And what did the carnivores eat? Did Noah bring several times more live animals to serve as food? What did they eat? Remember, there was no refrigeration back then. Presumably you're aware that many species don't eat grain anyway. Carrying thousands of land species on a single boat is ludicrous, even for a couple weeks let alone 12-14 months.
Ventilation? The Bible says the ark had ONE window. You can't assume more unless you want to second-guess the Bible. The book also says nothing about taking juvenile animals or high-value grains or fattening any animals, so you're making unwarranted assumptions that don't really help your case anyway.
Regarding the fish: you might want to look into migration and breeding patterns to see why lots of species could not survive a global flood.
This is why I hate debating creationists. You can rationalize anything, and you have no grip on reality. I'd advise you to study more science, but obviously that will not do you any good. Nothing can ever convince you that creationism is scientifically untenable. You're so blinkered it's not even amusing anymore.
Relax, I am just kidding, It says he loaded food for them as well. The ark was 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet tall. With no engine room, fuel bunker or shearwater needed, this is virtually all cargo space. Seems like enough room to me.
Really? Let's look at just the elephants. The average african elephant weighs 5000kg, and is about 3m tall and 6m long. So you're looking at about 18 cu. m. each.
An elephant eats about 140-270kg of food per day, so let's make it an even 200kg. If this were baled hay, that's about 4-5 lbs./cu. ft., or 64-80 kg/cu. m. So let's say 2 cubic meters of food per day for each elephant. Elephants drink about 250L per day of water as well.
Given 14 months in the ark, or 420 odd days, that's 840 cu. m of food, 105 cu. m of water. If the ark held 45,080 cu. m (140x23x14 m), you've used up about 1000 cu. m or 2% of your space just to house and feed the elephants.
Not to mention these elephants (along with all the other animals) would have to survive in an enclosed space with no ventilation, no light, no exercise, no sanitation, on a heaving sea.
Elephants are just one species of mammal out of about 5000. Even given the smaller size of most mammalian species, (averaging about the size of a sheep of 50kg), at 2% of body weight in food per day (1 kg), that's 10,000 animals * 420 days = 4,200,000 kg of food. Divide that by 64-80 kg/cu. m and you get 52,500-65,625 cubic meters for food storage, not counting all the fresh water which would also be needed after the 150 days of rain stopped.
Then, after the mammals you can calculate the space needs of 6400 species of amphibians, 8000 species of reptiles, and however many other species of land animals and freshwater fish would need to be preserved - and the were, or they would not be around today.
If you're a grown-up and you think the Ark story is remotely plausible, you're obviously delusional!
Though I suspect you've already seen it and judged it to be incorrect for your own reasons.
All local increases in entropy are accompanied by a global decrease, so the 2nd law holds true.
Indeed. Entropy is globally decreasing in the sun, solar system, and universe. Organisms evolve through growth and reproduction, and they expend energy to do it. They get the energy from metabolizing food that got its energy from the sun, and give off waste heat as a by-product. Organisms disperse energy, going downhill in terms of entropy.
Of course, you know all this, but you choose to cling to a misinterpretation of thermodynamics. I'm only pointing it out for the benefit anyone who hasn't heard it yet.
I happen to prefer the second law of thermodynamics. Every know process exhibits compliance to the laws of thermodynamics. Evolution theory violates the second law of thermodynamics by proposing an uncaused decrease in entropy. This is religious faith, not science.
Two things: 1) evolution does not violate 2lotd, because there is energy input into the system. Entropy can decrease locally.
2) creationism violates ALL the laws of thermodynamics plus many other laws of physics, so don't pretend that you are concerned about this issue.
You're going to use this argument with a straight face? Despite it being debunked over and over and over? If you want to stop being ridiculed, I suggest you stop being ridiculous.
These three fellows were not 'Creationist Geologists' They were Naturalists if they were anything.
All three believed in special creation and were opposed to evolution.
...the pyroclastic flows generated during the Mt. Saint Helens eruptions generated the same sort of stratigraphy that is associated with millions of years by the uniformitarian.
Uh, no. The eruption deposited layers of ash and rock, sure, but other than that they are nothing like the geological column. You really need to read something written by actual geologists instead of just creationist propaganda.
Hitler, Stalin and Mao were thus simply being consistent with their worldview. Any goes, including killing Jews in gas chambers.
Uh, you shouldn't need to be told that Hitler was a theist (professed a Christian) who believed he was doing God's work cleansing Europe of Jews. He obviously was not restrained by the moral framework you believe keeps people in line.
Besides, everything IS permitted (within the laws of physics). Just about any type of act you can imagine has been done by humans. Perhaps nothing goes unrewarded or unpunished, but it's quite clear that God, or a belief in God, will not prevent any atrocity.
The same way I get all my other direct sensory experience? I have the sensation of control and I no reason to believe that my actions are being controlled.
Caveat: you may actually be programmed to feel like you're in control.
What does "control" mean, anyway? That you can decide among the courses of action that occur to you? What about the ones that don't occur to you? You can't choose those.
There are experiments in which a decision to make a movement can be detected before the subject is aware they have decided to make a movement. There is a delay of about half a second. That would seem to indicate that it is not in fact your conscious mind (the one "in control") that makes the choice.
Lots of users suffer from NPD, they need to be befriended by the people who had their locker near them 20 years ago, because they don't have any friends in real life. Being unfriended makes them go off their meds.
H2O and CO2 would be converted to methane, would fuel electricity-producing power plants that generate more CO2 and H2O, to keep the process going.
Indeed, this part made no sense to me. Why would you put energy into producing a methane only to burn it for electricity?
The whole point of going to methane/syngas/ethanol is because you can store it and transport it, and use it for applications that require more concentrated energy than solar or batteries will give you. You're going to have unnecessary losses if you use it to generate electricity. You'd be better off just running a steam generator off the solar furnace.
As for "sealed", yes, Macs were kind of "sealed" (to anyone who couldn't come up with a torx screwdriver). But, in addition to the mouse, keyboard, and (IIRC) headphone ports, they had the (unheard of) inclusion of a high-speed (around 20 MegaBYTES per second transfer to up to 7 external devices) SCSI port and two high-speed (capable of up to 1 Mb/sec SYNCHRONOUS data xfer!) RS-422 ports (which allowed them to easily do relatively high-speed (250kbps) differential (push-pull) twisted-pair communications for AppleTalk, as well as RS-232 "emulation").
All these things were added with the Mac Plus, which was produced after Jobs left. Jobs didn't want the original Mac to be expandable AT ALL. His own team had to go behind his back to put in 512k memory expansion capability.
That's a nice speech but you completely failed to address either my question or my point.
Why does there have to be negative traits?
Yes I understand some group labeled some people as bad. Why do you feel we still have to do that. Why can't we just not do that?
You have this idea that we can only do it like they did it in the book. Why is that?
I don't know how I can be more clear - the central problem with the idea of eugenics is that someone can decide for you what traits are good or bad in a mate. Or, from from the proponents' point of view, that you can decide for someone else.
Slashdot Mirror
And what did the carnivores eat? Did Noah bring several times more live animals to serve as food? What did they eat? Remember, there was no refrigeration back then. Presumably you're aware that many species don't eat grain anyway. Carrying thousands of land species on a single boat is ludicrous, even for a couple weeks let alone 12-14 months.
Ventilation? The Bible says the ark had ONE window. You can't assume more unless you want to second-guess the Bible. The book also says nothing about taking juvenile animals or high-value grains or fattening any animals, so you're making unwarranted assumptions that don't really help your case anyway.
Regarding the fish: you might want to look into migration and breeding patterns to see why lots of species could not survive a global flood.
This is why I hate debating creationists. You can rationalize anything, and you have no grip on reality. I'd advise you to study more science, but obviously that will not do you any good. Nothing can ever convince you that creationism is scientifically untenable. You're so blinkered it's not even amusing anymore.
Really? Let's look at just the elephants. The average african elephant weighs 5000kg, and is about 3m tall and 6m long. So you're looking at about 18 cu. m. each.
An elephant eats about 140-270kg of food per day, so let's make it an even 200kg. If this were baled hay, that's about 4-5 lbs./cu. ft., or 64-80 kg/cu. m. So let's say 2 cubic meters of food per day for each elephant. Elephants drink about 250L per day of water as well.
Given 14 months in the ark, or 420 odd days, that's 840 cu. m of food, 105 cu. m of water. If the ark held 45,080 cu. m (140x23x14 m), you've used up about 1000 cu. m or 2% of your space just to house and feed the elephants.
Not to mention these elephants (along with all the other animals) would have to survive in an enclosed space with no ventilation, no light, no exercise, no sanitation, on a heaving sea.
Elephants are just one species of mammal out of about 5000. Even given the smaller size of most mammalian species, (averaging about the size of a sheep of 50kg), at 2% of body weight in food per day (1 kg), that's 10,000 animals * 420 days = 4,200,000 kg of food. Divide that by 64-80 kg/cu. m and you get 52,500-65,625 cubic meters for food storage, not counting all the fresh water which would also be needed after the 150 days of rain stopped.
Then, after the mammals you can calculate the space needs of 6400 species of amphibians, 8000 species of reptiles, and however many other species of land animals and freshwater fish would need to be preserved - and the were, or they would not be around today.
If you're a grown-up and you think the Ark story is remotely plausible, you're obviously delusional!
Argh! I repeated your mistake. Of course I meant to say entropy can decrease locally while increasing globally.
This should point you in the right direction: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html
Though I suspect you've already seen it and judged it to be incorrect for your own reasons.
Indeed. Entropy is globally decreasing in the sun, solar system, and universe. Organisms evolve through growth and reproduction, and they expend energy to do it. They get the energy from metabolizing food that got its energy from the sun, and give off waste heat as a by-product. Organisms disperse energy, going downhill in terms of entropy.
Of course, you know all this, but you choose to cling to a misinterpretation of thermodynamics. I'm only pointing it out for the benefit anyone who hasn't heard it yet.
Two things: 1) evolution does not violate 2lotd, because there is energy input into the system. Entropy can decrease locally.
2) creationism violates ALL the laws of thermodynamics plus many other laws of physics, so don't pretend that you are concerned about this issue.
You're going to use this argument with a straight face? Despite it being debunked over and over and over? If you want to stop being ridiculed, I suggest you stop being ridiculous.
All three believed in special creation and were opposed to evolution.
Uh, no. The eruption deposited layers of ash and rock, sure, but other than that they are nothing like the geological column. You really need to read something written by actual geologists instead of just creationist propaganda.
I'm not here to teach you the history of science. Why don't you go to a library and look up Charles Lyell, Georges Cuvier and Louis Agassiz?
It was tested - over 150 years ago, by creationist geologists. It couldn't explain the observations. It failed.
No more so now than it ever was. Still, it seems to advance in spite of the intransigence of certain theories' adherents. Why is that, do you think?
Uh, you shouldn't need to be told that Hitler was a theist (professed a Christian) who believed he was doing God's work cleansing Europe of Jews. He obviously was not restrained by the moral framework you believe keeps people in line.
Besides, everything IS permitted (within the laws of physics). Just about any type of act you can imagine has been done by humans. Perhaps nothing goes unrewarded or unpunished, but it's quite clear that God, or a belief in God, will not prevent any atrocity.
Caveat: you may actually be programmed to feel like you're in control.
What does "control" mean, anyway? That you can decide among the courses of action that occur to you? What about the ones that don't occur to you? You can't choose those.
There are experiments in which a decision to make a movement can be detected before the subject is aware they have decided to make a movement. There is a delay of about half a second. That would seem to indicate that it is not in fact your conscious mind (the one "in control") that makes the choice.
Indeed, this part made no sense to me. Why would you put energy into producing a methane only to burn it for electricity?
The whole point of going to methane/syngas/ethanol is because you can store it and transport it, and use it for applications that require more concentrated energy than solar or batteries will give you. You're going to have unnecessary losses if you use it to generate electricity. You'd be better off just running a steam generator off the solar furnace.
Certainly not Scotty:
http://images.wikia.com/memoryalpha/en/images/4/4a/MacintoshPlus.jpg
Inconceivable! Unnerving! I was LIED to!!
Yeah, right! Next you'll be telling me Pluto isn't a planet!
Nope, they'll have holographic autopilots!
(points to F-35) "NEW HIPness..."
(points to F-14) "Old and busted."
But disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point is against policy!
(tap tap tap...)
There. Now it says he has dated 43 reasonably attractive female aardvark wrestlers.
What? You never read The Objectivist Tree ?
All these things were added with the Mac Plus, which was produced after Jobs left. Jobs didn't want the original Mac to be expandable AT ALL. His own team had to go behind his back to put in 512k memory expansion capability.
Sure they have. For example, 10.4.11 was released in November 2007, just after Leopard was introduced.
Oh, come on. You want to play games and pretend you don't understand, you can piss off.
I don't know how I can be more clear - the central problem with the idea of eugenics is that someone can decide for you what traits are good or bad in a mate. Or, from from the proponents' point of view, that you can decide for someone else.
> So you're against education?
Don't be disingenuous. You know that's not what I mean.