Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How to feed and keep the animals on the Ark?
Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 121 of 165 (55420)
09-14-2003 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by allenroyboy
09-07-2003 4:59 AM


Woodmorappe's nonsense has been dealt with very well but I want to make just a few more comments
Here is something about pelleting hay. I really doubt Noah could have done it.
http://www.reap-canada.com/Reports/PelletSG.htm
I read through all of Woodmorappe's attempts to handwave away the problems of dealing with the 12 tons of animals waste that would be produced each day, I already pointed how absurd the vermicomposting idea is in reality. I have a lot of experience in cleaning up after animals large and small and it is obvious to me me the Woodmorappe doesn't know S**t about animal S**t. It can vary greatly in consistency and can be very sticky, especially to surfaces like wood. One thing that often happens when large animals are transported in serious diarrhea. I have seen a steer project feces for at least 10 feet and a sticky stinky mess it was, especially since a man in a white shirt got in the way.
Woodmorappe makes a blunder that reveals how litte he knows about animal care when he talks about bringing the young of large mammals on board to save time and space after waiting just a short period after birth so that they have a better survial chance. He seems to have forgotten what it means to be a mammal. Who will have time to bottle or even bucket feed all those young mammals and where will the milk come from? Do you suppose Noah had Purina powdered indricotherium milk replacer? An elephant nurses for about 2 years IIRC and many other large mammal nurse for several months.
He talks about special foods that might be prepared for insectovores and other animals with very specalized diets but I don't see where he allows any time to make the many different preparations that would have to be made. The ohio brown bat for example eats twice its weight in insects every night.
The zoo analogy is far from being a strawman. I recall reading that the Cincinnati Zoo has about 700 different species of animals and IIRC about 60-70 staff (which is about 1/3 of their total staff) are devoted just to feeding and cleaning up after them. Yes the ark was not a zoo. As has been pointed out it would have been much harder to care for the animals while transporting them on this massive wooden boat. To think that 1 tenth as many people could care for 10 times as many different "kinds" of animals without electicity, stainless steel cages, high pressure hoses or any modern conveniences is beyond absurd.
Now about only animals with lungs that breathe through their nostriles being on board, does this mean that all such animals must have been on board? I assume so. How do you suppose the pair of walrus got to the middle east? How about the elephant seals and sea lions and the penguins?
The idea that all the 800 million or so insect species could have surived on floating vegetation is also absurd. We already have a thread on that subject.
http://EvC Forum: Insect diversity falsifies the worldwide flood. -->EvC Forum: Insect diversity falsifies the worldwide flood.
Woodmorappe put a lot of work into writing something that may convince those with limited experience with animal care and who avoid thinking through the many difficulties but it is in the end just a massive collection of ad hoc nonsense from someone who has apparently never shoveled out a barn or feed and cared for several differnt kinds of animals or transported livestock anywhere in his life and has no idea what it would be like to try to take care of 8,000 different kinds of animals on a giant wooden boat during a flood that was rearranging all the geology of the world.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by allenroyboy, posted 09-07-2003 4:59 AM allenroyboy has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 122 of 165 (55953)
09-17-2003 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by allenroyboy
09-09-2003 12:54 AM


quote:
I said: One of whom is a fully tenured professor at a state university who now has earned his 6th Docturate in the Biological sciences.
You Ask: Who is that, and where did he earn his degrees, and what papers has he published in mainstream Biology journals?

quote:
Sorry, I need to first make a retraction. The professor has 2 PhDs. I miss read what was said on the following biography web page which says he has 6 degress, of them are 2 MS and 2 PhDs.
No problem.
It seems that this guy's degrees are legitimate.
However, that is one scientist with a lot of education, who also does not seem to be currently involved in any non-religious research, and who also seems to feel comfortable teaching Geology, for example, when he has no training in Geology. He has also taught Anthropology with no training in Anthropology.
The handful of degreed Creation "scientists" you can point to bears little relation to the legitimacy of Creation science of those 'scientists' cannot manage to do research which can survive the scrutiny of their peers in the field.
Has Bergman produced any papers and submitted them to any professional journals which are non religiously-based?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by allenroyboy, posted 09-09-2003 12:54 AM allenroyboy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by allenroyboy, posted 09-23-2003 1:30 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 123 of 165 (55956)
09-17-2003 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by allenroyboy
09-09-2003 2:53 AM


[quote]You Ask: How many of them are active researchers?
How many of them are doing research in their field of expertise?
[quote] -----------
quote:
Here is a web site with a list of many Creationary scientists (I counted 144) who have PhDs. (72 have on-line bios.) I know that some of these are members of CRS, but I don't believe that all them are members. And there are about another 450 who are members of CRS who are not mentioned here.
Just because someone has a degree doesn't mean they are active researchers.
Nor does it mean that, even if they are doing research, that they are staying within their field of expertise.
For instance, Henry Morris is on that list, and he has claimed expert status on all sorts of subjects ranging from Biology, Paleontology, and Cosmology, yet his degree is in Hydrolics, and he hasn't been active in his field for many decades.
So, can you please list for me the Creation 'science' researchers who are currently active researchers within their field of expertise?
quote:
You will note that none of their names, other than Slushers, are on the list. And I can tell you that most of the Creatonary scientists of whom I am acquainted do not hold those three high regard. In fact, AiG has a web page devoted to countering the erronious teaching of Hovind. Baugh and Segraves have very little impact in the area of creationism other than possibly having loud voices.
The idea of YEC's openly criticizing the ideas of another YEC is a relatively new one, and a welcome minute shift towards scientific methodology for Creation 'science'.
However, have you ever read any of Henry Morris' early writings? He sounds almost as wacky as Hovind and makes no attempt whatsoever to remain scientific most of the time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by allenroyboy, posted 09-09-2003 2:53 AM allenroyboy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by allenroyboy, posted 09-23-2003 1:43 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 124 of 165 (55959)
09-17-2003 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by allenroyboy
09-09-2003 3:25 AM


quote:
What they actually state up front is their worldview/paradigm within which they interpret scientifically acquired evidence from the natural world.
So, what does this actually mean?
To me it seems to mean that anything that contradicts their worldview/paradigm is to be rejected.
In other words, they have an idea of what nature must be like before they ever go and look at nature.
Is this not the case? Please explain how I am incorrect.
quote:
They never reject evidence, but rather, they reject interpretation of evidence that has been done within either religious philosophies of Ontological Naturalism or Methodological Naturalism.
Since science does not require ontological materialism, this is irrelevant.
Can you please explain to me, with examples, how Creationism is superior as a method of inquiry to methodological materialism?
quote:
The journals which are truly not legitimate are those who, in the false claim of non-bias, publish religious interpretations of scientific data with no warning or statment of belief.
Agreed.
Please explain how Creation 'science', being religiously-based and relavatory in nature is superior as a method of inquiry of the natural world to methodological materialsism, which has no supernatural or faith component and is evidence-based?
quote:
Science as interpreted within Ontological Natuarlism is primarily aimed at proving Abiogenesis and Evolution.Yet, If nature is all there is, has ever been or ever will be and there is nothing outside of nature that can influence it in any way, then the very fact that we exist means that Abiogenesis is and MUST BE a fact, and that Evolution is and MUST BE a fact. So. Since these facts are their presuppositions, how come scientists are trying to prove evolution true? Why are they trying to prove their presuppositions? Isn't it amazing how they are able to find evolution true when their paradigm requries that it be true? Isn't it amazing that evidence that cannot be interpreted into the religious paradigm on Ontological Naturalism is ignored?
Since good science doesn't require ontological materialism, this is irrelevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by allenroyboy, posted 09-09-2003 3:25 AM allenroyboy has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 125 of 165 (55962)
09-17-2003 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by allenroyboy
09-09-2003 4:04 AM


quote:
Methodolgocial Materialsim/Naturalism is simply a 'Deistic' form of atheistic Ontological Naturalism.
Um, no.
It's a method of inquiry.
That's it.
The following is the opening paragraph from an excellent explanation of what science is, how it is done, and how it isn't done:
science - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
Science is first and foremost a set of logical and empirical methods which provide for the systematic observation of empirical phenomena in order to understand them. We think we understand empirical phenomena when we have a satisfactory theory which explains how the phenomena work, what regular patterns they follow, or why they appear to us as they do. Scientific explanations are in terms of natural phenomena rather than supernatural phenomena, although science itself requires neither the acceptance nor the rejection of the supernatural.
quote:
It's "OK" to believe that God may have originated the universe, but you can't have Him fiddling around with it later on.
It's "OK" for scientists to believe anything they want to.
What they must do in their work, however, is use the same scientific methodology and standards for evidence and research that all other scientists use.
quote:
Since science can only study nature, then supposed "supernatural" things cannot be studied by science. Thus, you scientifically study the natural world and interpret the evidence AS IF God didn't exist and cannot influence nature in any way.
Well, looking at things another way, one might scientifically study the natural world, remain perfectly methodologically materialistic, yet personally interpret the evidence that God is influencing nature exactly in the ways one observes nature to be.
quote:
So, what's the difference between the religious belief of Ontological Naturalism which says that there is nothing outside of nature that can influence it in any way and the religious philosophy of Methodological Naturalism that allows one to believe that there is a god, but that he, supposedly being outside of nature (i.e. supernatural), cannot influence it in any way that we can see? THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE but for a play on words.
Bullshit.
Tell that to the thousands and thousands of scientists all around the world who are also religious.
quote:
And, If you accept Methodological Naturalism, then you MUST interpret the Bible in such a way that God really didn't mean what he says--that Jesus wasn't the creator (John 1). That what the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the Bible to say is nothing more than myth and fabrication to make us feel nice. And, if the Holy Spirit, who inspired the whole Bible, gave us fabrication about Creation, then Jesus could not be the creator. The whole thing becomes a big lie. If thats your religion, you are welcome to it.
How arrogant you are!
You, and only you, could possibly understand the Bible and the One True Faith(TM), is that correct?
quote:
The thing is, science can be done just as well within Creationism as it can within either form of Naturalism.
Ah, good, now we will hear how Creationism is just as good as methodological materialism as a method of inquiry.
quote:
A Creationary scientist studies nature to see how it functions as designed by an unchanging God.
What does this mean, exactly?
quote:
But it is impossible to study how nature and life originated, because these were singular acts of God which cannot be scientically duplicated nor repeated.
But wouldn't they leave evidence?
If so, what is that evidence? If not, why is there no evidence?
quote:
We believe creation happened because God told us, not because we have scientically determined that God created.
Well, lots of religions have had God or gods tell them different things about Creation.
Why should I believe you over all these others?
quote:
(Curiously this is precisly what evolutionsts, in some form or another, focus their study on -- origins).
Well, it's mostly Organic Chemists who study the origin of life. Most people who study evolution are Biologists, Geneticists, Virologists, etc.
quote:
In studying natural history, we START with the revealed word of God and interpret scientifically acquired evidence within it.
Right, it's just as I said; you start with a preconceived notion of what you are "supposed" to find in nature and anything that doesn't fit your preconception is rejected, twisted, or ignored, no matter how silly or unreasonable it is to do so, intellectually.
You haven't explained how Creation 'science' is just as good as methodological materialism for studying nature, also.
Please do so.
------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-17-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by allenroyboy, posted 09-09-2003 4:04 AM allenroyboy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by nator, posted 09-25-2003 7:55 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 126 of 165 (55964)
09-17-2003 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by allenroyboy
09-09-2003 10:18 PM


We have the book!
We just came back from a trip and waiting for us was a copy of Woodmoreappe's book.
I will be reading it soon and then, Allen, we can begin to discuss specifics about feeding horses on the Ark.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by allenroyboy, posted 09-09-2003 10:18 PM allenroyboy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by allenroyboy, posted 09-23-2003 1:16 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 127 of 165 (55968)
09-17-2003 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by allenroyboy
09-11-2003 3:23 AM


Re: You don't get off that easily
quote:
The presses need only have been capable of exerting a small fraction of the pressure of modern hay-compressing equipment, since even a modest amout of pressure applied for a fairly long time will reduce the volume of hay considerably, particularly if sufficient moisture in the hay is available.
If there is much, if any, moisture in hay, it will compress, all right.
It will also probably rot, develop mold, or may even spontaneously combust. (Ever felt how warm the middle of a big pile of grass clippings gets after a day if two?)
You cut your hay field and leave it in the field in rows for about two or three days. You might drive your tractor through the field towing a machine that crimps the stems or tosses the hay to dry it further. You pray that it is hot, sunny, and dry for the entire time.
Then you bale the hay after most of the moisture is gone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by allenroyboy, posted 09-11-2003 3:23 AM allenroyboy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Rei, posted 09-17-2003 7:49 PM nator has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 128 of 165 (56119)
09-17-2003 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by nator
09-17-2003 7:26 AM


Re: You don't get off that easily
Hey, let's start coming up with the requirements for Noah's industrial capacity here, shall we? This should be fun.
Logging industry:
We'll pretend that he's got a nice sized team of lumberjacks, well-stocked with nice metal axes, a cooking and cleaning crew, etc and can work all of the time for the 100 years. We'll also be nice, and have the logs shipped down a river to the sawmill, using carts or rollers to get them to the river.
Sawmill:
Takes in feedstocks from the logging industry
Produces either completely shredded wood for the pitch plant, or well-cut boards for the ark.
To process the amount of wood we're talking about, hand cuts aren't going to "cut it", so to speak. It's far, far, far too slow to cut planks out of even a single log with a hand saw and/or axe, even with 100 years to work. We're going to need shaped metal disks (several) (we'll be nice and make them be just steel or iron, no diamond teeth - he can forge more when they dull!). It'll be driven on a rod hooked up to a gear chain, hooked up to the power source (river perhaps? Add a waterwheel). The blades will need to be mounted to strip the logs as well as to slice them, so we're going to need your typical extensive plant. Shredding will require a grinder, and some sort of hoisting mechanism (the board cutting may take a hoist as well).
Pitch (actually resin, but we'll pretend that it's pitch!) plant:
Takes in feedstocks from the sawmill. Feedstocks are lifted via a hoisting mechanism (conveyor? forklift? crane?) into one of perhaps 50 or so steel vats, which have constant fires underneath them (wood also from the sawmill - scrap, perhaps). Logs are pressure-cooked for several weeks, to extract the "pitch". A skimmer skims off the pitch, and stores it in a cooling vats. Actually being resin instead of pitch, it will cool quite solid, and adhere to the vat, so it will need to be made of multiple components that can come apart, and possibly a powered drive mechanism to assist in it. The tank is then emptied, and the water drained from the shredded wood, which is then exported to the farming community for fertilizer.
Farming community:
A farming community is needed to supply all of the workers with food. They can get sap-depleted wood chips for fertilizer from the pitch plant. They of course need their own supplies - wood for construction and tools, metal for tools, etc.
Wood-treating plant:
The logs are treated to be water-resistant at Noah's treatment plant. It takes feedstocks of cut boards from the sawmill, and pitch from the pitch plant. Pitch is heated up to high temperatures, and boards are placed inside for a period of several minutes, sterilizing and drying the board, and coating it with a thick layer of pitch. The boards are then hung from hooks, since they'll stick to whatever they're touching when they dry. Cranes will be needed to assist in the dipping/removing/hanging process, since this is bubbling sap we're talking about. Finished boards are exported to the shipyard.
Shipyard:
Takes finished, treated boards from the wood treatment plant, and iron from the forge. Assembles them into a 3-deck boat. Given the standards from what we know of shipyards that built ancient boats, even if they had the full 100 years, this would still be a very labor intensive task.
Forge:
Takes feedstocks from Noah's iron mining operation. Produces farming tools, woodcutting tools, saws, gears, shafts, cranes and other hoists, cables, vats, nails, ship reinforcement, mining equipment, and much, much more. Would require a blast furnace (which itself is no small amount of steel ).
Iron mining:
Picture any sort of iron mining you want. Picture God having placed iron in nice neat boulders on the surface, ready to be loaded up into a cart, ready for the shipping company to haul off.
Shipping company:
All of the shipment of raw materials, either by land and sea, will take extensive shipping resources.
Breeding operation:
Takes animals "sent by God" (including a male whiptail lizard!) (excluding things that crawl because of a mystical requirement about nostrils, ignoring what the entire rest of the old testament has to say about them). Breeds them to maximize genetic diversity. In 100 years. Oh, let's not even get into the requirements for doing this with, say, the elephants, since they only get a few generations. You're going to need some major speed improving techniques... artificial insemination, refrigeration, genetic profiling...
Loading operation:
Each animal needs to go to the spot of the ark designed for it, and in many cases, be fitted into place. Plus, they're supposed to be trained to behave on the ark in specific ways, so that means lots of in-and-out with the animals. Of course, standard loading of everything else needs to be done.
What did I miss?
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by nator, posted 09-17-2003 7:26 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Randy, posted 09-17-2003 8:02 PM Rei has not replied
 Message 131 by reddish, posted 09-22-2003 12:27 AM Rei has replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 129 of 165 (56123)
09-17-2003 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Rei
09-17-2003 7:49 PM


Re: You don't get off that easily
quote:
What did I miss?
Don't cha know Noah had one o' them dinosaur cranes like Fred Flinstone used and he used it to load the ark. He also had all these thousands of willing helpers who got to drown later since they were all murderers and rapists anyway.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Rei, posted 09-17-2003 7:49 PM Rei has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 130 of 165 (56146)
09-17-2003 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by allenroyboy
08-31-2003 4:48 AM


.
[This message has been edited by Rei, 09-17-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by allenroyboy, posted 08-31-2003 4:48 AM allenroyboy has not replied

  
reddish
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 165 (56867)
09-22-2003 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Rei
09-17-2003 7:49 PM


Re: You don't get off that easily
Noah or one his family members wrote the book of Genesis. If they put all of the animals they knew about on the ark, to them this would be ALL animals, since they didn't know about elephants. If the flood covered everywhere they knew about then they'd probably assume this was all the world. Forty days of rain certainly would not submerge Tibet.
Also: I think Noah used tree bark.
If you feel the need top make some irrelevant smartass comment and end it with a smiley face in reaction to this post you can do that, and I'll even humour you and pretend to be upset. Then we can forget that your dogma (Darwinism, cynicism, skepticism) may be wrong and you can feel special.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Rei, posted 09-17-2003 7:49 PM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by crashfrog, posted 09-22-2003 12:38 AM reddish has not replied
 Message 133 by John, posted 09-22-2003 10:16 AM reddish has replied
 Message 135 by Rei, posted 09-22-2003 2:08 PM reddish has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 132 of 165 (56868)
09-22-2003 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by reddish
09-22-2003 12:27 AM


Noah or one his family members wrote the book of Genesis.
A tricky feat for a dude who didn't exist, don't you think? (Especially since there's stuff in Genesis that happens way after Noah and his family are dead...)
Then we can forget that your dogma (Darwinism, cynicism, skepticism) may be wrong and you can feel special.
Skepticism, by definition, can't ever be wrong, as it's merely the position that all statements must be supported by evidence. Skeptics, in a spiritual sense, are all from Missouri - the "Show Me" state.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by reddish, posted 09-22-2003 12:27 AM reddish has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 165 (56932)
09-22-2003 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by reddish
09-22-2003 12:27 AM


Re: You don't get off that easily
quote:
Noah or one his family members wrote the book of Genesis.
Crash pointed out that some of what is in Genesis occurred after Noah and his family died. Some of Genesis occurred before anything existed at all, and much of it happened hundreds of years before Noah lived. That doesn't speak much for reliability.
quote:
If they put all of the animals they knew about on the ark, to them this would be ALL animals, since they didn't know about elephants.
So the flood wasn't global and the ark did not really contain all animals? Interesting...
quote:
Also: I think Noah used tree bark.
Noah used tree bark for what?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by reddish, posted 09-22-2003 12:27 AM reddish has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by helena, posted 09-22-2003 10:47 AM John has replied
 Message 140 by reddish, posted 09-22-2003 10:14 PM John has not replied

  
helena 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5844 days)
Posts: 80
Joined: 03-27-2008


Message 134 of 165 (56937)
09-22-2003 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by John
09-22-2003 10:16 AM


Re: You don't get off that easily
quote:
quote:
Noah or one his family members wrote the book of Genesis.
Crash pointed out that some of what is in Genesis occurred after Noah and his family died. Some of Genesis occurred before anything existed at all, and much of it happened hundreds of years before Noah lived. That doesn't speak much for reliability.
In a literal bible interpretation this is unfortunately true: Everybody is one of Noah's family, sort of...
regards

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by John, posted 09-22-2003 10:16 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Brian, posted 09-22-2003 5:16 PM helena has not replied
 Message 150 by John, posted 09-24-2003 12:46 AM helena has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 135 of 165 (56962)
09-22-2003 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by reddish
09-22-2003 12:27 AM


Re: You don't get off that easily
If more people like you existed, this thread wouldn't be needed. We're arguing against the concept of a global flood here that rearranged the entire earth and deposited all of the neatly sorted dinosaur fossils through some sorting mechanism which creationists have yet to explain, despite repeated requests to do so. (This sorting mechanism clearly can't work on niche, mass, body size, body shape, etc, but has to essentially work 100% of the time around the world).
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by reddish, posted 09-22-2003 12:27 AM reddish has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by crashfrog, posted 09-22-2003 6:19 PM Rei has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024