83
edits
Changes
Talk:Essay:Noah's Ark Was Real (view source)
Revision as of 20:28, November 10, 2009
, 20:28, November 10, 2009→Quick Reply to Karajou
I intended to answer this glaring example of doublethink a while ago but got caught up in other things. There would have to be hundreds of cows/goats to feed all the animals on the ark, but what would these goats and cows eat? And anyway can't there be more than 8 animals of each type? Furthermore the milk of other species is not very good for animals, this would further reduce resistance to disease and parasites (which is lower in infants too). [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 22:41, 8 November 2009 (EST)
I intended to answer this glaring example of doublethink a while ago but got caught up in other things. There would have to be hundreds of cows/goats to feed all the animals on the ark, but what would these goats and cows eat? And anyway can't there be more than 8 animals of each type? Furthermore the milk of other species is not very good for animals, this would further reduce resistance to disease and parasites (which is lower in infants too). [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 22:41, 8 November 2009 (EST)
:James, you have been told quite clearly several times that 1) there was a lot of stored fodder onboard the ark; 2) that animals onboard occupied a smaller percentage of the total capacity of the ark; 3) that hibernation played a role, saving feeding time; 4) that young animals and unhatched eggs took less room than adults. Apparently, these simple and rational explantions cannot alter your agenda, which was to come to this site and push whatever Bible-hating mantra you have. You've been told; you don't want to listen. Since you want to push the argument ''ad nauseum'', then you need to go elsewhere. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:01, 9 November 2009 (EST)
:James, you have been told quite clearly several times that 1) there was a lot of stored fodder onboard the ark; 2) that animals onboard occupied a smaller percentage of the total capacity of the ark; 3) that hibernation played a role, saving feeding time; 4) that young animals and unhatched eggs took less room than adults. Apparently, these simple and rational explantions cannot alter your agenda, which was to come to this site and push whatever Bible-hating mantra you have. You've been told; you don't want to listen. Since you want to push the argument ''ad nauseum'', then you need to go elsewhere. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:01, 9 November 2009 (EST)
::You say that you have answered the problems I have posed but this is not the case.
::*Please can you tell me how the story of Noah’s ark can be true given the current distribution and affiliations of the human DNA haploid genotypes?
::*Also can you explain how the story of Noah’s ark can be true when there is no evidence of a global flood event in all of dendrochronology?
::*Finally can you explain away the fact that there is no global break in human activity shown in archaeology for the period in question?
::Please let’s do this in a more structured manner, perhaps if you can directly address these 3 points then maybe you can present 3 counter points in support of Noah’s ark which I will attempt to falsify prior to positing another 3 points of my own and so on. [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 15:19, 10 November 2009 (EST)
==Is this debate necessary?==
==Is this debate necessary?==
I talked to my pastor about these issues. According to him, Noah may or may not have been able to care for all these animals, but since the Bible does not specify how it happened, it must be assumed that it is not relevant to the overall account of the Flood. We know that individuals such as Alexandrina Maria Da Costa have found sustenance in the Love of God, so why wouldn't He bestow such a gift on the animals in the Ark? Maybe a materialistic explanation can be found, but it is by no means necessary.--[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 20:19, 9 November 2009 (EST)
I talked to my pastor about these issues. According to him, Noah may or may not have been able to care for all these animals, but since the Bible does not specify how it happened, it must be assumed that it is not relevant to the overall account of the Flood. We know that individuals such as Alexandrina Maria Da Costa have found sustenance in the Love of God, so why wouldn't He bestow such a gift on the animals in the Ark? Maybe a materialistic explanation can be found, but it is by no means necessary.--[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 20:19, 9 November 2009 (EST)