Bolshevik

I gave a rational, scientific, and probably the best explanation for how penguins were saved using the Ark. I don't know why you're accusing me of being uncreative. How could penguins float on a iceberg from the floodwaters to the Ark? Wasn't the Ark sealed? The flood killed all land flesh outside the Ark. Nothing from the artic needed to be on the Ark. It's a unneccessarily created problem.

Don't know why I didn't mention this sooner, but Noah could have very well had a bit of biological compost to process waste. A good one would last a long time. I do this myself with my marine fish tank. No filtration. I don't have time for water change maintenance during the quarter, so I try to get the tank biologically balanced. The tank, with its bacteria and worms and other critters, cleans out its own waste. Converting waste to plant food. (Now, if I had more time, I could get the tank to produce its own food) Noah probably had worms and bugs and bacteria to help out. http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/ark/view3.htm

I liked the plagiarism layout. Other info too. Not sure what all the fuss is about.

What's the point of an offshoot? Their numbers are small enough as it is. Now a coup?. . . I guess thats already been done.

I'm wondering if they didn't just feed some of the livestock they had to the carnivores. Can't carnivores go a long time without eating anyway? Didn't plant life already reestablish itself prior to the ark landing? (The dove brought back an olive branch) science and supernatural, that's a topic for another thread?

The creationists have their reasons that I haven't looked into yet. (There are many areas they cover, basically all areas of science) Not trying to be a smartfoot, but I doubt the majority of people have proven to themselves the results of current scientific data anyway. Bottom line for me is that neither the creationist nor the old-earth theory has been proven to me enough to convince me either way. I know most folks are happy to accept the common theory, and others simply reject it. I'm really open to either one being true at this point. I can see that either one (or both) could be completely flawed. Do you know the story of the Quantum Revolution?

http://www.creationtalk.com/

I really don't understand why people think the Ark needed a refridgorator. Seems like unneccesary problems are being invented. The Bible wasn't written to prove the Arks' existence. It was only for that one event, in the past. And I don't see why it absolutely needed a refridgorator. How long have fridges been around? I haven't heard of too many fossil digs in Antartica yet. Human fossils there would throw a wrench in things wouldn't it? Good idea. Chinstrap Penguins and Emperor Penguins are still penguins. Still after the same kind. Its hard to breed a poodle with a great dane. Can it not be done? To breed a housecat with a tiger would be difficult. But you could breed a housecat with a bobcat, tiger with a puma, and work the descendents down until you have a cat with both both tiger and housecat genes. Or, just shove a housecats sperm up a you know where. They have crossed tigers with leapords I think, and then its offspring with a lion. That's three. Icebergs floating, that's a possibilty. Put I don't think the Ark would've carried artic penguins. There are creation vs. evolution forums if you are interested in more discussion on this topic.

The sun is a big ball of fire (or something similar). Ever stared at a candle? Even the tamest flicker now and then. I'm just posing questions. I don't see why there isn't room for doubt about the Earth being old. My understanding is that the old earth idea started when someone postulated that water erosion caused a lot of the geological formations we see, over a long time. I believe this was about the same time Gap Theory came to be (1700s?). The creation museum showed video of events that showed otherwise. (There's a NOVA episode about a Megaflood in Montana that I think is interesting). I wonder, if had they had known then what they know now about geology, if the old earth idea would have got started. A theory was begun, all new data was believed to fit the old theory. That history would be interesting to look into I think.

I'm taking a course right now on chemical kinetics. Even reactions we can watch from beginning to end have a lot of uncertainty in measurement. I know that the dating we're discussing deals with the nucleus and not the electron chemistry, but for scientists to say they can speak with confidence about millions and billions of years is a lofty notion IMO.

I understand half-lives and the Arrhenius equation and such. But the assumption for c-14 is radiation from the sun has been generally constant? Then the assumption is also that the ratios within living organisms has always been constant. I understand that the creationists believe in a denser atmosphere before the flood (which BTW helps explain how pterodactyls can fly, not just glide) Aren't the assumptions for all types of dating are that the conditions are generally constant. didn't one (was it Argon-potassium or something?) Was shown to be useless. And after a volcano or something? Plus, sure, if all the elements were exposed to the same catastrophes in the layering there's possiblities for other reasons as to why we see the data we see. We can't go back in time and see what happened. My understanding is there are a lot of assumptions made for these types of dating. What conditions can change the rate of decay? How do we know exactly who much we started with? For me, that opens the door for other possibilities.

"It is not as simple as people adapting to live in one place or another" Eskimos are and Himalayans are genetically and physiologically more adapted to live in their environments. But they are still humans. Penguins came from penguins. Always will be penguins. There were tropical penguins. I'm just repeating myself. Microevolution has been known and understood by people for thousands of years. The macroevolution idea has also been batted around for maybe as long. What changes is every now and then someone like Darwin or Wallace thinks of a way it could've happen. Darwin's idea is being pushed to the side now by evolutionists. But the idea that macroevolution occurred persists in hopes of its proof being found. Another question you might ask is if lakes were as common in the supercontinent. So were their that many freshwater fish? Who cares. They may have died. Google the freshwater pools and see what you find. How long can they last? Did the mussels and such get thrown to the mountain tops? What haven't you thought of? Why are you so concerned about disproving the Ark? Evolutionists can't explain exactly how evolution can occur at the genetic level (where it matters). But they still believe it. What did the very first organism eat? There were no other organisms to eat. Did it somehow produce an extremely complicated chloroplast? How did it figure out to reproduce? What pushed it to survive? Look at your own beliefs. See how easily they fall apart. The point of the buildings it that ancient civilizations could do more than we typically give them credit for.

I'm not an engineer. I believe I've heard that some ancient structures, The Great Pyramids, Stonehenge, The Sphinx and others, baffle modern engineers in how they were made. Buildings built with huge stones and designed in perfect relation to the stars. Things we know exist because we can see and touch them. I wouldn't second guess the abilities of "ancient" peoples.

http://www.grisda.org/origins/22047.htm There is uncertainty in isotope-dating. Even when matching with tree-rings. Trees can produce multiple rings in a single season.

"candied nuts" "Merry Christmas"

If you don't want to believe in the Ark, this should help you. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#caring

It doesn't take a leap of faith to consider that the Ark was possible. How exactly the Ark opporated is an interesting disscussion. Why some people are so eager to disprove its possibility I do not know. You've brought up God's nature and reasoning. I guess if the Ark is impossible God doesn't exist. And if he doesn't exist, why concern oneself with those who believe the Ark was possible? I guess you want me to prove I'm a grad student? Maybe I don't really exist. Maybe you don't. Maybe Hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Who knows. Perhaps you should ask about the poop problem again?

Like with the bears I said earlier, sets from each kind, not every species. (see the museum thread) Maybe they kept them in cages, maybe God shut the lions mouth, (happened for Daniel) maybe the carnivores ate watermelons. If we're following the creationsit arguement, all animal kinds were vegetarians originally anyway. someone else pointed out God sent the animals bacteria? that's even easier to solve than the insect question didn't it take 100 years to build the Ark? I'm sure they worked hard to accomplish this. But hey, they lived. I think modern science is just figuring out how a bumblebee can fly. Should we have informed the bumblebee that it can't fly until modern science figures out that it is okay?

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/06...nt-giant-p.html

freshwater can pool up in saltwater for long periods of time, the amazon river flowing into the atlantic is an example. Pools of freshwater from the river remain fresh out at sea for however long there are a lot of fish that can survive in both (I had a brackish tank once, I could change it to fresh or salt). fish that adapt from salt to fresh or vica versa are still fish. Just like people adapted to live in the Himalayas are still human. there's probably more just some examples the penguins, don't assume all penguins were artic survivors. Today, not all penguins live in Antartica. The Ark only needed to carry a representitive carrying the genetic ability to diversify into artic dwellers. Antartica split from the supercontinent after the flood.

I was touched by his oooie goodness . . .

All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster!!!! Why don't you just start a thread on "memes"

No mechanism has been established to account for macroevolution. It is simply believed that it happened. They are searching for the evidence. They assemble all new findings so as to fit under the theory. This assumed theory is applied to interpret human behavior, and therefore areas outside of the hard sciences. It makes me wonder what the evolutionists are so adamantly defensive, and offensive about. What the creationist have is a workable model from the same facts evolutionists have. Those frogs are still frogs. It follows the creationist model. All the fossils and species we see can be interpreted under the creationist model, or, in a different way, under evolution theory. Creationists have God, the evolutionists have Father Time to fit whatever explanation they want. As far as putting to much stock in breeding, I said I was focusing on the breeding and kinds for now. I took that idea I learned last weak and am applying it. Me, I generally like to look at one theory at a time, get comfortable with it, and move on to the next.

If the Earth was never perfect, could it ever be?

(from post #111) http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/kinds.htm There is believed to be a gorilla-chimp hybrid. Skulls of these larger apes come from the Congo. If chimps are genetically more like humans then gorillas, but can breed with gorillas, should they be able to breed with humans? If so, that would settle some things.