Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[One Eyed Jack]

Re: Re: Re: Ark Capacity

Re: Re: Re: Ark Capacity

Originally posted by ex_fundy
The Genesis Flood - The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company. (c)1961 25th printing, May 1981.
Page 68 FN#1 Mechanical Engineers Handbook (1958) "states that the standard stock car contains 2670 cu. ft."
Page 69 FN#2 H.W, Vaughan: Types and Market Classes of Live Stock (1945) "sheep about 120 per deck."

Since railcars range from between about 35' up to 90' in length and up to 17' in height (http://www.alaskarails.org/fp/Boxcars.html) an honest researcher would have to question why Morris and Whitcomb didn't use the same source and didn't give dimensions on the sheep carrying boxcar?

Maybe it didn't give them. Have you checked it for yourself to see if it does or not? You're the one that likes to double-check everything.

Could it be that footnote #2 was referring to a 50' or 60' boxcar (or even a 90' one)? That is the unknown, so that is why I allowed for the 120 (though 90 was the average for one major rail service I found).

But you're only allowing for one deck per stock-car. I've shown that stock-cars of this approximate size have been used in double-decker capacities.

Like I said, volume alone is too simplistic, you can't stack them in like square shipping crates. The modern farm example I gave required 72 ark-sized decks for only 25,000 sheep, without storing a years supply.

That's a farm, which gives the animals room to roam and graze. The Ark was just a place they could survive until the flood waters receded.

I think you mean cubic feet here.

Whoops. You're right. I've fixed that now.

I didn't use the calculations of a 9'x'17'x90' boxcar, I merely said that such boxcars existed and Whitcomb and Morris neglected to offer consistent dimensions.

You also asked if this was the type of car they were referring to, suggesting that they were dishonest in their research. I think I've shown how this couldn't have been the size of the cars they were referring to.

Nice assertion, but I don't need to allow for anything unless I come across additional data. You show me a reference that shows a 2670 ft^3 boxcar that transported 240 sheep and I'll adjust my calculations.

Whether you adjust them or not, you've still got enough room for 30,000 animals of this size on the Ark.

Unfortunately your link didn't say how many sheep would fit in those boxcars. But I'm glad to see you're doing some of your own research.

You're right, it didn't say.

2'x3'x3'=18 ft^3 and that would barely provide adequate room for sheep to stand, turn, and lie down without stepping on each other. These are supposedly living animals, not boxes that can be stacked.

First of all, two feet wide makes for a pretty fat sheep -- don't let all that wool fool you. Secondly, they really pack sheep into stock-cars. I don't think they're really worried about bunching them all up together.

Your buckets over the side for water was a good effort, but it is an imagined "possibility", not something you have determined was feasible. The amount of water for 30,000 sheep would be aproximately 31,704 gallons every day.

Only if they're active. They'll require much less if they're not. And don't forget -- they weren't all sheep. There are many animals that can go for days without drinking, and even some that never drink a drop in their lives.

It would be highly unliikely that 8 people could lower buckets and pull that much water up every day (while still doing all their other feeding chores). And don't forget the contanimation in the water.

You haven't shown that the water was contaminated. The world is a pretty big place, you know. I seriously doubt that the waters contained high levels of pollution during the flood.

Your still in the realm of "possibilities" and I'm still in the realm of "probabilities". There are no hurdles (except the ones you imagine) between the other 2 options I offered and orthodox Christianity. There are a lot of non-evolutionary Christians that hold to a regional flood. You should read some of their literature.

I have, and I disagree with the regional flood position.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by attention
Please Jack. Don't fool yourself too much.

I'm not fooling myself at all.

I already asked you before, please explain to us in what way the theory of evolution would not be scientific.

And I've said many times before that there is no empirical evidence for it.

You never answered that one, because you can not anwer it.

I can and I have answered that question. I just usually ignore your posts, unless they're short.

 

[ex_fundy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Ark Capacity

Re: Re: Re: Re: Ark Capacity

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack Maybe it didn't give them. Have you checked it for yourself to see?

I checked the reference, but the claimed statement was not on the listed page. So either they were quoting from another edition or they had a page error. It was a large document so I only skimmed 10 pages before and after the stated page. In either case, their effort lacked credibility because it didn't list the volume of the boxcars that were supposed to have carried 240 sheep.

That's a farm, which gives the animals room to roam and graze.

My link was to a feedlot (short-term holding area), not a farm. It was my mistake referencing it as a farm in my last post. The feedlot would have very similar space requirements as the Ark, but it has the luxury of bringing in outside food and water as needed.

You also asked if this was the type of car they were referring to, suggesting that they were dishonest in their research.

They were either intentionally misleading or sloppy in my view. I personally think it was sloppiness.

Whether you adjust them or not, you've still got enough room.

Remember, I only allowed for 90 days water supply and 1/10 the normally required food. And I didn't yet take into account needed exercise areas, ventilation paths, side access walkways, stairs/ramps, etc.

Two feet wide makes for a pretty fat sheep, and they really pack sheep into stock-cars. I don't think they're really worried about bunching them all up together.

Current stock-cars can only be used for up to 28 hours without releasing the sheep for exercise, feeding, and watering.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ark Capacity

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ark Capacity

Originally posted by ex_fundy
I checked the reference, but the claimed statement was not on the listed page. So either they were quoting from another edition or they had a page error. It was a large document so I only skimmed 10 pages before and after the stated page. In either case, their effort lacked credibility because it didn't list the volume of the boxcars that were supposed to have carried 240 sheep.

Well, if they were wrong, I'm sure one of the many evolutionist propaganda sites would have debunked this by now. I haven't run across any, so I can only assume that noone has been able to do so.

My link was to a feedlot (short-term holding area), not a farm. It was my mistake referencing it as a farm in my last post. The feedlot would have very similar space requirements as the Ark, but it has the luxury of bringing in outside food and water as needed.

Define what you mean by short-term. What do they do, bring them in for a little while, feed them, and then move them on, or what?

They were either intentionally misleading or sloppy in my view. I personally think it was sloppiness.

So you don't believe they were being dishonest then?

Remember, I only allowed for 90 days water supply and 1/10 the normally required food.

Inactive animals don't need a lot of food and water.

And I didn't yet take into account needed exercise areas,

Who says they needed exercise areas?

ventilation paths,

I seriously doubt this was a problem. This was an Ark, not a submarine.

side access walkways,

You included two six-foot wide walkways per deck. Reduce their width by half, and then you can double them up. This should be sufficient and still allow your current calculations. It would also allow for some ventilation.

stairs/ramps, etc.

I don't think this would be a serious problem. The Ark was plenty big enough to include whatever ramps were needed for the animals. I doubt they had stairs -- they probably used ladders for themselves.

Current stock-cars can only be used for up to 28 hours without releasing the sheep for exercise, feeding, and watering.

So?

 

[Heino]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Nobody is foregoing science here, and religion and science aren't mutually exclusive terms. What we're rejecting is evolution, which is a belief with no scientific basis whatsoever.

No evidence whatsoever? That's a very extreme comment. I have not heard many creationists make such a bold claim.

Did you not make a claim earlier that the evidence for creationism is THE SAME evidence that evolution uses, but that evolution and creation interprets the data differently? I may have you confused with another user (Please be forgiving, as I am coming here new)

If that is the case, then there is certainly evidence for evolution, when the data is interpreted through the evolutionary model. As a research biologist working on human genome decoding, I do not think that my job would make any sense, were it not for the evolutionary way of interpreting the data.

In what way does the creationist model of interpreting the data work better than the evolution model?

 

[ex_fundy]

Originally posted by Heino That's a very extreme comment.

OEJ tends to make those sort of comments.

 

[ex_fundy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ark Capacity

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ark Capacity

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack Well, if they were wrong, I'm sure one of the many evolutionist propaganda sites would have debunked this by now. I haven't run across any, so I can only assume that noone has been able to do so.

I just did it.
Most evolutionist sites aren't really that interested in dealing with Ark space problems botched in 42 year old YE books.

If Whitcomb and Morris were right in 1961, then why did Woodmorappe need to write a book in 1996 that tried to bring the animal numbers down to 16,000 with a median (far different than mean) size of a rat?" Obviously, he didnt' feel that Whitcomb and Morris had done a thorough enough job.

If you wish to continue making pot-shots and concocting "possibilities" you may (though your own analysis may be more effective). But there are no space hurdles to my suggested interpretations and only the sub-set of Christianity to which you align yourself has any theological problems with them.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Heino
No evidence whatsoever? That's a very extreme comment. I have not heard many creationists make such a bold claim.

I didn't say no evidence -- I said no empirical evidence. And there isn't any.

Did you not make a claim earlier that the evidence for creationism is THE SAME evidence that evolution uses, but that evolution and creation interprets the data differently? I may have you confused with another user (Please be forgiving, as I am coming here new)

Yes, I probably did say that, but we're not talking about empirical evidence here. We're simply talking about data that's interpreted as evidence.

If that is the case, then there is certainly evidence for evolution, when the data is interpreted through the evolutionary model. As a research biologist working on human genome decoding, I do not think that my job would make any sense, were it not for the evolutionary way of interpreting the data.

Why not? You can't decode a genome without believing in evolution?

In what way does the creationist model of interpreting the data work better than the evolution model?

We don't have to discard or ignore any of it, for one thing. All the data fits into the big picture under the creation model (I'm using the term 'model' broadly here, as you appear to be doing, since there are a variety of creation and evoution models).

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ark Capacity

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ark Capacity

Originally posted by ex_fundy
I just did it.

I'm afraid you haven't.

Most evolutionist sites aren't really that interested in dealing with Ark space problems botched in 42 year old YE books.

Perhaps that's because they can't show any.

If Whitcomb and Morris were right in 1961, then why did Woodmorappe need to write a book in 1996 that tried to bring the animal numbers down to 16,000 with a median (far different than mean) size of a rat?" Obviously, he didnt' feel that Whitcomb and Morris had done a thorough enough job.

Maybe so. I'm the one that said 30,000. Is that the number Whitcomb and Morris give in their book? I don't know -- I've never read it, but I was intentionally aiming high.

If you wish to continue making pot-shots and concocting "possibilities" you may (though your own analysis may be more effective). But there are no space hurdles to my suggested interpretations and only the sub-set of Christianity to which you align yourself has any theological problems with them.

There are no space hurdles in my interpretation either. Even using your calculations (which I've already told you I don't agree with), we fit all the animals on there and have plenty of space available for food.

 

[D the Atheist]

OEJ

This has everything to do with mathematical models. Do you even know what the word 'compute' means?

Do you really think you can squirm out of your own mud by not admitting your ‘call to authority argument’ by implying a deficiency in my knowledge about the word compute?

I find that a low way of discussion…but oh well, that can be a product of religious desperation.

And with your atheistic beliefs, you're gonna have to. A naturalistic explanation will never be found. That's my prediction.

Not only is that your prediction Jack, it is the straw you hang onto with the same desperation mentioned above.

No, I believe in God, and He said He did it. Big difference.

So, what you are saying is that you believe in a god because of other reasons and therefore conclude that that god must have been the originator of life and then you call that science. Mmmmmm OK??

No, I mean it is wishful thinking to assume that life is inevitable. I told you before that the old bait and switch isn't going to work on me.

I repeat…I am alive…Life therefore is inevitable. Your god scenario is not!

I have everything far from all worked out, but I do know how life originated. The Bibles tells us.

The bibles could be true, they could be the work of delusional thinking, they could have been produced by outright liars, they may even be the work of the insane, or they may have been produced by a combination of the before.

What is your scientific formula for working out which is correct?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by D the Atheist
Do you really think you can squirm out of your own mud by not admitting your ‘call to authority argument’ by implying a deficiency in my knowledge about the word compute?

We were discussing mathematical models. Bob Enyart is certainly qualified to present one. The math in Zeno's paradox was flawed, so you shouldn't have tried to present it as a valid model. Now if you could show a flaw in the model Bob presented, then you might have something, but you can't.

Not only is that your prediction Jack, it is the straw you hang onto with the same desperation mentioned above.

I'm not the one who's desperate here. I'll tell you what -- you let me know when my prediction is proven wrong, ok?

So, what you are saying is that you believe in a god because of other reasons and therefore conclude that that god must have been the originator of life and then you call that science.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I believe in God for a variety of reasons. I believe He created life because the Bible says so. I call that my belief -- not science. Just like I call evolution your belief and not science.

I repeat…I am alive…Life therefore is inevitable.

Just because you're alive doesn't mean that life was inevitable. To show that life is inevitable, you'll have to show that it will come about under naturalistic conditions. This has never been done, nor will it.

The bibles could be true, they could be the work of delusional thinking, they could have been produced by outright liars, they may even be the work of the insane, or they may have been produced by a combination of the before.

Or the Bible could be correct. That's the possibility that you seem to be afraid of considering.

What is your scientific formula for working out which is correct?

Put everything you can to the test. Whichever one fails isn't going to work. Evolution has already failed.

 

[ex_fundy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ark Capacity

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ark Capacity

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack I'm afraid

You don't need to be afraid. As one who's already been freed from the mind prison of fundamentalism I can assure you it's a big beautiful world out here.

Maybe so. I'm the one that said 30,000. Is that the number Whitcomb and Morris give in their book? I don't know -- I've never read it, but I was intentionally aiming high.

They used 35,000, but I granted you one more freeby by accepting your estimate.

There are no space hurdles in my interpretation either. ..we fit all the animals on there and have plenty of space available for food.

36.5 days worth of food. Even if they were on half rations, that's only about 1/5 the required food. You can always fall back to the hibernation "possiblity" (others have), but pretty soon most people get tired of the "one more miracle occurred..." explanation.

Why don't you simply show me one of your YE creationist sites with some construction drawings for an ark that shows the location of the animal pens and the food storage lockers (with dimensions of course)? That would at least give me something to work with. That should be an easy project for any modern YE architectural Engineer to produce.

 

[D the Atheist]

OEJ,

We were discussing mathematical models. Bob Enyart is certainly qualified to present one. You aren't going to give up on this bait and switch routine, are you?

You used Bob’s computer expertise as a proof. How about either admit it or at the very least, drop it. You are being dishonest.

I'm not the one who's desperate here. I'll tell you what -- you let me know when my prediction is proven wrong, ok?

Some of us can recognise when hiding in the mind is occurring.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I believe in God for a variety of reasons. I believe He created life because the Bible says so. I call that my belief -- not science. Just like I call evolution your belief and not science.

You have that so wrong. I accept that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural. I therefore cannot attribute the origins of life to such.

On the other hand, you have no greater knowledge about the supposed existence of a god etc, but you still attribute the origin of life to it.

Just because you're alive doesn't mean that life was inevitable. To show that life is inevitable, you'll have to show that it will come about under naturalistic conditions. This has never been done, nor will it.

No…wrong. I am alive so life is inevitable. The evidence could not be any clearer. You have to show that a god exists for your hypothesis to be accepted by anyone but the hopeful

lOr the Bible could be correct.

I mentioned that first. Why mention it again?

Put everything to the test. Evolution fails. Creation doesn't.

You are as slippery as an eel. You have not answered the question. How do you determine the correctness of the bibles. And, of course I mean in a way that is universally acceptable?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ark Capacity

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ark Capacity

Originally posted by ex_fundy
36.5 days worth of food. Even if they were on half rations, that's only about 1/5 the required food.

According to your calculations, which used up most of the extra space carrying water they didn't even need -- they were surrounded by it.

You can always fall back to the hibernation "possiblity" (others have), but pretty soon most people get tired of the "one more miracle occurred..." explanation.

I'm not relying on miraculous explanations. Not that I would consider hibernation miraculous. This is natural for many animals when the food supply gets short.

Why don't you simply show me one of your YE creationist sites with some construction drawings for an ark that shows the location of the animal pens and the food storage lockers (with dimensions of course)?

I haven't seen any.

That would at least give me something to work with. That should be an easy project for any modern YE architectural Engineer to produce.

I don't think it would be easy, but I neither do I think it would be impossible to come up with something that would work. Noah did.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by D the Atheist
You used Bob’s computer expertise as a proof. How about either admit it or at the very least, drop it. You are being dishonest.

You're the one being dishonest. I never used Bob's computer expertise as a proof. I simply used it to show that he was qualified to give a mathematical model. The one you offered was flawed.

Some of us can recognise when hiding in the mind is occurring.

What is this supposed to mean?

You have that so wrong.

I don't think so.

I accept that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural. I therefore cannot attribute the origins of life to such.

Of course you can't. That's why you're forced to make lame assertions like "life is inevitable."

On the other hand, you have no greater knowledge about the supposed existence of a god etc, but you still attribute the origin of life to it.

Maybe I do have greater knowledge about God's existence. You, as an atheist, wouldn't know.

No…wrong. I am alive so life is inevitable.

That's doesn't prove that life was inevitable.

The evidence could not be any clearer. You have to show that a god exists for your hypothesis to be accepted by anyone but the hopeful

And you have to show that life can come about by naturalistic means for yours to be accepted by anyone but the hopeless.

I mentioned that first. Why mention it again?

My bad, I didn't see it the first time.

You are as slippery as an eel. You have not answered the question. How do you determine the correctness of the bibles.

You can still put it to the test. It's never been proven wrong, although not for lack of trying.

And, of course I mean in a way that is universally acceptable?

Some people won't accept the truth even when it's staring them in the face. This is called denial.

 

[ex_fundy]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack We were discussing mathematical models. Bob Enyart is certainly qualified to present one.

Jack, you were caught pure and simple trying an appeal to authority arguement. Bob is far from a mathematician, and you know it. Several (myself a Math/CS degree holder) already showed his misuse of probability. Show me evidence of Bob having an advanced mathematics degree (or even advanced coursework in probability) and then you'll have a "little" support for your appeal to authority. Until then you're only digging a deaper hole for yourself.

It's this kind of behavior that drove me out of fundamentalism. Just because Bob shares your world-view and knows a "little" more than you about math, you automatically believe him. I saw that over and over again within fundamentalism.

Or the Bible could be correct.

Or the Book of Mormon, or the Vedas, Avesta, Pahlavi, Pistis Sophia, etc. etc.

 

[ex_fundy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ark Capacity

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ark Capacity

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack I don't think it would be easy, but I neither do I think it would be impossible to come up with something that would work. Noah did.

But AIG and ICR with a $15M annual income haven't. Hmm?:think:

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by ex_fundy
Jack, you were caught pure and simple trying an appeal to authority arguement. Bob is far from a mathematician, and you know it. Several (myself a Math/CS degree holder) already showed his misuse of probability.

No you haven't.

Show me evidence of Bob having an advanced mathematics degree (or even advanced coursework in probability) and then you'll have a "little" support for your appeal to authority. Until then you're only digging a deaper hole for yourself.

I never gave an appeal to authority argument. I just said he obviously knows his math better than Zeno did. You guys are the ones trying to say I'm using that as a proof for creation. I'm not.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by ex_fundy
It's this kind of behavior that drove me out of fundamentalism.

You rejected your beliefs because of the way some people behaved? I just stopped going to church...

 

[D the Atheist]

OEJ,

You're the one being dishonest. I never used Bob's computer expertise as a proof. I simply used it to show that he was qualified to give a mathematical model. The one you offered was flawed.

Because he qualified is not a proof of anything. You were making a call to authority. Fin!

What is this supposed to mean?

Because a statement may never be proven correct is not necessarily evidence of anything. You are hiding in your mind with the thoughts that life origins may never be properly scientifically understood. Too smug for words.

I don't think so.

Maybe the so is inappropriate.

Of course you can't. That's why you're forced to make lame assertions like "life is inevitable."

Here a couple of things we do know. There is a Universe and life exists. Fantasy can say many things about that but the highest probability strongly suggests that one follows the other. The Universe exists…life exists…inevitability is a reasonable assertion here.

Maybe I do have greater knowledge about God's existence. You, as an atheist, wouldn't know.

I have been culturally brainwashed religiously roughly to the same extent as yourself. I therefore have the same knowledge as you. Tell me this Jack, what would your religion be if you were brought up in an Islamic culture and not a Christian one? I mean statistically. And what are the ramifications of this regarding your alleged soul and salvation or whatever your particular beliefs entail?

And you have to show that life can come about by naturalistic means for yours to be accepted by anyone but the hopeless.

You are making a hypothesis amongst many hypotheses, it is therefore up to you to demonstrate in a universal manner that yours are correct. This is especially true if you are apart of the brainwashing of children in this regard. Science is not brainwashing children about life happening naturally.

You can still put it to the test. It's never been proven wrong, although not for lack of trying. Some people won't accept the truth even when it's staring them in the face. This is called denial.

So this is your way of proving the bibles are authentic. Are the Koran and the Hadith wrong and if so why?