14
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 56:
Line 56: − == Objections == − This isn't a troll, though it may seem like one at times such is my contempt for the biblical creationist point of view. Bear with me, I'm genuinely interested in the answers to my objections. From my observations, it seems to me that creationists prefer answers to objections that don't break any known law of physics over the ultimate fallback, "god made it so with magic" wherever possible. For example, when it is pointed out that naval engineering even thousands of years later was not up to producing such a large vessel, fundamentalists seem to prefer to postulate that Noah used space frame construction rather than, say, god used magic to bring about a localised increase in the molecular binding force. Of course, none of the so-called "creationist scientists" would actually break out mathematica and attempt to prove such construction is possible, because I suspect in their hearts they know it is not. So, given this, I wonder how the following objections are reconciled with the real world: − − : The Ark was supposed to be what amounts to a closed system for a year. In a year, animals will eat several times their body weight in food, especially grazers such as rabbits or cattle which derive very little nutrition from that food they eat. It follows that most of the Ark must have been given over to the storage of fresh water and food supplies, thus drastically reducing the space available for animals. Fresh water is always a problem in such situations, humans can drink spirits such as rum, which keep far longer than water does. However, most animals can not. By the second month, the fresh water supplies would be brackish and undrinkable, disease would quickly spread. Similarly, food would rot. It is not possible to preserve fodder for animals for an entire year. How is this reconciled with the rosy picture the bible paints? − − : As already noted, most of the Ark must have been devoted to stores. It is accepted even by creationists that the Ark could not have contained even one pair of every species, instead they fall back on that ultimate moveable feast, [[Baramin]]. Personally, "kinds" simply sounds to me like a pre-scientific word for species, but lets accept the creationist definition for now. Given that we see from the debate topic that creationists do not believe in evolution to the point of a wolf becoming a domestic dog, how is this notion reconciled with the current diversity of species? Even if we accept evolution, how is it possible to reconcile the idea that all existing species descend from the occupants of the Ark, with the idea that all this happened only 5000 years ago? Observably too little time to account for the present diversity. − − : The flood waters covered the entire world, yet once they had receded the occupants of the Ark were able to exit and continue with their lives much as they had done previously. Considering all vegetation must have been wiped out, how is this possible? As you can observe at any local beach, it takes a pretty hardy type of plant to thrive in a saltwater environment, these plants would be the first to return. Very little else would grow in the immediate aftermath of a global flood. It would take hundreds of years for vegetation to return to anything like what it was pre-flood. In the mean time, how did the animals survive? How did humans manage cultivation in an environment saturated with salt? − − --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 13:15, 28 March 2007 (EDT) − − :Abrown, I'm sure it would have been possible for Noah's wife and daughters to have tended a vegetable and herb garden, perhaps with some (salt-sensitive) citrus trees for the duration of the flood. This would have reduced scurvy among the animals and family members, and provided fresh foodstuffs for the animals. It is important, moreover, to remember that this was the Lord's work, and what the Lord set asunder, He certainly worked to repair. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:07, 28 March 2007 (EDT) − − ::Scurvy can also be kept in check through the vitamins and minerals that are absorbed in the body through the consumption of various organs, such as: eyes, hearts and livers. Noah's family clearly ate some of the animals to provide necessary nutrition and disease prevention, although some animals unfortunately went the way of the Dodo. I think this makes a lot more sense than salt-sensitive citrus. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:10, 28 March 2007 (EDT) − ::: That might explain why the unicorn didn't make it. There's that story of it being late and missing the boat but perhaps they sacrificed it for the greater good. A scapegoat of sorts. [[User:GentlemanSun|GentlemanSun]] − ::: See, that only sounds reasonable until you think about it. Think about the number of animals vs. deck space. Maybe that would work with hydroponics and full spectrum lamps, but the bible mysteriously fails to mention any of those. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 21:48, 28 March 2007 (EDT) − − ABrown, thank you for putting your questions in a fairly civil manner. I couldn't count the number of times I've had sceptics be downright rude about such things. However, I will chastise you a bit, for having such a negative attitude about creation ("my contempt for the biblical creationist point of view") when you obviously have little idea of the concept that you have so much contempt for. Answers to your questions are readily available from creationist sources, so if you don't know them, you haven't looked for them, yet you seem to think you know enough about creationism to have contempt for it! And I'll also chastise you for your putting the term "creationist scientist" in quotes, as though they are not scientists—that's not nice and not fair. − − I have to go out shortly, so may not get to answer everything now, but I will be back. − − The observations that you mentioned in your third sentence is correct. Despite frequent accusations to the contrary, creationists do not fall back on "God did it", except is certain circumstance (such as the Bible ''saying'' that God did it). − − I disagree that none of the creationists would do the maths on space-frame construction. They may not have yet, but creationary scientists are relatively few in number and get virtually no government or other funding (except for donations from supporters), which severely limits the research that can be done. If you'd like to fund this research... :-) − − Gotta go now; I'll be back. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:20, 28 March 2007 (EDT) − − : I think it is fair to cast doubt on so-called "creationist scientists" scientific credentials. How can any process be called scientific when the theory is pre-existing and unmodifiable? A scientist doesn't start with a theory, and attempt to manipulate the data to fit it. They observe facts and attempt to draft a theory to fit it. The very phrase "creationist scientist" already predefines their views, and those views are unchanging regardless of the mountain of evidence to the contrary. I think the space frame example is a good benchmark for the whole of "creation science", the Bible suggests there existed a man called Noah who build a vast boat. Sceptics of this view have pointed out that there has never existed a wooden boat of similar size, and that it seems that such a boat would be beyond the tolerances of a purely wooden structure. Creationists respond with a theory that it was constructed using techniques humans have only discovered during the 20th century. At this point a real scientist would attempt to create a model to prove his theory is at least possible, but so-called "creationist scientists" do not. All the creationist "evidence" is like this, unfounded speculation with a thin veneer of plausibility. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 21:58, 28 March 2007 (EDT) − − Part 2: − − I don't know the specific answers to your questions about life on the ark, but I do know that a creationist has studied these issues extensively and published a book on them. The book is ''Noah's Ark; a Feasibility Study''. If you really are interested in finding the answers, I suggest you read that book. He does calculate, if I recall correctly, that only about one third of the space on the ark would be needed to house the animals themselves. − − I dispute your characterisation that creationists "fall back" on using ''baramin''. This suggests that ''species'' is the obvious intention, and ''baramin'' is an unlikely alternative. But why is this so? I know of no reason whatsoever, except for an irrelevant etymological one, for supposing that ''species'' was the intention. I also dispute that it is a "movable feast" any more than ''species'' is. − − You are simply wrong to assert that creationists don't believe in speciation, and they do accept that wolves and dogs are related. Speciation can happen quite rapidly, and the time available since the flood is quite sufficient. − − I think the afore-mentioned book also explains how the people and animals survived after disembarking, but the Bible actually explains that they didn't leave the ark until there was new growth. Clearly it wouldn't take hundreds of years for vegetation to return in sufficient quantities to feed the relatively few creatures that had been on the ark. And I also see no reason for supposing that life continued much as it had done before; I expect that life was quite different. The flood waters would have been nowhere near as salty as they are today, so the salt was likely not a problem at all, or a minor one at worst. − − What makes you think that creationism is unmodifiable and unchanging? This is nothing more than a sceptic-spread furphy, and is dead wrong. Your rosy picture of impartial scientists observing facts and drafting a theory to fit it is the ideal, but far from reality. If "creationist scientist" predefines their views, then can the same be said of "evolutionist scientist"? − − You say that sceptics point out that there has never been a wooden boat of that size, but surely that is (a) an argument from ignorance ("we don't know of one so there must not have been one") and (b) begs the question ("we reject that the ark—a wooden boat of that size—existed, so we therefore know of no wooden boats of that size"). − − Your comment about space-frame construction only being discovered in the 20th century is itself ''based'' on your evolutionary views. Evolutionists believe that man has evolved to be smarter and smarter, so in the past was too primitive to invent great technology. Creationists, conversely, believe that man was created without blemish, and has ''deteriorated'' since. It follows that man was ''smarter'' in the past (although lacking the accumulated knowledge that we have built up over time). Therefore, how do you know that Noah (or God for that matter, as he gave Noah the instructions) didn't know about space-frame construction, and that it wasn't ''rediscovered'' in modern times? Your basis for rejecting this possibility seems to be your evolutionary paradigm, not any inconsistency with the facts nor the creationary view. − − [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:45, 29 March 2007 (EDT) − − − "Evolutionists believe that man has evolved to be smarter and smarter, so in the past was too primitive to invent great technology." - em.. no, what on earth gave you that idea? average IQ has increased for a number of reasons but nowhere near the levels required to make that statement true. Why is this article locked? --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 12:27, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
→Objections: Several paragraphs of liberal trolling and an egregious use of talk page space.
:I agree, and I've actually started drafting (off-line) an article for the flood itself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:37, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:I agree, and I've actually started drafting (off-line) an article for the flood itself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:37, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
== BBC Article: Dutchman builds modern Noah's Ark ==
== BBC Article: Dutchman builds modern Noah's Ark ==