afghanistan government. >> >> > until and unless you can prove bin laden was living on mars, the fact >> > is he was in afghanistan. the taliban were complicit in the attack. >> >> > and the govt of afghanistan was not the taliban. >> >> And when did Afghanistan attack us? > > on 911 I think that was bin Laden, not the state of Afghanistan. You've > > >> >> >> >> Rather than dragging out another attempted witticism, could you >> >> please provide a citation to the contrary?- >> >> > can you provide a citation showing the martian residence of bin >> > laden? >> >> As such a citation wouldn't answer my question, I'm not particularly >> motivated to try.- > > IOW you have no answers so just want to dodge the question === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? > > > > ÊÊAfghanistan didn't attack us either. > > > > Uh yeah it did. When the bloody fuck did that happen? Even if it was when I was living in a cave for 30 months I would have heard about it. > > > When. > > apparently lenny has been on mars for the last 8 years > And I am a douchebag. (shrug) > Uh, when did Afghanistan attack us . . . . ? More to the point---- *HOW* was it even possible for Afghanistan to attack us? -- http://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water \Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?\ -- Jim Rutz === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? On May 25, 10:18Êam, Desertphile \ > > > > > > ÊÊAfghanistan didn't attack us either. > > > > > Uh yeah it did. > > When the bloody fuck did that happen? Even if it was when I was > living in a cave for 30 months I would have heard about it. > > > > > When. > > > apparently lenny has been on mars for the last 8 years > > And I am a douchebag. (shrug) > > Uh, when did Afghanistan attack us . . . . ? > > More to the point---- *HOW* was it even possible for Afghanistan > to attack us? simplicity itself. you don't follow the news? === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? > > On May 25, 10:18Êam, Desertphile \ > > >> > > On May 23, 11:34Êam, \'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank\ \ > >> > > > > ÊÊAfghanistan didn't attack us \ either. > >> > > > > Uh yeah it did. > > >> When the bloody fuck did that happen? Even if it was when I was living > >> in a cave for 30 months I would have heard about it. > > >> > > > When. > >> > > apparently lenny has been on mars for the last 8 years > >> > And I am a douchebag. (shrug) > >> > Uh, when did Afghanistan attack us . . . . ? > > >> More to the point---- *HOW* was it even possible for Afghanistan to > >> attack us? > > > simplicity itself. you don't follow the news? > > Again, I think a citation to an attack on the US by the government of > Afghanistan would be a more effective reply. where was bin laden living? mars? got any citation that he was, indeed a martian? he was in afghanistan. res ipsa loquitur === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? >> > On May 25, 10:18Êam, Desertphile \ >> >> >> > > On May 23, 11:34Êam, \'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank\ \ >> >> > > > > ÊÊAfghanistan didn't attack us \ either. >> >> > > > > Uh yeah it did. >> >> >> When the bloody fuck did that happen? Even if it was when I was >> >> living in a cave for 30 months I would have heard about it. >> >> >> > > > When. >> >> > > apparently lenny has been on mars for the last 8 years >> >> > And I am a douchebag. (shrug) >> >> > Uh, when did Afghanistan attack us . . . . ? >> >> >> More to the point---- *HOW* was it even possible for Afghanistan to >> >> attack us? >> >> > simplicity itself. you don't follow the news? >> >> Again, I think a citation to an attack on the US by the government of >> Afghanistan would be a more effective reply. > > where was bin laden living? Was bin Laden an agent of the Afghanistan government? > mars? got any citation that he was, indeed a > martian? I think the relevant citation would go to whether or not he was an agent of the government of Afghanistan. As you don't have such a citation, I can see where you'd like to focus on irrelevant citations. > > he was in afghanistan. And? When did the government of Afghanistan attack the US? > > res ipsa loquitur === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? > > > where was bin laden living? > > Was bin Laden an agent of the Afghanistan government? the govt was the northern alliance. we did not attack the govt of afghanistan when we invaded. > > > mars? got any citation that he was, indeed a > > martian? > > I think the relevant citation would go to whether or not he was an agent > of the government of Afghanistan. ÊAs you don't have such a \ citation, I > can see where you'd like to focus on irrelevant citations. the taliban was complicit in his act of war. as such they deserved to be destroyed. > > > > > he was in afghanistan. > > And? > > When did the government of Afghanistan attack the US? it never did. the taliban was complicit. the taliban is not a government. we had every right to destroy them at our convenience. you're getting your ass handed to you with your insistence that the taliban was a govt it was not. you're getting your ass handed to you by pretending an attack on a sovereign country is not an act of war it is. you're getting your ass handed to you by pretending the taliban was not complicit it was === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? >> >> > where was bin laden living? >> >> Was bin Laden an agent of the Afghanistan government? > > the govt was the northern alliance. we did not attack the govt of > afghanistan when we invaded. > > >> > mars? got any citation that he was, indeed a martian? >> >> I think the relevant citation would go to whether or not he was an >> agent of the government of Afghanistan. ÊAs you don't have \ such a >> citation, I can see where you'd like to focus on irrelevant citations. > > the taliban was complicit in his act of war. as such they deserved to be > destroyed. > > > >> >> >> > he was in afghanistan. >> >> And? >> >> When did the government of Afghanistan attack the US? > > it never did. > the taliban was complicit. the taliban is not a > government. we had every right to destroy them at our convenience. > > you're getting your ass handed to you with your insistence that the > taliban was a govt > > it was not. > > you're getting your ass handed to you by pretending an attack on a > sovereign country is not an act of war > > it is. > > you're getting your ass handed to you by pretending the taliban was not > complicit > > it was === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? > > >> > where was bin laden living? > > >> Was bin Laden an agent of the Afghanistan government? > > > the govt was the northern alliance. we did not attack the govt of > > afghanistan when we invaded. > > >> > mars? got any citation that he was, indeed a martian? > > >> I think the relevant citation would go to whether or not he was an > >> agent of the government of Afghanistan. As you don't have such a > >> citation, I can see where you'd like to focus on irrelevant citations. > > > the taliban was complicit in his act of war. as such they deserved to \ be > > destroyed. > > >> > he was in afghanistan. > > >> And? > > >> When did the government of Afghanistan attack the US? > > > it never did. > > More to the point, if one does recognize the Northern Alliance as the legitimate govt. of Afghanistan, then one should also realize that they were not unhappy to see the US bomb the Taliban from their seat of power. In fact they wanted US participation and Northern Alliance fighters were only too happy to accompany Navy Seals and and provide targeting information. In this respect we didn't attack the recognized govt. of Afghanistan, we assisted them in getting rid of their problem and ours. If one argues that the Taliban were actually the de-facto govt, since they controlled 90% of Afghanistan, then I don't see the problem in the US driving the Taliban out. One can of course take issue with US policy subsequent to that, but this conversation got rolling with respect to whether the US had the right to hold the Taliban accountable. I don't defend the inept way the US projected its power afterwards. I have trouble believing this is truly debatable. Stuart === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? > > > > > > > > >> > where was bin laden living? > > > >> Was bin Laden an agent of the Afghanistan government? > > > > the govt was the northern alliance. we did not attack the govt of > > > afghanistan when we invaded. > > > >> > mars? got any citation that he was, indeed a martian? > > > >> I think the relevant citation would go to whether or not he was an > > >> agent of the government of Afghanistan. ÊAs you don't \ have such a > > >> citation, I can see where you'd like to focus on irrelevant \ citations. > > > > the taliban was complicit in his act of war. as such they deserved to \ be > > > destroyed. > > > >> > he was in afghanistan. > > > >> And? > > > >> When did the government of Afghanistan attack the US? > > > > it never did. > > > More to the point, if one does recognize the Northern Alliance as > the legitimate govt. of Afghanistan, then one should also realize that > they were not unhappy to see the US bomb the Taliban from their seat > of power. > In fact they wanted US participation and Northern Alliance fighters > were > only too happy to accompany Navy Seals and and provide targeting > information. > > In this respect we didn't attack the recognized govt. of Afghanistan, > we assisted them in getting rid of their problem and ours. exactly. 'garamond's' insistence that the taliban was the legit govt of afghanistan is simply wrong > > If one argues that the Taliban were actually the de-facto govt, since > they controlled 90% of Afghanistan, then I don't see the problem in > the US driving the > Taliban out. > > One can of course take issue with US policy subsequent to that, but > this conversation got rolling with respect to whether the US had the > right to hold > the Taliban accountable. I don't defend the inept way the US projected > its power > afterwards. > > I have trouble believing this is truly debatable. > yep. it's irrelevant as to their status. but the law is clear: we had every right to act as we did === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? > > > > > > > >>>>> the study finds a confounding effect in the role of fuel > > >>>>> exports (making money from selling fuel seems to delay the \ development > > >>>>> of democratic institutions). > > >>>> Correction: having fuel to sell *makes you the recipient of a \ US-friendly > > >>>> tyrant*. > > >>>> Once again, the elephant in the room is ignored -- in the interests \ of > > >>>> someone's politico-patriotic religion. > > >>>> Fuel-rich nations mostly become tyrannies because the USA wants \ them to be: > > >>>> Uncle Sam is terrified of what democratic control of those \ resources would > > >>>> lead to. > > >>>> Questions...? > > >>>> W. > > >>> Yes why make an ass of yourself? Ê ÊThe \ emergence of nondemocratic oil > > >>> rich countries in the Mideast is orthogonal to US influence. \ ÊAll 20th > > >>> century oil rich countries started as nondemocratic. > > >> Even Norway? ÊThe US has no interest in democracy at \ home, much less > > >> elsewhere. ÊIt supports non-democratic governments even \ against their > > >> own people. ÊThe point being to reap oil sales on the \ most favorable > > >> terms. > > > > Funny talk from somebody who things Hugo Chavez is a supporter of > > > democracy. > > > Considering you think America and Israel do, you're ar least twice the > > fool. > > yeah they do. Thats why they don't recognize Hamas. > > Your problem is, is that you have no idea what you're talking about. > The uber left talking pts you use simply don't work here. > > Maybe you and Ward Churchill should get a room together. Just a heads up -- I think you forgot to call him a \douchebag\. It helps your arguments, ya know. Maybe you'd like to try \pussy\ or \momma's boy\ instead . . . ? Sounds more manly, ya know. Lenny Flank \There are no loose threads in the web of life\ Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? > > > > > Êwe've spent FAR more in iraq than we will EVER get in > > > return from oil. > > > \The bulk of the funds for Iraq's reconstruction will come from Iraqis > > -- from oil revenues, recovered assets, international trade, direct > > foreign investment -- as well as some contributions we've already > > received and hope to receive from the international community.\ > > > ?? uh that was 6 years ago. and it contradicts what i said how? > > > \Already, through a combination of oil revenues and existing assets, > > nearly $20 billion of Iraqi funds have gone into the Development Fund > > for Iraq to finance government operations and reconstruction projects. > > An additional $8 billion of oil revenues are projected to go into the > > fund by the end of this year.\ > > > we've spent over a trillion dollars there so far. you've just proved > my case in showing we did not get anything in return Um, that was DESPITE our intent, not BECAUSE of it. The Bushites were ALL running aorund decalring that the war would turn a PROFIT. We'd make far more than we spent. The fact that they were wrong about it (mostly because the Iraqis didn't greet us as \liberators\ with flowers and homemade wine), doesn't change the fact that this was the INTENT. Lenny Flank \There are no loose threads in the web of life\ Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? > > > > > we've spent over a trillion dollars there so far. you've just proved > > my case in showing we did not get anything in return > > Um, that was DESPITE our intent, not BECAUSE of it. > > The Bushites were ALL running aorund decalring that the war would turn > a PROFIT. ÊWe'd make far more than we spent. > > The fact that they were wrong about it (mostly because the Iraqis > didn't greet us as \liberators\ with flowers and homemade wine), > doesn't change the fact that this was the INTENT. > i admire your telepathic powers. given your pro nazi sympathies, your ability to evaluate evidence is questionable === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? >> >> >> >> >>> the study finds a confounding effect in the role of fuel >>> exports (making money from selling fuel seems to delay the >>> development of democratic institutions). >> >> Correction: having fuel to sell *makes you the recipient of a >> US-friendly tyrant*. > > i don't know what this means. > >> >> Once again, the elephant in the room is ignored -- in the interests >> of someone's politico-patriotic religion. >> >> Fuel-rich nations mostly become tyrannies because the USA wants them >> to be: Uncle Sam is terrified of what democratic control of those >> resources would lead to. >> > > proof? none. libya was ignored by the US and has a tyrant. iran is > ignored by the US and is tyrannical. much of our oil comes from places > like venezuela which is hardly friendly to the US and is a democracy. What about Saudi? === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? > > > ÊÊAfghanistan didn't attack us either. > > > Uh yeah it did. > > When. > Still waiting . . . . > Oh, and feel free to call me a \douchebag\ if you like. \ Ê(shrug) Still waiting . . . . Lenny Flank \There are no loose threads in the web of life\ Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? > > > > > > > afghanistan certainly DID attack us. > > > > When? > > > read the papers. do your homework > > OK, so now we get to play the Creationist Shuffle for a few days until > you tell me . . . ? > > See, I *know* you can't be talking about 9-11, since there was not a > single Afghan, none, zip, zero, zilch, not a one, who was involved > with planning the 9-11 attack or helping to carry it out. . . . . . irrelevant, isn't it lenny? . > Indeed, there is not a shred of evidence anywhere that any Afghan > official knew about the Bin Laden plan in advance, or that the Taliban > leadership didn't find out abot the plan the same time George Bush > did. irrelevant, isn't it lenny? > > So, when did Afghanistan attack us? since they refused to turn over bin laden, they were complicit QED === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? > > > > > > > > > > > > > afghanistan certainly DID attack us. > > > > > When? > > > > read the papers. do your homework > > > OK, so now we get to play the Creationist Shuffle for a few days until > > you tell me . . . ? > > > See, I *know* you can't be talking about 9-11, since there was not a > > single Afghan, none, zip, zero, zilch, not a one, who was involved > > with planning the 9-11 attack or helping to carry it out. . . . . . > > irrelevant, isn't it lenny? > > Ê. > > > Indeed, there is not a shred of evidence anywhere that any Afghan > > official knew about the Bin Laden plan in advance, or that the Taliban > > leadership didn't find out abot the plan the same time George Bush > > did. > > irrelevant, isn't it lenny? Nope, it's not. Unless you think that if my roommate robs a bank after planning it with his pals in my kitchen without me knowing about it, makes ME just as guilty . . . . ? > > So, when did Afghanistan attack us? > > since they refused to turn over bin laden, they were complicit Um, the Afghan government OFFERED to turn over Bin Laden. All they wanted was what any court in any country would want for an extradition request -- to see the evidence indicating that he was guilty of a crime. We flatly refused. Apparently we don't feel the need to base our unilateral demands upon international law. Of course, if the US had just followed plain old ordinary standard legal procedure and given the Afghan government evidence supporting extradition, Bin Laden would now be in jail awaiting execution, the Taliban would still be our BFFs like they were before 9-11, there'd be an American-owned pipeline to the Baku oilfields, and we'd not be wasting blood and treasure in an ever-expanding unwinnable war. But of course, nobody in the US really wanted to see Bin Laden go on trial anyway . . . And of course, Mexico refuses to turn over ALL American criminals that it has, whether we offer evidence or not -- Mexico has no extradition agreement with the US. Does that mean Mexico is, uh, complicit in every crime commited where the criminal flees across the border? If so, then why haven't we invaded and bombed Mexico yet? And indeed, ALL European nations refuse to turn over ANY criminal in ANY case to ANY nation where the extraditee faces a possible death sentence. Does that make all of Europe complicit in any capital case where they refuse extradition? If so, why haven't we invaded and bombed Europe yet? Oh, and please by all means feel entirely free to insult me all you like, in between answering those simple questions, if you think it will help. \Douchebag\ and \asshole\ seem to be favorites. May I also suggest \poopiehead\, or maybe \momma's boy\ (or \pussy\, if you REALLY want to be all manly . . .)? Lenny Flank \There are no loose threads in the web of life\ Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? >Um, the Afghan government OFFERED to turn over Bin Laden. All they >wanted was what any court in any country would want for an extradition >request -- to see the evidence indicating that he was guilty of a >crime. We flatly refused. Lenny, as per my response to another post above, by mid-October 2001, I seem to recall Bin Laden not just admitting to, but declaring his pride in, the 9/11 attacks in a video shown around the world on Al Jazeera. I also don't recall anyone seriously disputing that it was genuine. Is a confession by the perpetrator, on a Muslim news network reaching millions of viewers, insufficient evidence to constitute a basis for extradition? Seriously, what am I missing here? > Apparently we don't feel the need to base >our unilateral demands upon international law. Of course, if the US >had just followed plain old ordinary standard legal procedure and >given the Afghan government evidence supporting extradition, Bin Laden >would now be in jail awaiting execution, the Taliban would still be >our BFFs like they were before 9-11, there'd be an American-owned >pipeline to the Baku oilfields, and we'd not be wasting blood and >treasure in an ever-expanding unwinnable war. > >But of course, nobody in the US really wanted to see Bin Laden go on >trial anyway . . . > >And of course, Mexico refuses to turn over ALL American criminals that >it has, whether we offer evidence or not -- Mexico has no extradition >agreement with the US. Does that mean Mexico is, uh, complicit in >every crime commited where the criminal flees across the border? If >so, then why haven't we invaded and bombed Mexico yet? > >And indeed, ALL European nations refuse to turn over ANY criminal in >ANY case to ANY nation where the extraditee faces a possible death >sentence. Does that make all of Europe complicit in any capital case >where they refuse extradition? If so, why haven't we invaded and >bombed Europe yet? > >Oh, and please by all means feel entirely free to insult me all you >like, in between answering those simple questions, if you think it >will help. \Douchebag\ and \asshole\ seem to be favorites. May I >also suggest \poopiehead\, or maybe \momma's boy\ (or \pussy\, if \ you >REALLY want to be all manly . . .)? > > >Lenny Flank >\There are no loose threads in the web of life\ > >Editor, Red and Black Publishers >http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > afghanistan certainly DID attack us. > > > > > > When? > > > > > read the papers. do your homework > > > > OK, so now we get to play the Creationist Shuffle for a few days \ until > > > you tell me . . . ? > > > > See, I *know* you can't be talking about 9-11, since there was not a > > > single Afghan, none, zip, zero, zilch, not a one, who was involved > > > with planning the 9-11 attack or helping to carry it out. . . . . . > > > irrelevant, isn't it lenny? > > > Ê. > > > > Indeed, there is not a shred of evidence anywhere that any Afghan > > > official knew about the Bin Laden plan in advance, or that the \ Taliban > > > leadership didn't find out abot the plan the same time George Bush > > > did. > > > irrelevant, isn't it lenny? > > Nope, it's not. ÊUnless you think that if my roommate robs a \ bank > after planning it with his pals in my kitchen without me knowing about > it, makes ME just as guilty . . . . ? > > > > So, when did Afghanistan attack us? > > > since they refused to turn over bin laden, they were complicit > > Um, the Afghan government OFFERED to turn over Bin Laden. All they > wanted was what any court in any country would want for an extradition > request -- to see the evidence indicating that he was guilty of a > crime. go defend the nazis if you want lenny. you're a communist and, i suppose, it's illogical to even argue with you. you're so anti american you'll support ANY nazi genocidal ideology as long as it's anti american. it's YOU who have to apologize to history for believing as you do. ÊWe flatly refused. ÊApparently we don't feel the \ need to base > our unilateral demands upon international law. ÊOf course, if \ the US > had just followed plain old ordinary standard legal procedure and > given the Afghan government evidence supporting extradition, stupid asshole. the UN already had an arrest warrant out for bin laden your faith and belief in the nazi taliban is touching. more proof of your hatred for western civilization and your deep and sincere belief in ANY ideology that would destroy the US. by definition you can not be objective. Bin Laden > would now be in jail awaiting execution, the Taliban would still be > our BFFs like they were before 9-11, there'd be an American-owned > pipeline to the Baku oilfields, and we'd not be wasting blood and > treasure in an ever-expanding unwinnable war.\\\\ bullshit. if they didn't turn the nazi bin laden over to the UN why would they turn him over to us? why do you have such faith in the nazi taliban movement? what is there about nazis and genocidal killers that makes people like you worship them? === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? > > >>> IOW he was a politician in the administration of salvador > >>> allende...who we may have helped to overthrow. and he lived in the \ US. > >>> he was a politician who was member of a govt we opposed. and he found > >>> refuge in the US. > >>> gee. i guess that proves that we only give refuge to govts we > >>> support. > >>> wow. sterling logic. > >> What do you know about logic? > > > that you don't have any > > >>>> . In that year, > >>>> Orlando Letelier was fired for supporting Salvador Allende's > >>>> unsuccessful second presidential campaign. > >> Well, you knew something. ÊBut you're still a lying sack \ o'shit. > >> He fled to Venezuela, not the US. ÊHe moved to the US \ later, after > >> getting a job with the Inter-American Development Bank. > > > and he hated the US so much...was in fear of it so Êmuch > > > that he moved here. and why didn't he return to chile?? \ Êthe US was > > such a rapacious imperialist monster that he actually moved here. > > > wow. you have an iron clad case. > > >>> ?? did the governor of arkansas refuse to prosecute mcveigh like the > >>> taliban did with bin laden? > >> The US never offered evidence. > > > hey asshole, we're not gonna fuck around with that, > > Who needs evidence? well it seems the UN didn't. ever hear of that organization? they'd issued an arrest warrant for bin laden BEFORE 911. and 911 was war, not a police action. > > > OK. you want to > > play horseshit games you go masturbate on your own time. i'm not gonna > > suck your cock because you're a nazi sympathizer > > The Nazis didn't need evidence either. learned your lessons well, did you? > > > ÊAfter Letelier was gunned down in > >> Washington who did the US threaten and invade? Ê > > > ROFLMAO!! who killed him? agents of the chilean secret service! he was > > SO angry at the US...so in FEAR of the US he lived in the US. > > You really have problems following your own logic. ÊI can \ hardly blame > you. ÊYou brought up Letelier's imaginary flight to the US as \ evidence > that the head of Venezuela's coup fleeing here didn't mean anything. > That the US didn't kill him but didn't object when Chile did puts you in > such a holy moral light. ÊNot. what it means is that we are open to politicians of ALL stripes. doesn't do much for your argument that we allow only right wing politicians from countries we staged coups in, does it? and yes, we did object when he was assassinated. the US govt called it an act of terrorism on US soil...which it was. try again. > > > and didn't build the pipeline. > > > is that right, einstein? > > In the middle of a war? ÊYou're not even as bright as the \ Bush junta. ROFLMAO!! an 8 year war!! gee if we were so ruthless and determined to build a pipeline we'd have had it by now. that's what bribery is for! === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? > and yes, we did object when he was assassinated. the US govt called it > an act of terrorism on US soil...which it was. > What, no invasion to bring the terrorists to justice? What'd we do instead, send a Sternly Worded Letter? Lenny Flank \There are no loose threads in the web of life\ Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? > what it means is that we are open to politicians of ALL stripes. As long as they do what we want them to do. I can't think of any governments that the US installed that were AGAINST our interests . . . can you? Oddly enough, every government we installed, was pro-American in its outlooks. I wonder how that happened . . . .? Lenny Flank \There are no loose threads in the web of life\ Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? > > > what it means is that we are open to politicians of ALL stripes. > > As long as they do what we want them to do. > > I can't think of any governments that the US installed that were > AGAINST our interests . . . can you? ÊOddly enough, every \ government > we installed, was pro-American in its outlooks. > oh...what about jean bertrand aristide? didn't have much use for us after we installed him. and nouri al maliki of iraq...ever hear of him? he's basically ordered us out of the country. === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? > > > what it means is that we are open to politicians of ALL stripes. > > As long as they do what we want them to do. really? letelier was a US puppet? gee. when did that happen. > === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? >>>>> what it means is that we are open to politicians of ALL stripes. >>>> As long as they do what we want them to do. >>> really? letelier was a US puppet? gee. when did that happen. >> Letelier was out of power, and no longer of interest to the >> terrorist haven of America. >> > > yes, refugees generally are out of power, aren't they? and it doesn't > matter what america thought, it matters what letelier thought. so the > evidence is obvious: we gave refuge to a politcian with whom we > disagreed. > Except in the Venezuelan case, where he fled directly to Miami after allying with the CIA in the coup, he was such an embarassment that he fled as soon as the media found him. The US hates democracy, they prefer coups and war. --Jeff -- The comfort of the wealthy has always depended upon an abundant supply of the poor. --Voltaire === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? > >>>>> what it means is that we are open to politicians of ALL stripes. > >>>> As long as they do what we want them to do. > >>> really? letelier was a US puppet? gee. when did that happen. > >> Letelier was out of power, and no longer of interest to the > >> terrorist haven of America. > > > yes, refugees generally are out of power, aren't they? and it doesn't > > matter what america thought, it matters what letelier thought. so the > > evidence is obvious: we gave refuge to a politcian with whom we > > disagreed. > > > Except in the Venezuelan case, where he fled directly to Miami after > allying with the CIA in the coup, he was such an embarassment that he > fled as soon as the media found him. ÊThe US hates democracy, \ they > prefer coups and war. > gee if the US hated democracy germany and japan would be poor examples, wouldnt they more of your delusional hatred of the US. === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? > > > > > > > > >>> IOW he was a politician in the administration of salvador > > >>> allende...who we may have helped to overthrow. and he lived in the \ US. > > >>> he was a politician who was member of a govt we opposed. and he \ found > > >>> refuge in the US. > > >>> gee. i guess that proves that we only give refuge to govts we > > >>> support. > > >>> wow. sterling logic. > > >> What do you know about logic? > > > > that you don't have any > > > >>>> . In that year, > > >>>> Orlando Letelier was fired for supporting Salvador Allende's > > >>>> unsuccessful second presidential campaign. > > >> Well, you knew something. ÊBut you're still a lying sack \ o'shit. > > >> He fled to Venezuela, not the US. ÊHe moved to the US \ later, after > > >> getting a job with the Inter-American Development Bank. > > > > and he hated the US so much...was in fear of it so Êmuch > > > > that he moved here. and why didn't he return to chile?? \ Êthe US was > > > such a rapacious imperialist monster that he actually moved here. > > > > wow. you have an iron clad case. > > > >>> ?? did the governor of arkansas refuse to prosecute mcveigh like \ the > > >>> taliban did with bin laden? > > >> The US never offered evidence. > > > > hey asshole, we're not gonna fuck around with that, > > > Who needs evidence? > > well it seems the UN didn't. ever hear of that organization? they'd > issued an arrest warrant for bin laden BEFORE 911. And indeed the Taliban offered to turn Bin Laden over to the US for trial --- the only thing it asked was the very same thing any judge in any extradition case would ask, to see the evidence indicating he was guilty of a crime. The US flatly refused. Apparently \laws\ and \legal procedures\ are things we, uh, \don't have to fuck around with\. >and 911 was war, > not a police action. Curious. How, exactly, does a non-governmental coterie of kooks in a cave in the poorest country on earth, declare \war\ on a sovereign nation? Can *I* declare \war\ on, say, Zambia or Guyana? Lenny Flank \There are no loose threads in the web of life\ Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? > > > > > > > > >>>>>> IOW he was a politician in the administration of salvador > >>>>>> allende...who we may have helped to overthrow. and he lived in the \ US. > >>>>>> he was a politician who was member of a govt we opposed. and he \ found > >>>>>> refuge in the US. > >>>>>> gee. i guess that proves that we only give refuge to govts we > >>>>>> support. > >>>>>> wow. sterling logic. > >>>>> What do you know about logic? > > >>>> that you don't have any > > >>>>>>> . In that year, > >>>>>>> Orlando Letelier was fired for supporting Salvador Allende's > >>>>>>> unsuccessful second presidential campaign. > >>>>> Well, you knew something. ÊBut you're still a lying \ sack o'shit. > >>>>> He fled to Venezuela, not the US. ÊHe moved to the US \ later, after > >>>>> getting a job with the Inter-American Development Bank. > > >>>> and he hated the US so much...was in fear of it so \ Êmuch > > >>>> that he moved here. and why didn't he return to chile?? \ Êthe US was > >>>> such a rapacious imperialist monster that he actually moved here. > > >>>> wow. you have an iron clad case. > > >>>>>> ?? did the governor of arkansas refuse to prosecute mcveigh like \ the > >>>>>> taliban did with bin laden? > >>>>> The US never offered evidence. > > >>>> hey asshole, we're not gonna fuck around with that, > > >>> Who needs evidence? > > >> well it seems the UN didn't. ever hear of that organization? they'd > >> issued an arrest warrant for bin laden BEFORE 911. > > > And indeed the Taliban offered to turn Bin Laden over to the US for > > trial --- the only thing it asked was the very same thing any judge in > > any extradition case would ask, to see the evidence indicating he was > > guilty of a crime. > > When did they do this? > > > > > The US flatly refused. ÊApparently \laws\ and \legal \ procedures\ are > > things we, uh, \don't have to fuck around with\. > > When did they do this? \Osama will not be extradited without evidence: Taliban\ The Hindu (India's National Newspaper), Thursday, September 13, 2001 http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/2001/09/13/stories/0313000b.htm CBS News, September 23, 2001: \Taliban Won't Turn Over Bin Laden\ \...Our position on this is that if America has proof, we are ready for the trial of Osama bin Laden in light of the evidence.\ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/world/main310852.shtml 'Asked whether the Taliban would allow a trial of Bin Laden in another country, he said: \We are willing to talk about that, but the first is that we must be given the evidence.\ The Afghan Islamic Press (AIP) quoted Mullah Zaeff as saying: \If America is not satisfied with our trial of Osama, we are also ready to find another Islamic way of trying him.\' source: \The Guardian, Taliban 'will try Bin Laden if US provides evidence'\ Friday October 5, 2001 http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,563965,00.html 'The United States has turned down Taliban offers to negotiate. Bush repeated that stance Tuesday. \I have said that the Taliban must turn over the al-Qaida organization living in Afghanistan and must destroy the terrorist camps. They must do so, otherwise there will be a consequence,\ he said. \There are no negotiations. There is no calendar.\' source: CourtTV, Oct. 2, 2001, \Taliban still says: no proof, no bin Laden\ http://www.courttv.com/assault on america/1002 nobinladen ap.html \For the first time, the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden for trial in a country other than the US without asking to see evidence first in return for a halt to the bombing, a source close to Pakistan's military leadership said. But US officials appear to have dismissed the proposal and are instead hoping to engineer a split within the Taliban leadership. The offer was brought by Mullah Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, the Taliban foreign minister and a man who is often regarded as a more moderate figure in the regime.\ http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,575593,00.html Lenny Flank \There are no loose threads in the web of life\ Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? > >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> IOW he was a politician in the administration of salvador >>>>>>> allende...who we may have helped to overthrow. and he lived in the >>>>>>> US. he was a politician who was member of a govt we opposed. and >>>>>>> he found refuge in the US. >>>>>>> gee. i guess that proves that we only give refuge to govts we >>>>>>> support. >>>>>>> wow. sterling logic. >>>>>> What do you know about logic? >>> >>>>> that you don't have any >>> >>>>>>>> . In that year, >>>>>>>> Orlando Letelier was fired for supporting Salvador Allende's >>>>>>>> unsuccessful second presidential campaign. >>>>>> Well, you knew something. ÊBut you're still a lying sack \ o'shit. He >>>>>> fled to Venezuela, not the US. ÊHe moved to the US \ later, after >>>>>> getting a job with the Inter-American Development Bank. >>> >>>>> and he hated the US so much...was in fear of it so Êmuch >>> >>>>> that he moved here. and why didn't he return to chile?? \ Êthe US was >>>>> such a rapacious imperialist monster that he actually moved here. >>> >>>>> wow. you have an iron clad case. >>> >>>>>>> ?? did the governor of arkansas refuse to prosecute mcveigh like >>>>>>> the taliban did with bin laden? >>>>>> The US never offered evidence. >>> >>>>> hey asshole, we're not gonna fuck around with that, >>> >>>> Who needs evidence? >>> >>> well it seems the UN didn't. ever hear of that organization? they'd >>> issued an arrest warrant for bin laden BEFORE 911. >> >> >> And indeed the Taliban offered to turn Bin Laden over to the US for >> trial --- the only thing it asked was the very same thing any judge in >> any extradition case would ask, to see the evidence indicating he was >> guilty of a crime. > > When did they do this? Sunday 14 October 2001 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5 President George Bush rejected as \non-negotiable\ an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States ended the bombing in Afghanistan. Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban \turn [bin Laden] over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over.\ He added, \There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty\. In Jalalabad, deputy prime minister Haji Abdul Kabir - the third most powerful figure in the ruling Taliban regime - told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US, but added: \we would be ready to hand him over to a third country\. > > >> The US flatly refused. Apparently \laws\ and \legal procedures\ are >> things we, uh, \don't have to fuck around with\. > > When did they do this? > > >> >> >> >>> and 911 was war, >>> not a police action. >> >> >> >> Curious. How, exactly, does a non-governmental coterie of kooks in a >> cave in the poorest country on earth, declare \war\ on a sovereign >> nation? >> >> Can *I* declare \war\ on, say, Zambia or Guyana? >> >> >> >> \There are no loose threads in the web of life\ >> >> Editor, Red and Black Publishers >> http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com >> === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? > > > > >>>>>>> IOW he was a politician in the administration of salvador > >>>>>>> allende...who we may have helped to overthrow. and he lived in \ the > >>>>>>> US. he was a politician who was member of a govt we opposed. and > >>>>>>> he found refuge in the US. > >>>>>>> gee. i guess that proves that we only give refuge to govts we > >>>>>>> support. > >>>>>>> wow. sterling logic. > >>>>>> What do you know about logic? > > >>>>> that you don't have any > > >>>>>>>> . In that year, > >>>>>>>> Orlando Letelier was fired for supporting Salvador Allende's > >>>>>>>> unsuccessful second presidential campaign. > >>>>>> Well, you knew something. But you're still a lying sack o'shit. \ He > >>>>>> fled to Venezuela, not the US. He moved to the US later, after > >>>>>> getting a job with the Inter-American Development Bank. > > >>>>> and he hated the US so much...was in fear of it so much > > >>>>> that he moved here. and why didn't he return to chile?? the US was > >>>>> such a rapacious imperialist monster that he actually moved here. > > >>>>> wow. you have an iron clad case. > > >>>>>>> ?? did the governor of arkansas refuse to prosecute mcveigh like > >>>>>>> the taliban did with bin laden? > >>>>>> The US never offered evidence. > > >>>>> hey asshole, we're not gonna fuck around with that, > > >>>> Who needs evidence? > > >>> well it seems the UN didn't. ever hear of that organization? they'd > >>> issued an arrest warrant for bin laden BEFORE 911. > > >> And indeed the Taliban offered to turn Bin Laden over to the US for > >> trial --- the only thing it asked was the very same thing any judge in > >> any extradition case would ask, to see the evidence indicating he was > >> guilty of a crime. > > > When did they do this? > > Sunday 14 October \ 2001http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5 > > > President George Bush rejected as \non-negotiable\ an offer by the > Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States > ended the bombing in Afghanistan. Thats seems to be somewhat after the fact. In other words, once we started kicking the shit out of them they were ready to plead for peace? Or buy time to get Bin Laden out of the country? You'd have more of a point, if they were willing to discuss turning Bin Laden and his Taliban henchman over before the bombing started. Stuart === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> IOW he was a politician in the administration of salvador > > >>>>>>> allende...who we may have helped to overthrow. and he lived in \ the > > >>>>>>> US. he was a politician who was member of a govt we opposed. \ and > > >>>>>>> he found refuge in the US. > > >>>>>>> gee. i guess that proves that we only give refuge to govts we > > >>>>>>> support. > > >>>>>>> wow. sterling logic. > > >>>>>> What do you know about logic? > > > >>>>> that you don't have any > > > >>>>>>>> . In that year, > > >>>>>>>> Orlando Letelier was fired for supporting Salvador Allende's > > >>>>>>>> unsuccessful second presidential campaign. > > >>>>>> Well, you knew something. ÊBut you're still a lying \ sack o'shit. He > > >>>>>> fled to Venezuela, not the US. ÊHe moved to the US \ later, after > > >>>>>> getting a job with the Inter-American Development Bank. > > > >>>>> and he hated the US so much...was in fear of it so \ Êmuch > > > >>>>> that he moved here. and why didn't he return to chile?? \ Êthe US was > > >>>>> such a rapacious imperialist monster that he actually moved here. > > > >>>>> wow. you have an iron clad case. > > > >>>>>>> ?? did the governor of arkansas refuse to prosecute mcveigh \ like > > >>>>>>> the taliban did with bin laden? > > >>>>>> The US never offered evidence. > > > >>>>> hey asshole, we're not gonna fuck around with that, > > > >>>> Who needs evidence? > > > >>> well it seems the UN didn't. ever hear of that organization? they'd > > >>> issued an arrest warrant for bin laden BEFORE 911. > > > >> And indeed the Taliban offered to turn Bin Laden over to the US for > > >> trial --- the only thing it asked was the very same thing any judge \ in > > >> any extradition case would ask, to see the evidence indicating he \ was > > >> guilty of a crime. > > > > When did they do this? > > > Sunday 14 October \ 2001http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5 > > > > > President George Bush rejected as \non-negotiable\ an offer by the > > Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States > > ended the bombing in Afghanistan. > > Thats seems to be somewhat after the fact. > In other words, once we started kicking the shit out of them they were > ready > to plead for peace? Or buy time to get Bin Laden out of the country? > > You'd have more of a point, if they were willing to discuss turning > Bin Laden and his Taliban henchman over before the bombing started. > he kind of forgets his argument cuts both ways. his own definition of govt includes the govt installed by the international community in kabul after the taliban was destroyed by NATO forces. so he just contradicted his own argument. === Subject: Re: why do countries become democracies? >>>>>>>>> IOW he was a politician in the administration of salvador >>>>>>>>> allende...who we may have helped to overthrow. and he lived in \ the >>>>>>>>> US. he was a politician who was member of a govt we opposed. and >>>>>>>>> he found refuge in the US. >>>>>>>>> gee. i guess that proves that we only give refuge to govts we >>>>>>>>> support. >>>>>>>>> wow. sterling logic. >>>>>>>> What do you know about logic? >>>>>>> that you don't have any >>>>>>>>>> . In that year, >>>>>>>>>> Orlando Letelier was fired for supporting Salvador Allende's >>>>>>>>>> unsuccessful second presidential campaign. >>>>>>>> Well, you knew something. But you're still a lying sack o'shit. \ He >>>>>>>> fled to Venezuela, not the US. He moved to the US later, after >>>>>>>> getting a job with the Inter-American Development Bank. >>>>>>> and he hated the US so much...was in fear of it so much >>>>>>> that he moved here. and why didn't he return to chile?? the US was >>>>>>> such a rapacious imperialist monster that he actually moved here. >>>>>>> wow. you have an iron clad case. >>>>>>>>> ?? did the governor of arkansas refuse to prosecute mcveigh like >>>>>>>>> the taliban did with bin laden? >>>>>>>> The US never offered evidence. >>>>>>> hey asshole, we're not gonna fuck around with that, >>>>>> Who needs evidence? >>>>> well it seems the UN didn't. ever hear of that organization? they'd >>>>> issued an arrest warrant for bin laden BEFORE 911. >>>> And indeed the Taliban offered to turn Bin Laden over to the US for >>>> trial --- the only thing it asked was the very same thing any judge in >>>> any extradition case would ask, to see the evidence indicating he was >>>> guilty of a crime. >>> When did they do this? >> Sunday 14 October \ 2001http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5 >> >> >> President George Bush rejected as \non-negotiable\ an offer by the >> Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States >> ended the bombing in Afghanistan. > > Thats seems to be somewhat after the fact. > In other words, once we started kicking the shit out of them they were > ready > to plead for peace? Or buy time to get Bin Laden out of the country? > > You'd have more of a point, if they were willing to discuss turning > Bin Laden and his Taliban henchman over before the bombing started. Osama will not be extradited without evidence: Taliban By B. Muralidhar Reddy extradition of the Saudi fugitive, Osa