Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Essay:Noah's Ark Was Real

2009-11-15T22:35:45Z

Jamesmackenzie: /* Open mindedness */

I'm not sure what to make of this, is it a parody?

If not then how could the climatic conditions required for Arctic animals be maintained alongside those of desert dwelling species?

How can the geographic distribution of species and fossils be explained by all the animals disembarking from the ark at the location?

How could a vessel be large enough to hold the enormous number of animals it would take to preserve a minimum 2 of every species let alone be large enough to hold fodder for a year especially considering the highly specialized feeding requirements of many animals?

What about animals that have lifespans shorter than a year, but also require very specific conditions to be met in order to be able to reproduce? [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 14:28, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

:Keiko the killer whale (a cold-water species) was maintained for years in a Mexico City (hot environment) aquarium. Polar bears are exhibited in zoos located in temperate and hot locations around the world. Add to that a species of penguin found in the Galapagos Islands at the equator, when it should be near Antarctica.
:In the Bible, God tells Noah that "every sort of animal shall come to him" (Gen 6:20); if God can tell the animals to go to the ark, He can tell the animals where to go when leaving the ark.
:40,000 animals the size of sheep can fit into 167 railroad boxcars, which is roughly 30% of the capacity of the ark. Furthermore, you have to take into account that not every animal is full-grown when it's aboard; after all, how much space does a 30-foot anaconda take up versus a two-foot baby? Then there are birds and reptiles which could have been cared for while they were eggs; there's hibernation. [http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html] [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:02, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Galapagos penguins survive so far from the south pole because of two cold ocean currents that well up at the Galapagos islands making the water temperature much colder than would otherwise be expected for its latitude.
::40,000 sheep may be able to fit jammed into 167 railway boxes, but they cannot live there for a year and all their fodder for a year cannot fit either.
::How would hummingbirds (of which there are hundreds of species) have been supplied with enough food given the extremely specific nature of their dietary requirements, or koalas for that matter who require a huge amount of eucalyptus and only eucalyptus per day?
::How were parasites, viruses and pathogenic bacteria be prevented from totally overwhelming the animals on the ark given that the conditions would be ideal for their propagation?
::How were carnivorous animals kept fed for a whole year given the great number of prey animals it takes in the wild to support even a few large predators?
::It is strange that you feel the need to justify the story of the ark as if it were even remotely possible, but in the end you resort to explanations via magic anyway. If magic had to be used why didn't god just get rid of all the sinners in the blink of an eye? [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 07:39, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

== In answer to Mr. MacKenzie ==

Mr. MacKenzie:

Did you take the trouble to read the essay itself, or the [[Noah's Ark]] article? Your comments suggest to me that you have not. You overlook many key passages in which I answer every one of the objections you raised. With one possible exception: animals having life spans less than a year. I answer that those life spans were probably a good deal longer, before the altered state of the earth's atmosphere took their toll. Recall that the average life span of the descendants of Adam was about 900 years. After the [[Great Flood]], man's life span dropped ninety percent, and in a hurry. We must assume that the life spans of animals varied in similar proportion.

Where did [[User:Karajou]] resort to invoking miracles? For that matter, where did I? Did I not explicitly state that one must employ an economy of miracles, to go along with scientific parsimony as prescribed by [[William of Occam]]?

While I'm on the subject, you overlook one other thing. You assume that true randomness exists in a [[God]]-centered universe. It does not. Nothing, of whatever character, happens without God's direct authorization. We can guess how likely a thing might be, but if God wants to act out of the ordinary, such is within His capability and, more to the point, His authority. Hence if God wants to ruin a man for repeatedly testing Him, or testing "the fates" or "Lady Luck" or whatever he wants to call it, that's His prerogative, too. (And I've seen Him do it, too. Ask any [[Las Vegas]] gambler who doesn't know to quit while he's ahead.)

Nevertheless, you overlook still another thing: God gives explicit warnings, and equally explcit instructions, to certain people when and as He pleases. He did this in [[Noah]]'s case, again in [[Abraham]]'s case, and then in [[Moses]]'s case, in which He gave far more detailed instructions for an amazingly intricate building project: the [[Tabernacle]] and all its furnishings. And then there is [[Jesus Christ]] Himself, Whose very ministry was a miracle.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:22, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks for the reply.

:Can you substantiate the claim that humans and other animals lived longer life spans in the past? The bible obviously doesn’t count because its verisimilitude is highly questionable. I ask because the current scientific understanding at least as far as humans are concerned is that life expectancy has steadily increased with time rather than decreased.

:Anything that could not be repeated by humans using the same technology as was available at the time in question is a miracle/magic. All the animals moving to the ark and not killing each other as they assembled are certainly magical or miraculous.

:If true randomness cannot exist then how can free will exist? Also can you substantiate that this universe contains properties that might be associated with a god?

:As for my questions being answered I cannot find that in the essay or the article, particularly the parasite question and the point about specialised food supplies (koala bears). Also I’d like to add another question – If Noah and his family of 8 were the only human survivors then how come such a population bottleneck is not shown in human DNA evidence? [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 14:55, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

If you're going to dismiss the Bible ''a priori'', then we have nothing to discuss. ''You'' question the "verisimilitude" (I think you mean "veracity") of the Bible, but I do not. We address [[Biblical inerrancy]] in another article on this site, and I can also direct you to [http://creationwiki.org/Biblical_inerrancy this article] that discusses the subject in somewhat greater detail.

Let me take just one aspect of the issue: prerdictions of future events. For centuries, skeptics believed that the Book of Daniel, for example, must have been written long after [[Alexander the Great]] conquered the [[Middle East]]. Then in 1947, in the middle of the high drama surrounding the establishment of the Republic of [[Israel]], a small boy threw a rock into a cave near Qumran, and the rock's impact produced the sound of breaking pottery. The little boy checked it out, and then showed up in [[Jerusalem]] hawking what he found. These were the first of the [[Dead Sea Scrolls]]. Those scrolls include manuscripts of Daniel that clearly predate Alexander, and predict his conquest of the Holy Land exactly as it occurred. And Daniel isn't the only one.

There, by the way, is a modern miracle for you. The finding of those scrolls persuaded the [[United States]] to grant diplomatic recognition to the Republic of Israel, and made the difference between Jewish statehood and a Second Holocaust.

As I said, Daniel isn't the only one. Isaiah is another. And Isaiah predicted the most striking event of all: the ministry, death and resurrection of [[Jesus Christ]].

Any text that can get all these things absolutely right, four hundred years or more ahead of time (and against odds of ten thousand quinquagintillion to one, by the way), can certainly be trusted on other events that it recorded. Like the genealogy of Adam, and the tremendous average lifespans, and the genealogy of Shem and the tremendous decline in lifespan. And like the [[Great Flood]] and the plans of [[Noah's Ark]].

I have no trouble accepting the assembly of the animals. The same God Who gave [[Noah]] his instructions for building the [[Noah's Ark|Ark]] was certainly capable of assembling the menagerie that Noah would carry. Nor is that necessarily as difficult as you are attempting to portray. Are you assuming that the continents in Noah's day were distributed as they are today? They weren't. Initially they all fit together, like a gigantic jigsaw puzzle. The Flood got started with a hairline crack that appeared in this landmass and then went all the way through it. That crack persists as the Mid-Oceanic Ridge System. See [[Hydroplate Theory]] for some further details, and a link to an outside source that explains it in far greater detail than I have space to use here.

How can free will exist without randomness? Well, it can't. But that does not mean, by the way, that we need to accept the authority of any [[Barack Hussein Obama|one human being who is trying to pretend that he's God]]. It does mean that God not only knows what is going to happen well before it happens (and can give memoranda of instructions to whomever He chooses, whenever He chooses), but that He has ''decided ahead of time'' what is going to happen. Perhaps He has decided ahead of time to bring you to me, figuratively speaking, so that I may testify to you concerning His Existence, His Pre-eminence, and His Role in human affairs, ancient and modern.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 17:23, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks for the reply, I'll have a proper read of it tomorrow morning and answer you then, as for now, before I sleep I just wanted to say that I did indeed mean to write verisimilitude - a word which means "the appearance of truth or likelihood", so for something to have its verisimilitude lacking or questionable is not to have a lack of truth but to have a lack of a semblance of truth. [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 18:52, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

==My answers to your questions==
''Galapagos penguins survive so far from the south pole because of two cold ocean currents that well up at the Galapagos islands making the water temperature much colder than would otherwise be expected for its latitude.''
:Still the water there is a lot warmer than it would be around Antarctica, and these penguins have no problem with the hot conditions once they're out of the water.
''40,000 sheep may be able to fit jammed into 167 railway boxes, but they cannot live there for a year and all their fodder for a year cannot fit either.''
:I didn't say there were 40,000 sheep jammed in 167 boxcars, did I? What I stated was a matter of ''capacity'', and you seemed to also overlook the fact that I said this number of animals occupied 30% of the Ark's total capacity, leaving enough room for other animals, and fodder for a year.
''How would hummingbirds (of which there are hundreds of species) have been supplied with enough food given the extremely specific nature of their dietary requirements, or koalas for that matter who require a huge amount of eucalyptus and only eucalyptus per day?''
:Again, you missed what I said above, so I'll say it again. Baby birds come packaged in eggs. Baby reptiles come packaged in eggs. Baby mammals feed upon their mother's milk, and if they don't have a mom, someone is going to get milk from elsewhere and do the job. Any zookeeper or farmer knows that, and I find it strange that a self-professed scientist doesn't. Do baby koalas slurp on eucalyptus juice before they get their teeth in, or is it mother's milk?
''How were parasites, viruses and pathogenic bacteria be prevented from totally overwhelming the animals on the ark given that the conditions would be ideal for their propagation?''
:The conditions on earth during that period of time from the creation were just about perfect; viruses were virtually non-existent. As to parasites, even a monkey can pluck them from another monkey, or a tick bird can remove them from a cow; that kind of behavior has been observed and proven, IAW step one of the [[Scientific method]].
''How were carnivorous animals kept fed for a whole year given the great number of prey animals it takes in the wild to support even a few large predators?''
:Again, mother's milk. Didn't you see that displayed in the Noah's Ark segment of the John Houston film ''The Bible''?
''It is strange that you feel the need to justify the story of the ark as if it were even remotely possible, but in the end you resort to explanations via magic anyway. If magic had to be used why didn't god just get rid of all the sinners in the blink of an eye?''
:I never resorted to a ''magic'' explanation; that one is your's. And God doesn't just "get rid of all sinners" when He knows it's much better to give them an opportunity to come to repentance through Jesus Christ. You came here with the standpoint that God doesn't exist, so now I request that you prove beyond doubt on this page that God '''doesn't''' exist...and use the Scientific method when doing so. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:00, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

::Where does all this mother’s milk come from, either there are adults on the ark providing it, thereby mitigating your argument by infancy, or there is a huge stockpile of milk taking up yet more space on an already impossibly full ark leaving alone questions of spoilage! Also owt but milk for a whole year, really?

::The parasites I was specifically thinking of are the internal type that cannot be groomed off, but also must have been on the ark from the start.

::According to Christian doctrine god is omnipotent. He knows who will repent and who won’t depending on what warnings he gives therefore he can simply erase those who he knows will not fit into his criteria for survival.

::You know that I cannot prove beyond doubt that god doesn’t exist. However you should also know that I cannot prove that the Dagda and the Morrigan don’t exist and therefore the impossibility of proving the existence of anything does not prove its existence. You have however inspired me to write an essay on why I think my atheism is scientifically justified, I’ll send you a link when i get around to it.

::By the way, no hard feelings right? Just a bit of stimulating debate! [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 17:15, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

:::First, and most important, there are no hard feelings anywhere! As to the mother's milk - and I did indicate this small tidbit from John Houston film - farmers ''milk'' cows and goats on a daily basis. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:57, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

== General Reply to Jamesmackenzie ==

Two points dispose of all of Mr. MacKenzie's objections. First, there is no ''logical'' objection to the biblical account. It cannot be disproved. Let's be clear about that. It may not comport easily with someone's everyday experience 5000 years later, but the same could be said about many other facts in history also. There is simply no ''logical'' flaw in the account.

Second, the [[theory of evolution]] has even greater difficulties explaining how species survived massive flooding. No one credibly denies that worldwide flooding occurred; even today the world is over 70% covered with water, nearly all habitation occurs within 100 feet of sea level, and limestone deposits from water are found at all heights. Local, but massive, flooding occurs frequently and widely, with devastating affects. The theory of evolution does not have a more plausible explanation for how species survive this in the long run.

Put another way, if you think the saving of species from massive flooding was difficult with God's assistance, it is even more difficult without such assistance.

Finally, Mr. MacKenzie need not speculate about animal behavior 5000 years ago. Animals fled to high ground in the tsunami that devastated Indonesia merely 5 years ago. Mr. MacKenzie would likely claim (based on materialism) that such behavior is impossible or implausible, yet it undeniably occurred. No need to go back 5000 years; why not simply address behavior of 5 years ago that confound [[materialist]]s?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:21, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

:''"Two points dispose of all of Mr. MacKenzie's objections. First, there is no logical objection to the biblical account. It cannot be disproved. Let's be clear about that. It may not comport easily with someone's everyday experience 5000 years later, but the same could be said about many other facts in history also. There is simply no logical flaw in the account.”''

:There are indeed logical flaws in the story, and it can be disproved. The lack of a population bottleneck in humans from any time around when the flooding was supposed to take place is disproof of the story. The population bottleneck as described in the bible is not something that could hide; a population bottleneck of 8 individuals is extreme (the species would be classified moribund). In fact the extremity of the so called bottleneck is another logical flaw in the story, since a species requires a minimum population to remain viable (MVP(1)). The MVP for primates is estimated to be over 5,000 individuals accounting for inbreeding. Even ignoring inbreeding the MVP would still be around 1,000 individuals. That makes the most favourable (and somewhat unrealistic) estimate for minimum number of humans required for the species to survive as 125 times higher than what the bible claims we had.

:There are other logical flaws too, to name but a few: where did all this water come from? Where did all this water go to? If the world was flooded so recently then how come aquatic species are so localised and varied? Why did human lifetimes rapidly drop after the flood?

:''“Second, the theory of evolution has even greater difficulties explaining how species survived massive flooding. No one credibly denies that worldwide flooding occurred; even today the world is over 70% covered with water, nearly all habitation occurs within 100 feet of sea level, and limestone deposits from water are found at all heights. Local, but massive, flooding occurs frequently and widely, with devastating affects[sic]. The theory of evolution does not have a more plausible explanation for how species survive this in the long run.”''

:The world has indeed seen times of much higher sea levels, however it has never been totally submerged. Limestone deposits found at high altitude are more the consequence of isostatic action rather than eustatic action. During the times of high sea level the world would have been more like Indonesia and the Philippines, a global series of island chains and archipelagos, certainly extensive enough for terrestrial life to survive upon with some adaptation (island gigantism/island dwarfism, or terrestrial animals such as whales returning to the oceans).

:Also tsunamis aren’t really the same as long term flooding; the flood of a tsunami lasts days or weeks at most. It is certainly not difficult for animals from nearby lightly affected regions to rapidly colonise the tsunami hit area. However in the case of a tsunami it is also the case that not all animals will be killed even in the worst affected regions. These animals that do manage to survive will sometimes do so out of luck, but most will do so because they were stronger swimmers, or fast climbers etc. Then as the survivors repopulate the region they will pass on the traits that helped them survive the last tsunami to their offspring. In this way the gene pool of the animals that populate this region will have changed from how it was pre tsunami. Hence in this example evolution by natural selection has occurred!

:''"Put another way, if you think the saving of species from massive flooding was difficult with God's assistance, it is even more difficult without such assistance.”''

:I think you are making a chronological error here. Sea level change is gradual, and landmasses do not abruptly disappear into the sea. In fact the shrinking habitat, isolation of high ground from previously connected land and increased competition that will occur as a landmass is gradually overrun (over thousands of generations) by the ocean creates an exquisite set of conditions for evolution to occur in.
:As for humans previously having an extremely long lifetime, I’d like to specifically call that into question, especially given the fact that one of the justifications for the feasibility of the ark is that Noah lived hundreds of years and spent more than a modern lifetime constructing the ark. From a biological point of view the idea of historical humans living to the age of 900 is preposterous. There is a fairly consistent trend observable in archaeological evidence of human lifetimes lengthening over time. I’d be interested to hear about the remains of ancient humans that show signs of extremely (and unfeasibly even by modern standards) advanced age in their bones and teeth.

:(1)Minimum viable population – This is the threshold number of individuals required by a species to remain viable. It is defined as the point when the likelihood of extinction due to insufficient numbers of individuals remaining reaches 95%

:Also as an aside, whilst it is perfectly correct to spell Mackenzie a few different ways, including MacKenzie, I spell my name in the former manner. [[User:jamesmackenzie|James Mackenzie]] 21:37, 1 November 2009 (EST)

::Your reply is extremely verbose, but identifies no logical flaw in the biblical account. All of Christianity, and historically all of evolution, are based on one Adam and Eve. Evolutionists have recently changed their story, but not due to any logical difficulty with a beginning of only a few. There is no problem with Noah et al. populating the world post-Flood. Indeed, the population size of today is compatible with a small number about 5000 years ago.

::There is no shortage of flood water. If Earth were merely slightly flatter than today, then 99% of current inhabitants would be under water without the need for one extra drop of water.

::Evolutionists cannot explain the survival of species over time any better than the Bible does. Living creatures settle near water. Water inevitably and surprisingly floods, killing the living species. This wipes out evolution. Adding intervention by God and an Ark is one logical explanation; evolutionists don't offer '''any''' alternative, let alone a logical one.

::Finally, you duck the undeniable point about tsunamis: animals flee to high ground just before it hits the shoreline. Ducking the point doesn't change the fact, which even liberal media like PBS have fully admitted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:08, 1 November 2009 (EST)

:::I’m not sure what to make of your response; it seems to me that you have missed the point of many of the things I wrote. I think you misunderstand the implications of population bottlenecks in humans. Our DNA contains a lot of information about our ancestral history, from which we can clearly see past population bottlenecks. For example the results of the mega eruption of (???) which reduced the human population to around 10,000 individuals are clearly visible in our DNA, it is like a giant red arrow on the human genome. However there is no such bottleneck visible for such a small population as described in the story of Noah’s ark, nor is there any population bottleneck at any time period even close to 5000 years ago. The implications of this are thus: either the story of Noah’s ark is not true or DNA is meaningless, and let me make this abundantly clear - we know DNA is not meaningless, the influence of DNA has been repeatedly displayed in experiments under scientific conditions.

:::I’m not sure what you mean by “''and historically all of evolution, are based on one Adam and Eve. Evolutionists have recently changed their story, but not due to any logical difficulty with a beginning of only a few.''” so I will have to refrain from attempting an answer.

:::I will again assert that there is a problem with 8 closely related individuals repopulating the world, in my last post I explained how this cannot be the case using the science of MVP which you have yet to respond to with anything other than complete dismissal. In any case I shall add to why the world wasn’t repopulated by such a few with DNA haplotypes. I don’t know the exact specifications of Noah’s family, but it really makes little difference. Noah, his wife and his children together could amount a maximum of 1 Y DNA haplotype and 2 Mitochondrial DNA haplotypes (of which only 1 Mitochondrial DNA haplotype could survive the death of Noah). Even adding a few cousins and the like you will only be able to add a few more unique DNA haplotypes (even with the most liberal of predictions) to the list. This poses another insurmountable problem to the idea of the repopulation of the world at such a late date with so few people. There are many DNA haplotypes in the world today which fit on a family tree showing their relationship with each other. There is no way to reconcile the model of DNA haplotype descent that must be the case had the story of Noah’s ark been true with what can actually be observed. Unfortunately for advocates of Noah’s ark being a factual account, as with population bottlenecks, the family tree of DNA haplotypes can and has been verified as fact through the use of repeatable experimentation in scientific conditions. Furthermore the mutation rates of specific DNA haplotypes are predictable and known, and are totally at odds with the current diversity of DNA haplotypes descending from a very small amount as recently as 5000 years ago.

:::With your implication that if the world was flatter it could easily be covered by water, you seem to be ignoring the massive elephant in the room. For the world to become flat firstly there would need to be impossibly fast tectonic action so violent it would destroy everything on earth. Secondly you ignore the fact that should the world suddenly become flat the ensuing wave of water would obliterate everything in its path regardless of it being sheltered in a relatively flimsy ark. Thirdly the cause of the flooding according to the bible is rain, not tectonic action. Given the preceding absurdities I feel I scarcely need to assert the fact that there is no evidence of any such tectonic action occurring in the past and indeed much geological evidence suggesting it didn’t.

:::You say that evolution fails to account for the survival of species when confronted with flooding. Firstly you mistakenly assume that flooding has a 100% death rate for animals affected by it. You also mistakenly assume that flooding always affects 100% of a species range. You also assume that most ‘floods’ are much more rapid then in reality. As for animals retreating to high ground just before a tsunami hits the shoreline, I haven’t read anything about this and can offer little comment. However I expect that the vast majority of animals do not retreat like this but are ignored by the media in favour of the few that do. In any case since when has endorsement by the mass media ever been a measure of truth? [[User:jamesmackenzie|James Mackenzie]] 01:07, 5 November 2009 (EST)
::::James, first, it's obvious you didn't read the Biblical description of the Great Flood. What does Genesis 7:11 say? The "fountains of the great deep broken up" is tectonic action employed when a fault exposes an underground water source under pressure. And for the most part animals and people end up dead due to flooding, and how many fossils were ''not'' found in sedimentary (sedimentary means "water-laid") rocks? Second, you're restricting yourself to DNA haplotypes as written on a blackboard, yet refusing to see first-hand that living organisms can and do multiply very rapidly from a very few into thousands or more in a short period of time. Rats, mice, rabbits, salmon, sardines, pigeons, ants, and cockroaches do it. Want an example of a large animal doing it as well? Plains bison herds in the country number about 45,000; a century ago they numbered less than 100. Sounds like a traditional small gene pool to me. And third, evolutionists are always changing their story, and it's always going to be any story ''except'' Adam and Eve. What is it now? Some monkey named "Ardi"? Two years ago it was "Lucy"; before that it was another ''Australopithicus''; before that it was good'ol Piltdown; before that it was Darwin's face mounted to a chimp.
::::Honestly, James, we've been through this many times with many others in the past, and all you're doing is putting the same old spin on the same old story. It's been debunked thoroughly on every point; it fails the [[Scientific method]] because you can't even get past that first step; and from what I've read from the above, you're just accepting evolution and old-earth stories at face value without even trying to investigate at least ''one'' aspect of them to see whether or not it's even true. From where I stand, you have to prove it's true. So please, go ahead and do exactly that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:43, 5 November 2009 (EST)

::::James, your massive essay is unresponsive. If you don't know about animals fleeing to high ground ''before'' a tsunami hits the shoreline, then open your mind and learn about it first. Really, is that too much expect? Instead, you seem to take a position of [[deliberate ignorance]], and then go on trying to disparage it anyway. Even evolutionist sources (like PBS) admit that this phenomenon occurs, but lack any plausible materialistic explanation.

::::As to massive flooding, materialists don't explain the survival of species through historic flooding any better than the Bible does. So if you find the biblical explanation deficient, then by applying your same standard you'd find evolution even more deficient. Instead, you use unproven speculation upon speculation to try to salvage your theory, while giving the biblical theory none of the same benefits of the doubt. That's called a [[double standard]], an unattractive characteristic common to the [[liberal]] ideology.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 5 November 2009 (EST)

== Quick Reply to Karajou ==

You obviously have no idea what a DNA haplotype actually is, otherwise you would not have made such a nonsensical statement as ''"Second, you're restricting yourself to DNA haplotypes as written on a blackboard, yet refusing to see first-hand that living organisms can and do multiply very rapidly from a very few into thousands..."'' DNA haplotypes have nothing really to do with genetic viability of a small population expanding into a larger one.

And what's next? A nonsensical rant about Adam and Eve, Piltdown man (which has some suspicious links to anti evolution advocates) and Darwin's face on a chimp. It is clear that you are deeply confused about evolution, you think that Darwin's face on a chimp was an evolutionist idea? It was a cartoon by creationists intended to lampoon Darwin. You accuse me of accepting old-earth and evolution at face value, this is highly ironic since from your posts I can be reasonably sure that you do not come even close to understanding what evolution actually is. I'm frankly not surprised that you have gone though this many times before, and I’ll wager you will go through it many times again because the problem here is not with everyone else. It is your incomplete understanding that creates this cycle, a cycle that can only be broken if you actually investigated evolution from a pro evolution scientific position. But I imagine that this will never happen because I'd guess you aren't interested in the truth, rather you are probably trapped within an ‘us and them’ mentality that can never allow you to explore the possibly that the position you hold is untenable.

Please prove me wrong, explain to me in simple terms what the theory of evolution entails and if you do a reasonable job of it I will concede the point to you. Also could you tell me when DNA haplotypes have been debunked or when population bottlenecks have been debunked? I suspect what you when you say debunked is actually ignored or dismissed with no justification.

I don't like having to make such a negative reply, whilst I disagree on many levels with Andy and others I have been debating with on this page none of their replies have made me angry, whist yours has me frustrated at the ludicrous way you have responded to my points without even knowing what they are. [[User:jamesmackenzie|James Mackenzie]] 16:16, 5 November 2009 (EST)

:Two things, JamesMackenzie: First, I did investigate evolution, I know full-well what evolution consists of; I know it's a claimed "change over time" scenario; and I know full-well that evolutionists such as yourself have no intention of backing those claims up with absolute proof. I and others on this site are fed up with being given a the "hearsay" argument by evolutionists, and ''hearsay'' is all they got. Second, when directed to provide proof of evolution ''as per the Scientific Method'', you back down and turn your reply into the rant that is here. It is you who is ignoring the debunked evidence.
:So, when directed to prove it, you demonstrated an attitude problem. I think you need to edit somewhere else. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:42, 5 November 2009 (EST)
::Just a quick note, you seem to have misunderstood the scientific method. The aim is not to 'prove' the theory of evolution, this, as with all general theories, is logically impossible. Science operates by trying to falsify theories. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 16:45, 5 November 2009 (EST)
:::Oh yes, the process of falsification. And if evolution is falsified, then what's the problem? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:49, 5 November 2009 (EST)
::::Before I get bogged down in explaining the fundamentals of the scientific method all over again, may I suggest you read in more detail what it is and how it works. The article on this site actually has some rather good details on this. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 17:03, 5 November 2009 (EST)
:::::DWiggins, if you look at the history of that article, you'll discover the fact that I wrote it...[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_method&diff=188946&oldid=168951] :) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:06, 5 November 2009 (EST)
With all due respect, I would not consider 3 edits out of around 100 to in anyway constitute a claim to having 'wrote it'. I said ''some'' rather good details, insofar as it gives a reasonable overview of the scientific method but is rather clumsy in addressing more specific aspects, omitting several key points. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 18:28, 5 November 2009 (EST)
:[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_method&diff=367588&oldid=168951 That's] a pretty big contribution. -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 18:38, 5 November 2009 (EST)

James, your own postings are extremely verbose with little on topic and yet ... you accuse Karajou of a "rant"??? This talk page is your criticism of the biblical explanation of survival by mammals of a massive flood. Do you think evolution has a better explanation of how mammals could survive a massive flood? I'd love to hear it if you have one. I don't think anyone denies that all of the inhabitable earth has been flooded.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 5 November 2009 (EST)

Arguments don't go away when you call them verbose.

1. He wasn't saying that small populations don't become larger over time. That's the story of human history, but a small family with nothing other than stone tools would be fighting an enormous struggle just to survive until tomorrow and maybe raise and sustain enough children to replace those who have died. They would all live together. Disease would strike and spread fast. Up until the Renaissance, one out of every three children died before they were five, and that was within societies that had some degree of agricultural development, trade, and infrastructure. A small clan left to nothing but their own strength cannot possibly create, feed, and keep alive enough offspring to grow the population.

That's what happened when the Spanish deported the people of Rapa Nui as slaves. Passed a certain point, the population does not recover.

2. Evolution is not a theory about the Great Flood. You don't disprove it because it doesn't address the Great Flood. That's like saying the Bible is false because it doesn't talk about atoms, photons, DNA, or redox reactions.

3. There is nothing you could tweak in the atmosphere that would make people live to be 900. Changing or adding anything other than oxygen and maybe some nitrogen would be lethal, and oxygen can only increase so much before it becomes toxic. The basic nature of life in general is that it does not last nine hundred years.

4. About the Running From a Tsunami thing - There is a completely naturalistic way to explain this. The animals hear the infrasound produced by the wave rolling in and run away. The animals that can't hear infrasound get spooked and run too. Regardless, nature is infinitely more complex than the human mind can possibly understand. Just because you can't tell me why the animals run doesn't mean it's magic.

5. About the Milk thing - Infant animals are small and able to sustain themselves on milk, but where does the milk come from? Saying they lived off milk is saying they weren't infants since milk is produced only by adults. So did they pack the milk in the ark? If they did, where did it come from?

6. If the water came from under the earth's crust, wouldn't it have been steam? What have you seen coming out of the mantle that isn't scalding? Is there any evidence that such a split happened, or is it just a semi-plausible explanation for something you already made up your mind to believe?

7. Limestone takes time to form. The flood would've had to last for hundreds of years (or longer) in order to build up the global layer of rock. The more likely explanation is that, at one point in geologic time or another, all land was underwater. The limestone formed there and was transported above sea level by the normal processes of the earth.

[[User:DanPugachev|DanPugachev]] 19:06, 7 November 2009 (EST)

: Dan, logic is concise, while running from logic takes many words. The biblical account is perfectly logical. You can't identify a logical flaw in it.

: You have free will to reject logic. But if you reject it, then lots of new questions are raised about your substitute. Massive flooding undoubtedly occurred. How do you think mammals survived it? Evolution does not have a plausible, detailed explanation.

: Most evolutionists run from [[Counterexamples to evolution|facts that disprove their theory]], just as animals run to high ground before a tsunami hits shore. No, that isn't random running from being "spooked" by some mysterious ultrasound, any more than chickens ''randomly'' return from distant places at the exact same point of nightfall each day, and jump into their chicken coop in the exact same order. I know, you never heard that about chickens either. There's much an evolutionist has "never heard of." I urge to you open your mind and let logic in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 7 November 2009 (EST)
::In answer to his #6, he's implying that water underground is steamy-hot, as well as a figment of my imagination. If he'd pay more attention to geology - specifically the geology of the Great Plains - he'd probably find mention of the Ogalalla Aquifer [http://www.npwd.org/Ogallala.htm], which is a remnant of the "waters of the great deep" bursting forth in Genesis. In answer to his #5, I stated that twice above, but apparently he forgets that ''people get milk from cows''. That's ''cows'', Dan; it means you tie Bessie to the hitching post, grab a small stool, and sit for an hour filling a wooden bucket. It's where milk came from in the days before people went Krogering. Remember, Andy, that these people expect and demand that we accept whatever explanation science has to offer - and that's ''any explanation except the Bible''. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:55, 8 November 2009 (EST)

:::First off, it's not some mysterious ultrasound. It's infrasound, and it's completely different. It is emitted by tsunami waves and is very well documented as causing signs of discomfort and fear in animals and even human beings, though we cannot consciously detect it. So why do the chickens return? It isn't some combination of sense of smell, homing using the sun, and possibly detecting the earth's magnetic field (which many birds do)? Is it the hand of God, who somehow forgot to warn the people about the tsunami? It's just the animals? Stories about animals being impressive do not disprove evolution in any way.

:::Evolution does not explain it because evolution is not a theory about surviving a flood that may or may not have occurred. Outside of the Biblical story, can anyone produce a single piece of physical and indisputable evidence? Karajou, you'd call any massive aquifer a remnant of the great flood, when it is perfectly explainable that the Ogalalla formed from water moving down through the soil and into the water table when the North American glaciers melted. If it resulted from a massive flood, wouldn't you expect to see aquifers like the Ogalalla (which, yes, I have heard of) all over the world? There aren't. And if the flood happened, as it was asserted earlier, when a fault broke Pangaea apart in a process like the seafloor spreading we see today, anything that would be released would come from the mantle as steam or superheated water that would boil on the surface. [[User:DanPugachev|DanPugachev]] 12:36, 8 November 2009 (EST)
::::Indisputable evidence for the Great Flood:
:::::Fossils, of which more than 99.9% of them were found in sedimentary ("water-laid") rock. They are usually intact, and deposited as if they died in agony. ''Step 1 of the Scientific Method in this case:'' observe the burial and fossiliztion of an animal. Cannot be done due to weather conditions and biological influences (scavengers) which tend to destroy the carcass and scatter the remains (note...that fact alone is ''observable, iaw Step 1'').
:::::Footprints, which were deposited ''when the ground was wet and muddy''. Footprints include ''raindrops''[http://www.twoguysfossils.com/dino3.htm]. The traditional explanation from science is that they harden into rock over the course of millenia just by sitting there, as if no one ever heard of the first rainstorm to come along and wash them away. ''Step 1 of the Scientific Method in this case:'' Make a track and fossilize it under the natural conditions described by science and see what happens.
:::::Folded layers of rock, which cannot fold unless they are first wet layers of mud. There is an "S"-curve in the rock in this image[http://www.purchon.com/ecology/images/folds.jpg], which didn't get that way if it was ordinary dry rock. This is indicative of differing types of sediment depositing in layers, then something violent happening to cause these layers to bend before they harden. ''Experiment:'' try setting down several layers of flat slate or similar hard rock, ''then bend the whole without breaking it''. Then do the same with wet layers of clay.
:::::Oral traditions, which are found world-wide in every language and every culture; it is a preservation of a single event. In more than 70% of these traditions, the following are present: global flood; large boat or raft; less than ten survivors; carrying away of a large number of animals; landing on or near a mountain range; sacrificial offering to the gods. ''Science'' in this case, needs to dismiss this as simple ''folk tales'' [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:08, 8 November 2009 (EST)

I'm in New Zealand at the moment and have only somewhat irregular access to internet, which is the cause of my periodic outbursts interspersed by silent periods, I regret posting my last thing in a bit of a foul mood, the point of this talk page isn't evolution is is Noah's ark, and I allowed Karajou to lead my reply off topic. The point remains that there is no pro Noah's ark answer to the questions of DNA haplotypes. And now that Karajou has likely googled "DNA halotype" he will be unable to reconcile the statement that he originally made in response to that point.

"As to the mother's milk - and I did indicate this small tidbit from John Houston film - farmers milk cows and goats on a daily basis"

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|James Mackenzie]] 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)
::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|James Mackenzie]] 15:19, 10 November 2009 (EST)

==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)
:If archaeological and geological evidence shows something to be hypothetically impossible then divine intervention can be given as the solution, however if the evidence shows that something never happened then it never happened. This is the point of this debate, without physical corroboration the bible is about as historically realistic as the lord of the rings. How many serious political and social decisions are made according to what's written in the lord of the rings? conversely how many are made because of what's written in the bible? This is why this debate is necessary. [[User:Jamesmackenzie|James Mackenzie]] 15:41, 10 November 2009 (EST)
::This "debate" happens here all the time because there's always one or two individuals who want to force the issue. He listed questions above which were answered previously; in one case three times. His pattern indicates someone who refuses to listen, totally contradicting the "open mindedness" that his side claims to have a market on. And now he's bringing up dendrochronology? Since I already know the answer to that one, I doubt it will be something he'll listen to. So, since he's bringing up the constant ''argumentum ad infinitum'' - with some egotistical pressure, I might add - I'm going to have to declare his presence here at an end. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:02, 10 November 2009 (EST)
:Well we have the Word of God that it happened. The only 'evidence' that could be found in this case would be the remains of Noah's Ark, which could serve as an additional argument. The absence of evidence, on the other hand, would prove nothing, as wood decays. The Ark would also likely be used as a shelter for Noah's family, and maybe as firewood later on, so we can't expect it to have been preserved to this day.
:My point is that this debate seems be on whether specific, materialistic methods could have fed all the animals. The Bible says nothing of the actual method used, and it has left no evidence. And maybe it is simply impossible to feed that many animals with eight people. Why should we shy from accepting that the Lord could provide for them? --[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 11:06, 11 November 2009 (EST)

Tell you what, since he's here to demand that we accept his viewpoint, I'm going to make a demand of my own. Jamesmackenzie, since you came to this particular page with the intention of pushing your opinion that Noah's Ark did not exist, I'm going to call you on it. According to the Bible, Genesis 8, the ark rested in ''the mountains of Ararat''. You, Jamesmackenzie, are going to scour the area once known as the Kingdom of Urartu, which now is occupied by eastern Turkey, northern Iraq, and northwestern Iran, and I don't care how you do it. You can use Google-Earth or take a jet to do some hiking, but you are going to go over every square foot of that ground ''before you carry on with your opinion in this website''. That is the only way I will accept from you the proof needed that the ark doesn't exist. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:22, 10 November 2009 (EST)

:Well, it wasn't easy but I have scoured the entire area using Google Earth and there is nothing there. I assume that is the end of the Noah's Ark story. Should I start making appropriate adjustments to articles? --[[User:VincentV|VincentV]] 15:29, 11 November 2009 (EST)

::Way to go, VincentV. You must be brilliant. With your wisdom, can you explain and give us the detailed evolutionist explanation for how mammals survived the massive flooding that no one denies happened?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:41, 11 November 2009 (EST)

:::I detect an element of sarcasm in your post. I have just spent a lot of time undertaking a difficult task. I don't know why you think that sarcasm is an appropriate response. Also, I am not sure exactly what you mean by "the massive flooding that no one denies happened". Are you saying that no-one denies that the entire world was flooded in the manner described in the Bible? --[[User:VincentV|VincentV]] 15:49, 11 November 2009 (EST)

::::Your non-answer is an example of [[liberal style]]. The question was clear, and it's clear you don't have an answer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:36, 11 November 2009 (EST)

:::::I confess that I do not understand why you are acting in such a confrontational manner. In order to answer your question I must understand it. I asked whether you were saying that no-one denies that the entire world was flooded in the manner described in the Bible? You didn't answer. Is that what you are saying or not? Further, I am also at a loss to understand why you asked that question of me in the first place. I professed no expertise in providing "detailed evolutionist explanations". I am willing to give it a go, but all I did was carry out a task suggested by Karajou. He said that, upon the task being carried out and no ark being found, he would accept that the ark does not exist. Obviously you have different criteria in terms of evidence. I was only seeking to satisfy ''his'' evidentiary criteria. --[[User:VincentV|VincentV]] 16:44, 11 November 2009 (EST)

::::::Vincent, if you don't want to open your mind, then no one else is going to open it for you. There is no logical flaw in the biblical account of the Flood. Can you accept that? If not, you're wasting your time and ours. And, by the way, evolutionists cannot explain how mammals survived the undeniably massive flooding that did occur.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:23, 11 November 2009 (EST)

To be perfectly fair, your statement rests on the assumption that there was a global flood. I have not yet met a scientist who agrees that a flood on the scale described in the Bible occurred. I think you are misapplying the theory of evolution as well. The theory does not really try and address the question you have posed about surviving flooding, it is an attempt to answer the question of 'the origin of the species'. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 20:43, 12 November 2009 (EST)

:Your first sentence is missing some key words. You next two sentences are missing the point. Mammals didn't take airplanes to dry land a hundred miles away. Massive, undeniable flooding is an unsolved problem for evolutionists' story of descent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:29, 12 November 2009 (EST)

::Agreed. DWiggins, suggesting that a Global Flood did not occur flies in the face of 100% of the evidence. You can keep your mind closed and believe your "truth" but don't expect to be welcome here when you have to confront the actual truth, and not liberal "truth". [[User:MichaelZ|MichaelZ]] 21:39, 12 November 2009 (EST)

:::Thanks for the heads up on my last post, it seems I cut a sentence too many (fixed now). Indeed, if there were a global flood then it would be difficult to account for the survival and subsequent geographic spread of many species of mammal. But I expect you'll find that those who believe in evolution are unlikely to believe in a global flood, and so as far as they're concerned the problem doesn't exist. The question is down to the evidence for such a flood, and if it were '100%' then I don't think there would be any discussion whatsoever MichaelZ. There are few things in this world which are for certain, and when it comes to science there is no such thing as absolute certainty, science works on 'provisional truths'. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 23:07, 12 November 2009 (EST)
::::I think what the deniers of the Great Flood are forgetting is the omnipotence of God. Miracles happened, and Noah's Ark is one of them. [[User:HarryG|HarryG]] 23:18, 12 November 2009 (EST)
:::::We are not talking about anyone 'forgetting' such a thing. The fundamental point here is that not everyone shares the same assumptions, for example regarding a belief in God, the Biblical flood, or evolution. To simply counter an argument with, an opposing assumption/belief doesn't really advance the discussion as we will always simply revert to the overarching question concerning the existence of God. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 00:03, 13 November 2009 (EST)

==Open mindedness==

I notice I was banned for posting on this page (what happened to your sysop pledge?), what really got to me was that you said I needed to adjust my understanding of open mindedness. I am very open minded, hence why I am presenting these arguments here for you to falsify. If you can falsify them I’d be happy to admit that Noah’s ark really existed, however you are more concerned with blocking me then attempting to answer my questions. The whole thing is fairly ironic since your idea of open mindedness seems to be accepting the words of a collection of writings without looking at the physical facts and ignoring them when they are presented to you, just as your idea of ‘liberal’ seems to be anything that you do not agree with (no true Scotsman).

As I see it there are a couple of ways this can progress from here; either you can answer my questions and we can have a civilised and rational debate, or you can just ban me again because you feel your beliefs are unable to stand up to scientific scrutiny. Should you take the cowardly option then please go through all my contributions to this Wiki and delete them, since it is highly hypocritical to remove me but keep the positive changes I have made to articles.

I find it the epitome of tedium to have to repeat myself, I’d much rather advance the discussion without recourse to repetition, but regrettably I checked the whole page again to be certain and I still cannot see any answer to the question of DNA haplotypes. Please could you reproduce it along with the answer to my other 2 questions (dendrochronology and the uninterrupted archaeology).

''“Second, you're restricting yourself to DNA haplotypes as written on a blackboard, yet refusing to see first-hand that living organisms can and do multiply very rapidly from a very few into thousands..."''

I am not accepting this as an answer because it has nothing to do with what DNA haplotypes are. Generally it should be down to you to learn for yourself what a DNA haplotype actually is and why it is relevant, but I will give a brief explanation anyway. The explanation is more for the benefit of others reading our correspondence so as to highlight how little you must know about the question you claim to have answered.

In this case DNA haplotypes have very little to do with population size or expansion so I will ignore them completely in this explanation. The greatest relevance of DNA haplotypes in this case is variation, that is to say there are far too many different DNA haplotypes in human populations than would be possible if everyone alive today was descended from 10 or less people 5000 years ago. This is the case because of the way DNA haplotypes are passed on, particularly the special Y-DNA haplotypes and MTDNA haplotypes. Y-DNA haplotypes are passed from father to son and never occur in females, MTDNA haplotypes on the other hand are passed from mother to child. DNA haplotypes each have an average rate of mutation which causes DNA haplotypes to branch into different groups. Given that we know the approximate rate of mutation and can calculate the maximum possible number of DNA haplogroups in Noah’s family we can work out if the story of Noah’s ark is feasible. In this case it is not even remotely close. Further confounding the feasibility of Noah’s ark is the massive chronological discrepancy between the time that the MTDNA founder lived and the Y-DNA founder lived. If Noah’s ark was real then surely we should expect the two founders to be alive at the same time? Instead the molecular clocks show us that the Y-DNA founder was born thousands of years after the MTDNA founder.

Since I put a good deal of care and effort into typing this explanation I feel like I deserve either to be given the actual answer to these specific questions. It is simply not enough to flatly claim this has already been answered when it demonstrably has not. Also please answer these specific questions, don’t just say something on the lines of “evolution is false because...” or the “bible is true because...” for the time being the accuracy of evolution or the bible are irrelevant, the important thing to be addressed is the above question and also dendrochronology.

Anyway ban me if you want to, it might shut me up but it won’t make what I said untrue. The human haploid genotypes will still exist, in reality all you will be doing is shutting yourself off from something that you do not understand. You should look up the definition of [[willful ignorance]]... [[User:Jamesmackenzie|James Mackenzie]] 17:06, 15 November 2009 (EST)

Talk:Essay:Noah's Ark Was Real

2009-11-15T22:14:44Z

Jamesmackenzie: /* Open mindedness */

I'm not sure what to make of this, is it a parody?

If not then how could the climatic conditions required for Arctic animals be maintained alongside those of desert dwelling species?

How can the geographic distribution of species and fossils be explained by all the animals disembarking from the ark at the location?

How could a vessel be large enough to hold the enormous number of animals it would take to preserve a minimum 2 of every species let alone be large enough to hold fodder for a year especially considering the highly specialized feeding requirements of many animals?

What about animals that have lifespans shorter than a year, but also require very specific conditions to be met in order to be able to reproduce? [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 14:28, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

:Keiko the killer whale (a cold-water species) was maintained for years in a Mexico City (hot environment) aquarium. Polar bears are exhibited in zoos located in temperate and hot locations around the world. Add to that a species of penguin found in the Galapagos Islands at the equator, when it should be near Antarctica.
:In the Bible, God tells Noah that "every sort of animal shall come to him" (Gen 6:20); if God can tell the animals to go to the ark, He can tell the animals where to go when leaving the ark.
:40,000 animals the size of sheep can fit into 167 railroad boxcars, which is roughly 30% of the capacity of the ark. Furthermore, you have to take into account that not every animal is full-grown when it's aboard; after all, how much space does a 30-foot anaconda take up versus a two-foot baby? Then there are birds and reptiles which could have been cared for while they were eggs; there's hibernation. [http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html] [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:02, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Galapagos penguins survive so far from the south pole because of two cold ocean currents that well up at the Galapagos islands making the water temperature much colder than would otherwise be expected for its latitude.
::40,000 sheep may be able to fit jammed into 167 railway boxes, but they cannot live there for a year and all their fodder for a year cannot fit either.
::How would hummingbirds (of which there are hundreds of species) have been supplied with enough food given the extremely specific nature of their dietary requirements, or koalas for that matter who require a huge amount of eucalyptus and only eucalyptus per day?
::How were parasites, viruses and pathogenic bacteria be prevented from totally overwhelming the animals on the ark given that the conditions would be ideal for their propagation?
::How were carnivorous animals kept fed for a whole year given the great number of prey animals it takes in the wild to support even a few large predators?
::It is strange that you feel the need to justify the story of the ark as if it were even remotely possible, but in the end you resort to explanations via magic anyway. If magic had to be used why didn't god just get rid of all the sinners in the blink of an eye? [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 07:39, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

== In answer to Mr. MacKenzie ==

Mr. MacKenzie:

Did you take the trouble to read the essay itself, or the [[Noah's Ark]] article? Your comments suggest to me that you have not. You overlook many key passages in which I answer every one of the objections you raised. With one possible exception: animals having life spans less than a year. I answer that those life spans were probably a good deal longer, before the altered state of the earth's atmosphere took their toll. Recall that the average life span of the descendants of Adam was about 900 years. After the [[Great Flood]], man's life span dropped ninety percent, and in a hurry. We must assume that the life spans of animals varied in similar proportion.

Where did [[User:Karajou]] resort to invoking miracles? For that matter, where did I? Did I not explicitly state that one must employ an economy of miracles, to go along with scientific parsimony as prescribed by [[William of Occam]]?

While I'm on the subject, you overlook one other thing. You assume that true randomness exists in a [[God]]-centered universe. It does not. Nothing, of whatever character, happens without God's direct authorization. We can guess how likely a thing might be, but if God wants to act out of the ordinary, such is within His capability and, more to the point, His authority. Hence if God wants to ruin a man for repeatedly testing Him, or testing "the fates" or "Lady Luck" or whatever he wants to call it, that's His prerogative, too. (And I've seen Him do it, too. Ask any [[Las Vegas]] gambler who doesn't know to quit while he's ahead.)

Nevertheless, you overlook still another thing: God gives explicit warnings, and equally explcit instructions, to certain people when and as He pleases. He did this in [[Noah]]'s case, again in [[Abraham]]'s case, and then in [[Moses]]'s case, in which He gave far more detailed instructions for an amazingly intricate building project: the [[Tabernacle]] and all its furnishings. And then there is [[Jesus Christ]] Himself, Whose very ministry was a miracle.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:22, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks for the reply.

:Can you substantiate the claim that humans and other animals lived longer life spans in the past? The bible obviously doesn’t count because its verisimilitude is highly questionable. I ask because the current scientific understanding at least as far as humans are concerned is that life expectancy has steadily increased with time rather than decreased.

:Anything that could not be repeated by humans using the same technology as was available at the time in question is a miracle/magic. All the animals moving to the ark and not killing each other as they assembled are certainly magical or miraculous.

:If true randomness cannot exist then how can free will exist? Also can you substantiate that this universe contains properties that might be associated with a god?

:As for my questions being answered I cannot find that in the essay or the article, particularly the parasite question and the point about specialised food supplies (koala bears). Also I’d like to add another question – If Noah and his family of 8 were the only human survivors then how come such a population bottleneck is not shown in human DNA evidence? [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 14:55, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

If you're going to dismiss the Bible ''a priori'', then we have nothing to discuss. ''You'' question the "verisimilitude" (I think you mean "veracity") of the Bible, but I do not. We address [[Biblical inerrancy]] in another article on this site, and I can also direct you to [http://creationwiki.org/Biblical_inerrancy this article] that discusses the subject in somewhat greater detail.

Let me take just one aspect of the issue: prerdictions of future events. For centuries, skeptics believed that the Book of Daniel, for example, must have been written long after [[Alexander the Great]] conquered the [[Middle East]]. Then in 1947, in the middle of the high drama surrounding the establishment of the Republic of [[Israel]], a small boy threw a rock into a cave near Qumran, and the rock's impact produced the sound of breaking pottery. The little boy checked it out, and then showed up in [[Jerusalem]] hawking what he found. These were the first of the [[Dead Sea Scrolls]]. Those scrolls include manuscripts of Daniel that clearly predate Alexander, and predict his conquest of the Holy Land exactly as it occurred. And Daniel isn't the only one.

There, by the way, is a modern miracle for you. The finding of those scrolls persuaded the [[United States]] to grant diplomatic recognition to the Republic of Israel, and made the difference between Jewish statehood and a Second Holocaust.

As I said, Daniel isn't the only one. Isaiah is another. And Isaiah predicted the most striking event of all: the ministry, death and resurrection of [[Jesus Christ]].

Any text that can get all these things absolutely right, four hundred years or more ahead of time (and against odds of ten thousand quinquagintillion to one, by the way), can certainly be trusted on other events that it recorded. Like the genealogy of Adam, and the tremendous average lifespans, and the genealogy of Shem and the tremendous decline in lifespan. And like the [[Great Flood]] and the plans of [[Noah's Ark]].

I have no trouble accepting the assembly of the animals. The same God Who gave [[Noah]] his instructions for building the [[Noah's Ark|Ark]] was certainly capable of assembling the menagerie that Noah would carry. Nor is that necessarily as difficult as you are attempting to portray. Are you assuming that the continents in Noah's day were distributed as they are today? They weren't. Initially they all fit together, like a gigantic jigsaw puzzle. The Flood got started with a hairline crack that appeared in this landmass and then went all the way through it. That crack persists as the Mid-Oceanic Ridge System. See [[Hydroplate Theory]] for some further details, and a link to an outside source that explains it in far greater detail than I have space to use here.

How can free will exist without randomness? Well, it can't. But that does not mean, by the way, that we need to accept the authority of any [[Barack Hussein Obama|one human being who is trying to pretend that he's God]]. It does mean that God not only knows what is going to happen well before it happens (and can give memoranda of instructions to whomever He chooses, whenever He chooses), but that He has ''decided ahead of time'' what is going to happen. Perhaps He has decided ahead of time to bring you to me, figuratively speaking, so that I may testify to you concerning His Existence, His Pre-eminence, and His Role in human affairs, ancient and modern.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 17:23, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks for the reply, I'll have a proper read of it tomorrow morning and answer you then, as for now, before I sleep I just wanted to say that I did indeed mean to write verisimilitude - a word which means "the appearance of truth or likelihood", so for something to have its verisimilitude lacking or questionable is not to have a lack of truth but to have a lack of a semblance of truth. [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 18:52, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

==My answers to your questions==
''Galapagos penguins survive so far from the south pole because of two cold ocean currents that well up at the Galapagos islands making the water temperature much colder than would otherwise be expected for its latitude.''
:Still the water there is a lot warmer than it would be around Antarctica, and these penguins have no problem with the hot conditions once they're out of the water.
''40,000 sheep may be able to fit jammed into 167 railway boxes, but they cannot live there for a year and all their fodder for a year cannot fit either.''
:I didn't say there were 40,000 sheep jammed in 167 boxcars, did I? What I stated was a matter of ''capacity'', and you seemed to also overlook the fact that I said this number of animals occupied 30% of the Ark's total capacity, leaving enough room for other animals, and fodder for a year.
''How would hummingbirds (of which there are hundreds of species) have been supplied with enough food given the extremely specific nature of their dietary requirements, or koalas for that matter who require a huge amount of eucalyptus and only eucalyptus per day?''
:Again, you missed what I said above, so I'll say it again. Baby birds come packaged in eggs. Baby reptiles come packaged in eggs. Baby mammals feed upon their mother's milk, and if they don't have a mom, someone is going to get milk from elsewhere and do the job. Any zookeeper or farmer knows that, and I find it strange that a self-professed scientist doesn't. Do baby koalas slurp on eucalyptus juice before they get their teeth in, or is it mother's milk?
''How were parasites, viruses and pathogenic bacteria be prevented from totally overwhelming the animals on the ark given that the conditions would be ideal for their propagation?''
:The conditions on earth during that period of time from the creation were just about perfect; viruses were virtually non-existent. As to parasites, even a monkey can pluck them from another monkey, or a tick bird can remove them from a cow; that kind of behavior has been observed and proven, IAW step one of the [[Scientific method]].
''How were carnivorous animals kept fed for a whole year given the great number of prey animals it takes in the wild to support even a few large predators?''
:Again, mother's milk. Didn't you see that displayed in the Noah's Ark segment of the John Houston film ''The Bible''?
''It is strange that you feel the need to justify the story of the ark as if it were even remotely possible, but in the end you resort to explanations via magic anyway. If magic had to be used why didn't god just get rid of all the sinners in the blink of an eye?''
:I never resorted to a ''magic'' explanation; that one is your's. And God doesn't just "get rid of all sinners" when He knows it's much better to give them an opportunity to come to repentance through Jesus Christ. You came here with the standpoint that God doesn't exist, so now I request that you prove beyond doubt on this page that God '''doesn't''' exist...and use the Scientific method when doing so. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:00, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

::Where does all this mother’s milk come from, either there are adults on the ark providing it, thereby mitigating your argument by infancy, or there is a huge stockpile of milk taking up yet more space on an already impossibly full ark leaving alone questions of spoilage! Also owt but milk for a whole year, really?

::The parasites I was specifically thinking of are the internal type that cannot be groomed off, but also must have been on the ark from the start.

::According to Christian doctrine god is omnipotent. He knows who will repent and who won’t depending on what warnings he gives therefore he can simply erase those who he knows will not fit into his criteria for survival.

::You know that I cannot prove beyond doubt that god doesn’t exist. However you should also know that I cannot prove that the Dagda and the Morrigan don’t exist and therefore the impossibility of proving the existence of anything does not prove its existence. You have however inspired me to write an essay on why I think my atheism is scientifically justified, I’ll send you a link when i get around to it.

::By the way, no hard feelings right? Just a bit of stimulating debate! [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 17:15, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

:::First, and most important, there are no hard feelings anywhere! As to the mother's milk - and I did indicate this small tidbit from John Houston film - farmers ''milk'' cows and goats on a daily basis. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:57, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

== General Reply to Jamesmackenzie ==

Two points dispose of all of Mr. MacKenzie's objections. First, there is no ''logical'' objection to the biblical account. It cannot be disproved. Let's be clear about that. It may not comport easily with someone's everyday experience 5000 years later, but the same could be said about many other facts in history also. There is simply no ''logical'' flaw in the account.

Second, the [[theory of evolution]] has even greater difficulties explaining how species survived massive flooding. No one credibly denies that worldwide flooding occurred; even today the world is over 70% covered with water, nearly all habitation occurs within 100 feet of sea level, and limestone deposits from water are found at all heights. Local, but massive, flooding occurs frequently and widely, with devastating affects. The theory of evolution does not have a more plausible explanation for how species survive this in the long run.

Put another way, if you think the saving of species from massive flooding was difficult with God's assistance, it is even more difficult without such assistance.

Finally, Mr. MacKenzie need not speculate about animal behavior 5000 years ago. Animals fled to high ground in the tsunami that devastated Indonesia merely 5 years ago. Mr. MacKenzie would likely claim (based on materialism) that such behavior is impossible or implausible, yet it undeniably occurred. No need to go back 5000 years; why not simply address behavior of 5 years ago that confound [[materialist]]s?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:21, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

:''"Two points dispose of all of Mr. MacKenzie's objections. First, there is no logical objection to the biblical account. It cannot be disproved. Let's be clear about that. It may not comport easily with someone's everyday experience 5000 years later, but the same could be said about many other facts in history also. There is simply no logical flaw in the account.”''

:There are indeed logical flaws in the story, and it can be disproved. The lack of a population bottleneck in humans from any time around when the flooding was supposed to take place is disproof of the story. The population bottleneck as described in the bible is not something that could hide; a population bottleneck of 8 individuals is extreme (the species would be classified moribund). In fact the extremity of the so called bottleneck is another logical flaw in the story, since a species requires a minimum population to remain viable (MVP(1)). The MVP for primates is estimated to be over 5,000 individuals accounting for inbreeding. Even ignoring inbreeding the MVP would still be around 1,000 individuals. That makes the most favourable (and somewhat unrealistic) estimate for minimum number of humans required for the species to survive as 125 times higher than what the bible claims we had.

:There are other logical flaws too, to name but a few: where did all this water come from? Where did all this water go to? If the world was flooded so recently then how come aquatic species are so localised and varied? Why did human lifetimes rapidly drop after the flood?

:''“Second, the theory of evolution has even greater difficulties explaining how species survived massive flooding. No one credibly denies that worldwide flooding occurred; even today the world is over 70% covered with water, nearly all habitation occurs within 100 feet of sea level, and limestone deposits from water are found at all heights. Local, but massive, flooding occurs frequently and widely, with devastating affects[sic]. The theory of evolution does not have a more plausible explanation for how species survive this in the long run.”''

:The world has indeed seen times of much higher sea levels, however it has never been totally submerged. Limestone deposits found at high altitude are more the consequence of isostatic action rather than eustatic action. During the times of high sea level the world would have been more like Indonesia and the Philippines, a global series of island chains and archipelagos, certainly extensive enough for terrestrial life to survive upon with some adaptation (island gigantism/island dwarfism, or terrestrial animals such as whales returning to the oceans).

:Also tsunamis aren’t really the same as long term flooding; the flood of a tsunami lasts days or weeks at most. It is certainly not difficult for animals from nearby lightly affected regions to rapidly colonise the tsunami hit area. However in the case of a tsunami it is also the case that not all animals will be killed even in the worst affected regions. These animals that do manage to survive will sometimes do so out of luck, but most will do so because they were stronger swimmers, or fast climbers etc. Then as the survivors repopulate the region they will pass on the traits that helped them survive the last tsunami to their offspring. In this way the gene pool of the animals that populate this region will have changed from how it was pre tsunami. Hence in this example evolution by natural selection has occurred!

:''"Put another way, if you think the saving of species from massive flooding was difficult with God's assistance, it is even more difficult without such assistance.”''

:I think you are making a chronological error here. Sea level change is gradual, and landmasses do not abruptly disappear into the sea. In fact the shrinking habitat, isolation of high ground from previously connected land and increased competition that will occur as a landmass is gradually overrun (over thousands of generations) by the ocean creates an exquisite set of conditions for evolution to occur in.
:As for humans previously having an extremely long lifetime, I’d like to specifically call that into question, especially given the fact that one of the justifications for the feasibility of the ark is that Noah lived hundreds of years and spent more than a modern lifetime constructing the ark. From a biological point of view the idea of historical humans living to the age of 900 is preposterous. There is a fairly consistent trend observable in archaeological evidence of human lifetimes lengthening over time. I’d be interested to hear about the remains of ancient humans that show signs of extremely (and unfeasibly even by modern standards) advanced age in their bones and teeth.

:(1)Minimum viable population – This is the threshold number of individuals required by a species to remain viable. It is defined as the point when the likelihood of extinction due to insufficient numbers of individuals remaining reaches 95%

:Also as an aside, whilst it is perfectly correct to spell Mackenzie a few different ways, including MacKenzie, I spell my name in the former manner. [[User:jamesmackenzie|James Mackenzie]] 21:37, 1 November 2009 (EST)

::Your reply is extremely verbose, but identifies no logical flaw in the biblical account. All of Christianity, and historically all of evolution, are based on one Adam and Eve. Evolutionists have recently changed their story, but not due to any logical difficulty with a beginning of only a few. There is no problem with Noah et al. populating the world post-Flood. Indeed, the population size of today is compatible with a small number about 5000 years ago.

::There is no shortage of flood water. If Earth were merely slightly flatter than today, then 99% of current inhabitants would be under water without the need for one extra drop of water.

::Evolutionists cannot explain the survival of species over time any better than the Bible does. Living creatures settle near water. Water inevitably and surprisingly floods, killing the living species. This wipes out evolution. Adding intervention by God and an Ark is one logical explanation; evolutionists don't offer '''any''' alternative, let alone a logical one.

::Finally, you duck the undeniable point about tsunamis: animals flee to high ground just before it hits the shoreline. Ducking the point doesn't change the fact, which even liberal media like PBS have fully admitted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:08, 1 November 2009 (EST)

:::I’m not sure what to make of your response; it seems to me that you have missed the point of many of the things I wrote. I think you misunderstand the implications of population bottlenecks in humans. Our DNA contains a lot of information about our ancestral history, from which we can clearly see past population bottlenecks. For example the results of the mega eruption of (???) which reduced the human population to around 10,000 individuals are clearly visible in our DNA, it is like a giant red arrow on the human genome. However there is no such bottleneck visible for such a small population as described in the story of Noah’s ark, nor is there any population bottleneck at any time period even close to 5000 years ago. The implications of this are thus: either the story of Noah’s ark is not true or DNA is meaningless, and let me make this abundantly clear - we know DNA is not meaningless, the influence of DNA has been repeatedly displayed in experiments under scientific conditions.

:::I’m not sure what you mean by “''and historically all of evolution, are based on one Adam and Eve. Evolutionists have recently changed their story, but not due to any logical difficulty with a beginning of only a few.''” so I will have to refrain from attempting an answer.

:::I will again assert that there is a problem with 8 closely related individuals repopulating the world, in my last post I explained how this cannot be the case using the science of MVP which you have yet to respond to with anything other than complete dismissal. In any case I shall add to why the world wasn’t repopulated by such a few with DNA haplotypes. I don’t know the exact specifications of Noah’s family, but it really makes little difference. Noah, his wife and his children together could amount a maximum of 1 Y DNA haplotype and 2 Mitochondrial DNA haplotypes (of which only 1 Mitochondrial DNA haplotype could survive the death of Noah). Even adding a few cousins and the like you will only be able to add a few more unique DNA haplotypes (even with the most liberal of predictions) to the list. This poses another insurmountable problem to the idea of the repopulation of the world at such a late date with so few people. There are many DNA haplotypes in the world today which fit on a family tree showing their relationship with each other. There is no way to reconcile the model of DNA haplotype descent that must be the case had the story of Noah’s ark been true with what can actually be observed. Unfortunately for advocates of Noah’s ark being a factual account, as with population bottlenecks, the family tree of DNA haplotypes can and has been verified as fact through the use of repeatable experimentation in scientific conditions. Furthermore the mutation rates of specific DNA haplotypes are predictable and known, and are totally at odds with the current diversity of DNA haplotypes descending from a very small amount as recently as 5000 years ago.

:::With your implication that if the world was flatter it could easily be covered by water, you seem to be ignoring the massive elephant in the room. For the world to become flat firstly there would need to be impossibly fast tectonic action so violent it would destroy everything on earth. Secondly you ignore the fact that should the world suddenly become flat the ensuing wave of water would obliterate everything in its path regardless of it being sheltered in a relatively flimsy ark. Thirdly the cause of the flooding according to the bible is rain, not tectonic action. Given the preceding absurdities I feel I scarcely need to assert the fact that there is no evidence of any such tectonic action occurring in the past and indeed much geological evidence suggesting it didn’t.

:::You say that evolution fails to account for the survival of species when confronted with flooding. Firstly you mistakenly assume that flooding has a 100% death rate for animals affected by it. You also mistakenly assume that flooding always affects 100% of a species range. You also assume that most ‘floods’ are much more rapid then in reality. As for animals retreating to high ground just before a tsunami hits the shoreline, I haven’t read anything about this and can offer little comment. However I expect that the vast majority of animals do not retreat like this but are ignored by the media in favour of the few that do. In any case since when has endorsement by the mass media ever been a measure of truth? [[User:jamesmackenzie|James Mackenzie]] 01:07, 5 November 2009 (EST)
::::James, first, it's obvious you didn't read the Biblical description of the Great Flood. What does Genesis 7:11 say? The "fountains of the great deep broken up" is tectonic action employed when a fault exposes an underground water source under pressure. And for the most part animals and people end up dead due to flooding, and how many fossils were ''not'' found in sedimentary (sedimentary means "water-laid") rocks? Second, you're restricting yourself to DNA haplotypes as written on a blackboard, yet refusing to see first-hand that living organisms can and do multiply very rapidly from a very few into thousands or more in a short period of time. Rats, mice, rabbits, salmon, sardines, pigeons, ants, and cockroaches do it. Want an example of a large animal doing it as well? Plains bison herds in the country number about 45,000; a century ago they numbered less than 100. Sounds like a traditional small gene pool to me. And third, evolutionists are always changing their story, and it's always going to be any story ''except'' Adam and Eve. What is it now? Some monkey named "Ardi"? Two years ago it was "Lucy"; before that it was another ''Australopithicus''; before that it was good'ol Piltdown; before that it was Darwin's face mounted to a chimp.
::::Honestly, James, we've been through this many times with many others in the past, and all you're doing is putting the same old spin on the same old story. It's been debunked thoroughly on every point; it fails the [[Scientific method]] because you can't even get past that first step; and from what I've read from the above, you're just accepting evolution and old-earth stories at face value without even trying to investigate at least ''one'' aspect of them to see whether or not it's even true. From where I stand, you have to prove it's true. So please, go ahead and do exactly that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:43, 5 November 2009 (EST)

::::James, your massive essay is unresponsive. If you don't know about animals fleeing to high ground ''before'' a tsunami hits the shoreline, then open your mind and learn about it first. Really, is that too much expect? Instead, you seem to take a position of [[deliberate ignorance]], and then go on trying to disparage it anyway. Even evolutionist sources (like PBS) admit that this phenomenon occurs, but lack any plausible materialistic explanation.

::::As to massive flooding, materialists don't explain the survival of species through historic flooding any better than the Bible does. So if you find the biblical explanation deficient, then by applying your same standard you'd find evolution even more deficient. Instead, you use unproven speculation upon speculation to try to salvage your theory, while giving the biblical theory none of the same benefits of the doubt. That's called a [[double standard]], an unattractive characteristic common to the [[liberal]] ideology.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 5 November 2009 (EST)

== Quick Reply to Karajou ==

You obviously have no idea what a DNA haplotype actually is, otherwise you would not have made such a nonsensical statement as ''"Second, you're restricting yourself to DNA haplotypes as written on a blackboard, yet refusing to see first-hand that living organisms can and do multiply very rapidly from a very few into thousands..."'' DNA haplotypes have nothing really to do with genetic viability of a small population expanding into a larger one.

And what's next? A nonsensical rant about Adam and Eve, Piltdown man (which has some suspicious links to anti evolution advocates) and Darwin's face on a chimp. It is clear that you are deeply confused about evolution, you think that Darwin's face on a chimp was an evolutionist idea? It was a cartoon by creationists intended to lampoon Darwin. You accuse me of accepting old-earth and evolution at face value, this is highly ironic since from your posts I can be reasonably sure that you do not come even close to understanding what evolution actually is. I'm frankly not surprised that you have gone though this many times before, and I’ll wager you will go through it many times again because the problem here is not with everyone else. It is your incomplete understanding that creates this cycle, a cycle that can only be broken if you actually investigated evolution from a pro evolution scientific position. But I imagine that this will never happen because I'd guess you aren't interested in the truth, rather you are probably trapped within an ‘us and them’ mentality that can never allow you to explore the possibly that the position you hold is untenable.

Please prove me wrong, explain to me in simple terms what the theory of evolution entails and if you do a reasonable job of it I will concede the point to you. Also could you tell me when DNA haplotypes have been debunked or when population bottlenecks have been debunked? I suspect what you when you say debunked is actually ignored or dismissed with no justification.

I don't like having to make such a negative reply, whilst I disagree on many levels with Andy and others I have been debating with on this page none of their replies have made me angry, whist yours has me frustrated at the ludicrous way you have responded to my points without even knowing what they are. [[User:jamesmackenzie|James Mackenzie]] 16:16, 5 November 2009 (EST)

:Two things, JamesMackenzie: First, I did investigate evolution, I know full-well what evolution consists of; I know it's a claimed "change over time" scenario; and I know full-well that evolutionists such as yourself have no intention of backing those claims up with absolute proof. I and others on this site are fed up with being given a the "hearsay" argument by evolutionists, and ''hearsay'' is all they got. Second, when directed to provide proof of evolution ''as per the Scientific Method'', you back down and turn your reply into the rant that is here. It is you who is ignoring the debunked evidence.
:So, when directed to prove it, you demonstrated an attitude problem. I think you need to edit somewhere else. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:42, 5 November 2009 (EST)
::Just a quick note, you seem to have misunderstood the scientific method. The aim is not to 'prove' the theory of evolution, this, as with all general theories, is logically impossible. Science operates by trying to falsify theories. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 16:45, 5 November 2009 (EST)
:::Oh yes, the process of falsification. And if evolution is falsified, then what's the problem? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:49, 5 November 2009 (EST)
::::Before I get bogged down in explaining the fundamentals of the scientific method all over again, may I suggest you read in more detail what it is and how it works. The article on this site actually has some rather good details on this. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 17:03, 5 November 2009 (EST)
:::::DWiggins, if you look at the history of that article, you'll discover the fact that I wrote it...[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_method&diff=188946&oldid=168951] :) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:06, 5 November 2009 (EST)
With all due respect, I would not consider 3 edits out of around 100 to in anyway constitute a claim to having 'wrote it'. I said ''some'' rather good details, insofar as it gives a reasonable overview of the scientific method but is rather clumsy in addressing more specific aspects, omitting several key points. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 18:28, 5 November 2009 (EST)
:[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_method&diff=367588&oldid=168951 That's] a pretty big contribution. -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 18:38, 5 November 2009 (EST)

James, your own postings are extremely verbose with little on topic and yet ... you accuse Karajou of a "rant"??? This talk page is your criticism of the biblical explanation of survival by mammals of a massive flood. Do you think evolution has a better explanation of how mammals could survive a massive flood? I'd love to hear it if you have one. I don't think anyone denies that all of the inhabitable earth has been flooded.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 5 November 2009 (EST)

Arguments don't go away when you call them verbose.

1. He wasn't saying that small populations don't become larger over time. That's the story of human history, but a small family with nothing other than stone tools would be fighting an enormous struggle just to survive until tomorrow and maybe raise and sustain enough children to replace those who have died. They would all live together. Disease would strike and spread fast. Up until the Renaissance, one out of every three children died before they were five, and that was within societies that had some degree of agricultural development, trade, and infrastructure. A small clan left to nothing but their own strength cannot possibly create, feed, and keep alive enough offspring to grow the population.

That's what happened when the Spanish deported the people of Rapa Nui as slaves. Passed a certain point, the population does not recover.

2. Evolution is not a theory about the Great Flood. You don't disprove it because it doesn't address the Great Flood. That's like saying the Bible is false because it doesn't talk about atoms, photons, DNA, or redox reactions.

3. There is nothing you could tweak in the atmosphere that would make people live to be 900. Changing or adding anything other than oxygen and maybe some nitrogen would be lethal, and oxygen can only increase so much before it becomes toxic. The basic nature of life in general is that it does not last nine hundred years.

4. About the Running From a Tsunami thing - There is a completely naturalistic way to explain this. The animals hear the infrasound produced by the wave rolling in and run away. The animals that can't hear infrasound get spooked and run too. Regardless, nature is infinitely more complex than the human mind can possibly understand. Just because you can't tell me why the animals run doesn't mean it's magic.

5. About the Milk thing - Infant animals are small and able to sustain themselves on milk, but where does the milk come from? Saying they lived off milk is saying they weren't infants since milk is produced only by adults. So did they pack the milk in the ark? If they did, where did it come from?

6. If the water came from under the earth's crust, wouldn't it have been steam? What have you seen coming out of the mantle that isn't scalding? Is there any evidence that such a split happened, or is it just a semi-plausible explanation for something you already made up your mind to believe?

7. Limestone takes time to form. The flood would've had to last for hundreds of years (or longer) in order to build up the global layer of rock. The more likely explanation is that, at one point in geologic time or another, all land was underwater. The limestone formed there and was transported above sea level by the normal processes of the earth.

[[User:DanPugachev|DanPugachev]] 19:06, 7 November 2009 (EST)

: Dan, logic is concise, while running from logic takes many words. The biblical account is perfectly logical. You can't identify a logical flaw in it.

: You have free will to reject logic. But if you reject it, then lots of new questions are raised about your substitute. Massive flooding undoubtedly occurred. How do you think mammals survived it? Evolution does not have a plausible, detailed explanation.

: Most evolutionists run from [[Counterexamples to evolution|facts that disprove their theory]], just as animals run to high ground before a tsunami hits shore. No, that isn't random running from being "spooked" by some mysterious ultrasound, any more than chickens ''randomly'' return from distant places at the exact same point of nightfall each day, and jump into their chicken coop in the exact same order. I know, you never heard that about chickens either. There's much an evolutionist has "never heard of." I urge to you open your mind and let logic in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 7 November 2009 (EST)
::In answer to his #6, he's implying that water underground is steamy-hot, as well as a figment of my imagination. If he'd pay more attention to geology - specifically the geology of the Great Plains - he'd probably find mention of the Ogalalla Aquifer [http://www.npwd.org/Ogallala.htm], which is a remnant of the "waters of the great deep" bursting forth in Genesis. In answer to his #5, I stated that twice above, but apparently he forgets that ''people get milk from cows''. That's ''cows'', Dan; it means you tie Bessie to the hitching post, grab a small stool, and sit for an hour filling a wooden bucket. It's where milk came from in the days before people went Krogering. Remember, Andy, that these people expect and demand that we accept whatever explanation science has to offer - and that's ''any explanation except the Bible''. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:55, 8 November 2009 (EST)

:::First off, it's not some mysterious ultrasound. It's infrasound, and it's completely different. It is emitted by tsunami waves and is very well documented as causing signs of discomfort and fear in animals and even human beings, though we cannot consciously detect it. So why do the chickens return? It isn't some combination of sense of smell, homing using the sun, and possibly detecting the earth's magnetic field (which many birds do)? Is it the hand of God, who somehow forgot to warn the people about the tsunami? It's just the animals? Stories about animals being impressive do not disprove evolution in any way.

:::Evolution does not explain it because evolution is not a theory about surviving a flood that may or may not have occurred. Outside of the Biblical story, can anyone produce a single piece of physical and indisputable evidence? Karajou, you'd call any massive aquifer a remnant of the great flood, when it is perfectly explainable that the Ogalalla formed from water moving down through the soil and into the water table when the North American glaciers melted. If it resulted from a massive flood, wouldn't you expect to see aquifers like the Ogalalla (which, yes, I have heard of) all over the world? There aren't. And if the flood happened, as it was asserted earlier, when a fault broke Pangaea apart in a process like the seafloor spreading we see today, anything that would be released would come from the mantle as steam or superheated water that would boil on the surface. [[User:DanPugachev|DanPugachev]] 12:36, 8 November 2009 (EST)
::::Indisputable evidence for the Great Flood:
:::::Fossils, of which more than 99.9% of them were found in sedimentary ("water-laid") rock. They are usually intact, and deposited as if they died in agony. ''Step 1 of the Scientific Method in this case:'' observe the burial and fossiliztion of an animal. Cannot be done due to weather conditions and biological influences (scavengers) which tend to destroy the carcass and scatter the remains (note...that fact alone is ''observable, iaw Step 1'').
:::::Footprints, which were deposited ''when the ground was wet and muddy''. Footprints include ''raindrops''[http://www.twoguysfossils.com/dino3.htm]. The traditional explanation from science is that they harden into rock over the course of millenia just by sitting there, as if no one ever heard of the first rainstorm to come along and wash them away. ''Step 1 of the Scientific Method in this case:'' Make a track and fossilize it under the natural conditions described by science and see what happens.
:::::Folded layers of rock, which cannot fold unless they are first wet layers of mud. There is an "S"-curve in the rock in this image[http://www.purchon.com/ecology/images/folds.jpg], which didn't get that way if it was ordinary dry rock. This is indicative of differing types of sediment depositing in layers, then something violent happening to cause these layers to bend before they harden. ''Experiment:'' try setting down several layers of flat slate or similar hard rock, ''then bend the whole without breaking it''. Then do the same with wet layers of clay.
:::::Oral traditions, which are found world-wide in every language and every culture; it is a preservation of a single event. In more than 70% of these traditions, the following are present: global flood; large boat or raft; less than ten survivors; carrying away of a large number of animals; landing on or near a mountain range; sacrificial offering to the gods. ''Science'' in this case, needs to dismiss this as simple ''folk tales'' [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:08, 8 November 2009 (EST)

I'm in New Zealand at the moment and have only somewhat irregular access to internet, which is the cause of my periodic outbursts interspersed by silent periods, I regret posting my last thing in a bit of a foul mood, the point of this talk page isn't evolution is is Noah's ark, and I allowed Karajou to lead my reply off topic. The point remains that there is no pro Noah's ark answer to the questions of DNA haplotypes. And now that Karajou has likely googled "DNA halotype" he will be unable to reconcile the statement that he originally made in response to that point.

"As to the mother's milk - and I did indicate this small tidbit from John Houston film - farmers milk cows and goats on a daily basis"

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|James Mackenzie]] 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)
::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|James Mackenzie]] 15:19, 10 November 2009 (EST)

==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)
:If archaeological and geological evidence shows something to be hypothetically impossible then divine intervention can be given as the solution, however if the evidence shows that something never happened then it never happened. This is the point of this debate, without physical corroboration the bible is about as historically realistic as the lord of the rings. How many serious political and social decisions are made according to what's written in the lord of the rings? conversely how many are made because of what's written in the bible? This is why this debate is necessary. [[User:Jamesmackenzie|James Mackenzie]] 15:41, 10 November 2009 (EST)
::This "debate" happens here all the time because there's always one or two individuals who want to force the issue. He listed questions above which were answered previously; in one case three times. His pattern indicates someone who refuses to listen, totally contradicting the "open mindedness" that his side claims to have a market on. And now he's bringing up dendrochronology? Since I already know the answer to that one, I doubt it will be something he'll listen to. So, since he's bringing up the constant ''argumentum ad infinitum'' - with some egotistical pressure, I might add - I'm going to have to declare his presence here at an end. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:02, 10 November 2009 (EST)
:Well we have the Word of God that it happened. The only 'evidence' that could be found in this case would be the remains of Noah's Ark, which could serve as an additional argument. The absence of evidence, on the other hand, would prove nothing, as wood decays. The Ark would also likely be used as a shelter for Noah's family, and maybe as firewood later on, so we can't expect it to have been preserved to this day.
:My point is that this debate seems be on whether specific, materialistic methods could have fed all the animals. The Bible says nothing of the actual method used, and it has left no evidence. And maybe it is simply impossible to feed that many animals with eight people. Why should we shy from accepting that the Lord could provide for them? --[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 11:06, 11 November 2009 (EST)

Tell you what, since he's here to demand that we accept his viewpoint, I'm going to make a demand of my own. Jamesmackenzie, since you came to this particular page with the intention of pushing your opinion that Noah's Ark did not exist, I'm going to call you on it. According to the Bible, Genesis 8, the ark rested in ''the mountains of Ararat''. You, Jamesmackenzie, are going to scour the area once known as the Kingdom of Urartu, which now is occupied by eastern Turkey, northern Iraq, and northwestern Iran, and I don't care how you do it. You can use Google-Earth or take a jet to do some hiking, but you are going to go over every square foot of that ground ''before you carry on with your opinion in this website''. That is the only way I will accept from you the proof needed that the ark doesn't exist. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:22, 10 November 2009 (EST)

:Well, it wasn't easy but I have scoured the entire area using Google Earth and there is nothing there. I assume that is the end of the Noah's Ark story. Should I start making appropriate adjustments to articles? --[[User:VincentV|VincentV]] 15:29, 11 November 2009 (EST)

::Way to go, VincentV. You must be brilliant. With your wisdom, can you explain and give us the detailed evolutionist explanation for how mammals survived the massive flooding that no one denies happened?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:41, 11 November 2009 (EST)

:::I detect an element of sarcasm in your post. I have just spent a lot of time undertaking a difficult task. I don't know why you think that sarcasm is an appropriate response. Also, I am not sure exactly what you mean by "the massive flooding that no one denies happened". Are you saying that no-one denies that the entire world was flooded in the manner described in the Bible? --[[User:VincentV|VincentV]] 15:49, 11 November 2009 (EST)

::::Your non-answer is an example of [[liberal style]]. The question was clear, and it's clear you don't have an answer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:36, 11 November 2009 (EST)

:::::I confess that I do not understand why you are acting in such a confrontational manner. In order to answer your question I must understand it. I asked whether you were saying that no-one denies that the entire world was flooded in the manner described in the Bible? You didn't answer. Is that what you are saying or not? Further, I am also at a loss to understand why you asked that question of me in the first place. I professed no expertise in providing "detailed evolutionist explanations". I am willing to give it a go, but all I did was carry out a task suggested by Karajou. He said that, upon the task being carried out and no ark being found, he would accept that the ark does not exist. Obviously you have different criteria in terms of evidence. I was only seeking to satisfy ''his'' evidentiary criteria. --[[User:VincentV|VincentV]] 16:44, 11 November 2009 (EST)

::::::Vincent, if you don't want to open your mind, then no one else is going to open it for you. There is no logical flaw in the biblical account of the Flood. Can you accept that? If not, you're wasting your time and ours. And, by the way, evolutionists cannot explain how mammals survived the undeniably massive flooding that did occur.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:23, 11 November 2009 (EST)

To be perfectly fair, your statement rests on the assumption that there was a global flood. I have not yet met a scientist who agrees that a flood on the scale described in the Bible occurred. I think you are misapplying the theory of evolution as well. The theory does not really try and address the question you have posed about surviving flooding, it is an attempt to answer the question of 'the origin of the species'. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 20:43, 12 November 2009 (EST)

:Your first sentence is missing some key words. You next two sentences are missing the point. Mammals didn't take airplanes to dry land a hundred miles away. Massive, undeniable flooding is an unsolved problem for evolutionists' story of descent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:29, 12 November 2009 (EST)

::Agreed. DWiggins, suggesting that a Global Flood did not occur flies in the face of 100% of the evidence. You can keep your mind closed and believe your "truth" but don't expect to be welcome here when you have to confront the actual truth, and not liberal "truth". [[User:MichaelZ|MichaelZ]] 21:39, 12 November 2009 (EST)

:::Thanks for the heads up on my last post, it seems I cut a sentence too many (fixed now). Indeed, if there were a global flood then it would be difficult to account for the survival and subsequent geographic spread of many species of mammal. But I expect you'll find that those who believe in evolution are unlikely to believe in a global flood, and so as far as they're concerned the problem doesn't exist. The question is down to the evidence for such a flood, and if it were '100%' then I don't think there would be any discussion whatsoever MichaelZ. There are few things in this world which are for certain, and when it comes to science there is no such thing as absolute certainty, science works on 'provisional truths'. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 23:07, 12 November 2009 (EST)
::::I think what the deniers of the Great Flood are forgetting is the omnipotence of God. Miracles happened, and Noah's Ark is one of them. [[User:HarryG|HarryG]] 23:18, 12 November 2009 (EST)
:::::We are not talking about anyone 'forgetting' such a thing. The fundamental point here is that not everyone shares the same assumptions, for example regarding a belief in God, the Biblical flood, or evolution. To simply counter an argument with, an opposing assumption/belief doesn't really advance the discussion as we will always simply revert to the overarching question concerning the existence of God. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 00:03, 13 November 2009 (EST)

==Open mindedness==

I notice I was banned for posting on this page (what happened to your sysop pledge?), what really got to me was that you said I needed to adjust my understanding of open mindedness. I am very open minded, hence why I am presenting these arguments here for you to falsify. If you can falsify them I’d be happy to admit that Noah’s ark really existed, however you are more concerned with blocking me then attempting to answer my questions. The whole thing is fairly ironic since your idea of open mindedness seems to be accepting the words of a collection of writings without looking at the physical facts and ignoring them when they are presented to you, just as your idea of ‘liberal’ seems to be anything that you do not agree with (no true Scotsman).

As I see it there are a couple of ways this can progress from here; either you can answer my questions and we can have a civilised and rational debate, or you can just ban me again because you feel your beliefs are unable to stand up to scientific scrutiny. Should you take the cowardly option then please go through all my contributions to this Wiki and delete them, since it is highly hypocritical to remove me but keep the positive changes I have made to articles.

I find it the epitome of tedium to have to repeat myself, I’d much rather advance the discussion without recourse to repetition, but regrettably I checked the whole page again to be certain and I still cannot see any answer to the question of DNA haplotypes. Please could you reproduce it along with the answer to my other 2 questions (dendrochronology and the uninterrupted archaeology).

''“Second, you're restricting yourself to DNA haplotypes as written on a blackboard, yet refusing to see first-hand that living organisms can and do multiply very rapidly from a very few into thousands..."''

I am not accepting this as an answer because it has nothing to do with what DNA haplotypes are. Generally it should be down to you to learn for yourself what a DNA haplotype actually is and why it is relevant, but I will give a brief explanation anyway. The explanation is more for the benefit of others reading our correspondence so as to highlight how little you must know about the question you claim to have answered.

In this case DNA haplotypes have very little to do with population size or expansion so I will ignore them completely in this explanation. The greatest relevance of DNA haplotypes in this case is variation, that is to say there are far too many different DNA haplotypes in human populations than would be possible if everyone alive today was descended from 10 or less people 5000 years ago. This is the case because of the way DNA haplotypes are passed on, particularly the special Y-DNA haplotypes and MTDNA haplotypes. Y-DNA haplotypes are passed from father to son and never occur in females, MTDNA haplotypes on the other hand are passed from mother to child. DNA haplotypes each have an average rate of mutation which causes DNA haplotypes to branch into different groups. Given that we know the approximate rate of mutation and can calculate the maximum possible number of DNA haplogroups in Noah’s family we can work out if the story of Noah’s ark is feasible. In this case it is not even remotely close. Further confounding the feasibility of Noah’s ark is the massive chronological discrepancy between the time that the MTDNA founder lived and the Y-DNA founder lived. If Noah’s ark was real then surely we should expect the two founders to be alive at the same time? Instead the molecular clocks show us that the Y-DNA founder was born thousands of years after the MTDNA founder.

Since I put a good deal of care and effort into typing this explanation I feel like I deserve either to be given the actual answer to these specific questions. It is simply not enough to flatly claim this has already been answered when it demonstrably has not. Also please answer these specific questions, don’t just say something on the lines of “evolution is false because...” or the “bible is true because...” for the time being the accuracy of evolution or the bible are irrelevant, the important thing to be addressed is the above question and also dendrochronology.

Anyway ban me if you want to, it might shut me up but it won’t make what I said untrue. The human haploid genotypes will still exist, in reality all you will be doing is shutting yourself off from something that you do not understand. You should look up the definition of wilful ignorance... [[User:Jamesmackenzie|James Mackenzie]] 17:06, 15 November 2009 (EST)

Talk:Essay:Noah's Ark Was Real

2009-11-15T22:11:06Z

Jamesmackenzie:

I'm not sure what to make of this, is it a parody?

If not then how could the climatic conditions required for Arctic animals be maintained alongside those of desert dwelling species?

How can the geographic distribution of species and fossils be explained by all the animals disembarking from the ark at the location?

How could a vessel be large enough to hold the enormous number of animals it would take to preserve a minimum 2 of every species let alone be large enough to hold fodder for a year especially considering the highly specialized feeding requirements of many animals?

What about animals that have lifespans shorter than a year, but also require very specific conditions to be met in order to be able to reproduce? [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 14:28, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

:Keiko the killer whale (a cold-water species) was maintained for years in a Mexico City (hot environment) aquarium. Polar bears are exhibited in zoos located in temperate and hot locations around the world. Add to that a species of penguin found in the Galapagos Islands at the equator, when it should be near Antarctica.
:In the Bible, God tells Noah that "every sort of animal shall come to him" (Gen 6:20); if God can tell the animals to go to the ark, He can tell the animals where to go when leaving the ark.
:40,000 animals the size of sheep can fit into 167 railroad boxcars, which is roughly 30% of the capacity of the ark. Furthermore, you have to take into account that not every animal is full-grown when it's aboard; after all, how much space does a 30-foot anaconda take up versus a two-foot baby? Then there are birds and reptiles which could have been cared for while they were eggs; there's hibernation. [http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html] [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:02, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Galapagos penguins survive so far from the south pole because of two cold ocean currents that well up at the Galapagos islands making the water temperature much colder than would otherwise be expected for its latitude.
::40,000 sheep may be able to fit jammed into 167 railway boxes, but they cannot live there for a year and all their fodder for a year cannot fit either.
::How would hummingbirds (of which there are hundreds of species) have been supplied with enough food given the extremely specific nature of their dietary requirements, or koalas for that matter who require a huge amount of eucalyptus and only eucalyptus per day?
::How were parasites, viruses and pathogenic bacteria be prevented from totally overwhelming the animals on the ark given that the conditions would be ideal for their propagation?
::How were carnivorous animals kept fed for a whole year given the great number of prey animals it takes in the wild to support even a few large predators?
::It is strange that you feel the need to justify the story of the ark as if it were even remotely possible, but in the end you resort to explanations via magic anyway. If magic had to be used why didn't god just get rid of all the sinners in the blink of an eye? [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 07:39, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

== In answer to Mr. MacKenzie ==

Mr. MacKenzie:

Did you take the trouble to read the essay itself, or the [[Noah's Ark]] article? Your comments suggest to me that you have not. You overlook many key passages in which I answer every one of the objections you raised. With one possible exception: animals having life spans less than a year. I answer that those life spans were probably a good deal longer, before the altered state of the earth's atmosphere took their toll. Recall that the average life span of the descendants of Adam was about 900 years. After the [[Great Flood]], man's life span dropped ninety percent, and in a hurry. We must assume that the life spans of animals varied in similar proportion.

Where did [[User:Karajou]] resort to invoking miracles? For that matter, where did I? Did I not explicitly state that one must employ an economy of miracles, to go along with scientific parsimony as prescribed by [[William of Occam]]?

While I'm on the subject, you overlook one other thing. You assume that true randomness exists in a [[God]]-centered universe. It does not. Nothing, of whatever character, happens without God's direct authorization. We can guess how likely a thing might be, but if God wants to act out of the ordinary, such is within His capability and, more to the point, His authority. Hence if God wants to ruin a man for repeatedly testing Him, or testing "the fates" or "Lady Luck" or whatever he wants to call it, that's His prerogative, too. (And I've seen Him do it, too. Ask any [[Las Vegas]] gambler who doesn't know to quit while he's ahead.)

Nevertheless, you overlook still another thing: God gives explicit warnings, and equally explcit instructions, to certain people when and as He pleases. He did this in [[Noah]]'s case, again in [[Abraham]]'s case, and then in [[Moses]]'s case, in which He gave far more detailed instructions for an amazingly intricate building project: the [[Tabernacle]] and all its furnishings. And then there is [[Jesus Christ]] Himself, Whose very ministry was a miracle.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:22, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks for the reply.

:Can you substantiate the claim that humans and other animals lived longer life spans in the past? The bible obviously doesn’t count because its verisimilitude is highly questionable. I ask because the current scientific understanding at least as far as humans are concerned is that life expectancy has steadily increased with time rather than decreased.

:Anything that could not be repeated by humans using the same technology as was available at the time in question is a miracle/magic. All the animals moving to the ark and not killing each other as they assembled are certainly magical or miraculous.

:If true randomness cannot exist then how can free will exist? Also can you substantiate that this universe contains properties that might be associated with a god?

:As for my questions being answered I cannot find that in the essay or the article, particularly the parasite question and the point about specialised food supplies (koala bears). Also I’d like to add another question – If Noah and his family of 8 were the only human survivors then how come such a population bottleneck is not shown in human DNA evidence? [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 14:55, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

If you're going to dismiss the Bible ''a priori'', then we have nothing to discuss. ''You'' question the "verisimilitude" (I think you mean "veracity") of the Bible, but I do not. We address [[Biblical inerrancy]] in another article on this site, and I can also direct you to [http://creationwiki.org/Biblical_inerrancy this article] that discusses the subject in somewhat greater detail.

Let me take just one aspect of the issue: prerdictions of future events. For centuries, skeptics believed that the Book of Daniel, for example, must have been written long after [[Alexander the Great]] conquered the [[Middle East]]. Then in 1947, in the middle of the high drama surrounding the establishment of the Republic of [[Israel]], a small boy threw a rock into a cave near Qumran, and the rock's impact produced the sound of breaking pottery. The little boy checked it out, and then showed up in [[Jerusalem]] hawking what he found. These were the first of the [[Dead Sea Scrolls]]. Those scrolls include manuscripts of Daniel that clearly predate Alexander, and predict his conquest of the Holy Land exactly as it occurred. And Daniel isn't the only one.

There, by the way, is a modern miracle for you. The finding of those scrolls persuaded the [[United States]] to grant diplomatic recognition to the Republic of Israel, and made the difference between Jewish statehood and a Second Holocaust.

As I said, Daniel isn't the only one. Isaiah is another. And Isaiah predicted the most striking event of all: the ministry, death and resurrection of [[Jesus Christ]].

Any text that can get all these things absolutely right, four hundred years or more ahead of time (and against odds of ten thousand quinquagintillion to one, by the way), can certainly be trusted on other events that it recorded. Like the genealogy of Adam, and the tremendous average lifespans, and the genealogy of Shem and the tremendous decline in lifespan. And like the [[Great Flood]] and the plans of [[Noah's Ark]].

I have no trouble accepting the assembly of the animals. The same God Who gave [[Noah]] his instructions for building the [[Noah's Ark|Ark]] was certainly capable of assembling the menagerie that Noah would carry. Nor is that necessarily as difficult as you are attempting to portray. Are you assuming that the continents in Noah's day were distributed as they are today? They weren't. Initially they all fit together, like a gigantic jigsaw puzzle. The Flood got started with a hairline crack that appeared in this landmass and then went all the way through it. That crack persists as the Mid-Oceanic Ridge System. See [[Hydroplate Theory]] for some further details, and a link to an outside source that explains it in far greater detail than I have space to use here.

How can free will exist without randomness? Well, it can't. But that does not mean, by the way, that we need to accept the authority of any [[Barack Hussein Obama|one human being who is trying to pretend that he's God]]. It does mean that God not only knows what is going to happen well before it happens (and can give memoranda of instructions to whomever He chooses, whenever He chooses), but that He has ''decided ahead of time'' what is going to happen. Perhaps He has decided ahead of time to bring you to me, figuratively speaking, so that I may testify to you concerning His Existence, His Pre-eminence, and His Role in human affairs, ancient and modern.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 17:23, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks for the reply, I'll have a proper read of it tomorrow morning and answer you then, as for now, before I sleep I just wanted to say that I did indeed mean to write verisimilitude - a word which means "the appearance of truth or likelihood", so for something to have its verisimilitude lacking or questionable is not to have a lack of truth but to have a lack of a semblance of truth. [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 18:52, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

==My answers to your questions==
''Galapagos penguins survive so far from the south pole because of two cold ocean currents that well up at the Galapagos islands making the water temperature much colder than would otherwise be expected for its latitude.''
:Still the water there is a lot warmer than it would be around Antarctica, and these penguins have no problem with the hot conditions once they're out of the water.
''40,000 sheep may be able to fit jammed into 167 railway boxes, but they cannot live there for a year and all their fodder for a year cannot fit either.''
:I didn't say there were 40,000 sheep jammed in 167 boxcars, did I? What I stated was a matter of ''capacity'', and you seemed to also overlook the fact that I said this number of animals occupied 30% of the Ark's total capacity, leaving enough room for other animals, and fodder for a year.
''How would hummingbirds (of which there are hundreds of species) have been supplied with enough food given the extremely specific nature of their dietary requirements, or koalas for that matter who require a huge amount of eucalyptus and only eucalyptus per day?''
:Again, you missed what I said above, so I'll say it again. Baby birds come packaged in eggs. Baby reptiles come packaged in eggs. Baby mammals feed upon their mother's milk, and if they don't have a mom, someone is going to get milk from elsewhere and do the job. Any zookeeper or farmer knows that, and I find it strange that a self-professed scientist doesn't. Do baby koalas slurp on eucalyptus juice before they get their teeth in, or is it mother's milk?
''How were parasites, viruses and pathogenic bacteria be prevented from totally overwhelming the animals on the ark given that the conditions would be ideal for their propagation?''
:The conditions on earth during that period of time from the creation were just about perfect; viruses were virtually non-existent. As to parasites, even a monkey can pluck them from another monkey, or a tick bird can remove them from a cow; that kind of behavior has been observed and proven, IAW step one of the [[Scientific method]].
''How were carnivorous animals kept fed for a whole year given the great number of prey animals it takes in the wild to support even a few large predators?''
:Again, mother's milk. Didn't you see that displayed in the Noah's Ark segment of the John Houston film ''The Bible''?
''It is strange that you feel the need to justify the story of the ark as if it were even remotely possible, but in the end you resort to explanations via magic anyway. If magic had to be used why didn't god just get rid of all the sinners in the blink of an eye?''
:I never resorted to a ''magic'' explanation; that one is your's. And God doesn't just "get rid of all sinners" when He knows it's much better to give them an opportunity to come to repentance through Jesus Christ. You came here with the standpoint that God doesn't exist, so now I request that you prove beyond doubt on this page that God '''doesn't''' exist...and use the Scientific method when doing so. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:00, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

::Where does all this mother’s milk come from, either there are adults on the ark providing it, thereby mitigating your argument by infancy, or there is a huge stockpile of milk taking up yet more space on an already impossibly full ark leaving alone questions of spoilage! Also owt but milk for a whole year, really?

::The parasites I was specifically thinking of are the internal type that cannot be groomed off, but also must have been on the ark from the start.

::According to Christian doctrine god is omnipotent. He knows who will repent and who won’t depending on what warnings he gives therefore he can simply erase those who he knows will not fit into his criteria for survival.

::You know that I cannot prove beyond doubt that god doesn’t exist. However you should also know that I cannot prove that the Dagda and the Morrigan don’t exist and therefore the impossibility of proving the existence of anything does not prove its existence. You have however inspired me to write an essay on why I think my atheism is scientifically justified, I’ll send you a link when i get around to it.

::By the way, no hard feelings right? Just a bit of stimulating debate! [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 17:15, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

:::First, and most important, there are no hard feelings anywhere! As to the mother's milk - and I did indicate this small tidbit from John Houston film - farmers ''milk'' cows and goats on a daily basis. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:57, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

== General Reply to Jamesmackenzie ==

Two points dispose of all of Mr. MacKenzie's objections. First, there is no ''logical'' objection to the biblical account. It cannot be disproved. Let's be clear about that. It may not comport easily with someone's everyday experience 5000 years later, but the same could be said about many other facts in history also. There is simply no ''logical'' flaw in the account.

Second, the [[theory of evolution]] has even greater difficulties explaining how species survived massive flooding. No one credibly denies that worldwide flooding occurred; even today the world is over 70% covered with water, nearly all habitation occurs within 100 feet of sea level, and limestone deposits from water are found at all heights. Local, but massive, flooding occurs frequently and widely, with devastating affects. The theory of evolution does not have a more plausible explanation for how species survive this in the long run.

Put another way, if you think the saving of species from massive flooding was difficult with God's assistance, it is even more difficult without such assistance.

Finally, Mr. MacKenzie need not speculate about animal behavior 5000 years ago. Animals fled to high ground in the tsunami that devastated Indonesia merely 5 years ago. Mr. MacKenzie would likely claim (based on materialism) that such behavior is impossible or implausible, yet it undeniably occurred. No need to go back 5000 years; why not simply address behavior of 5 years ago that confound [[materialist]]s?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:21, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

:''"Two points dispose of all of Mr. MacKenzie's objections. First, there is no logical objection to the biblical account. It cannot be disproved. Let's be clear about that. It may not comport easily with someone's everyday experience 5000 years later, but the same could be said about many other facts in history also. There is simply no logical flaw in the account.”''

:There are indeed logical flaws in the story, and it can be disproved. The lack of a population bottleneck in humans from any time around when the flooding was supposed to take place is disproof of the story. The population bottleneck as described in the bible is not something that could hide; a population bottleneck of 8 individuals is extreme (the species would be classified moribund). In fact the extremity of the so called bottleneck is another logical flaw in the story, since a species requires a minimum population to remain viable (MVP(1)). The MVP for primates is estimated to be over 5,000 individuals accounting for inbreeding. Even ignoring inbreeding the MVP would still be around 1,000 individuals. That makes the most favourable (and somewhat unrealistic) estimate for minimum number of humans required for the species to survive as 125 times higher than what the bible claims we had.

:There are other logical flaws too, to name but a few: where did all this water come from? Where did all this water go to? If the world was flooded so recently then how come aquatic species are so localised and varied? Why did human lifetimes rapidly drop after the flood?

:''“Second, the theory of evolution has even greater difficulties explaining how species survived massive flooding. No one credibly denies that worldwide flooding occurred; even today the world is over 70% covered with water, nearly all habitation occurs within 100 feet of sea level, and limestone deposits from water are found at all heights. Local, but massive, flooding occurs frequently and widely, with devastating affects[sic]. The theory of evolution does not have a more plausible explanation for how species survive this in the long run.”''

:The world has indeed seen times of much higher sea levels, however it has never been totally submerged. Limestone deposits found at high altitude are more the consequence of isostatic action rather than eustatic action. During the times of high sea level the world would have been more like Indonesia and the Philippines, a global series of island chains and archipelagos, certainly extensive enough for terrestrial life to survive upon with some adaptation (island gigantism/island dwarfism, or terrestrial animals such as whales returning to the oceans).

:Also tsunamis aren’t really the same as long term flooding; the flood of a tsunami lasts days or weeks at most. It is certainly not difficult for animals from nearby lightly affected regions to rapidly colonise the tsunami hit area. However in the case of a tsunami it is also the case that not all animals will be killed even in the worst affected regions. These animals that do manage to survive will sometimes do so out of luck, but most will do so because they were stronger swimmers, or fast climbers etc. Then as the survivors repopulate the region they will pass on the traits that helped them survive the last tsunami to their offspring. In this way the gene pool of the animals that populate this region will have changed from how it was pre tsunami. Hence in this example evolution by natural selection has occurred!

:''"Put another way, if you think the saving of species from massive flooding was difficult with God's assistance, it is even more difficult without such assistance.”''

:I think you are making a chronological error here. Sea level change is gradual, and landmasses do not abruptly disappear into the sea. In fact the shrinking habitat, isolation of high ground from previously connected land and increased competition that will occur as a landmass is gradually overrun (over thousands of generations) by the ocean creates an exquisite set of conditions for evolution to occur in.
:As for humans previously having an extremely long lifetime, I’d like to specifically call that into question, especially given the fact that one of the justifications for the feasibility of the ark is that Noah lived hundreds of years and spent more than a modern lifetime constructing the ark. From a biological point of view the idea of historical humans living to the age of 900 is preposterous. There is a fairly consistent trend observable in archaeological evidence of human lifetimes lengthening over time. I’d be interested to hear about the remains of ancient humans that show signs of extremely (and unfeasibly even by modern standards) advanced age in their bones and teeth.

:(1)Minimum viable population – This is the threshold number of individuals required by a species to remain viable. It is defined as the point when the likelihood of extinction due to insufficient numbers of individuals remaining reaches 95%

:Also as an aside, whilst it is perfectly correct to spell Mackenzie a few different ways, including MacKenzie, I spell my name in the former manner. [[User:jamesmackenzie|James Mackenzie]] 21:37, 1 November 2009 (EST)

::Your reply is extremely verbose, but identifies no logical flaw in the biblical account. All of Christianity, and historically all of evolution, are based on one Adam and Eve. Evolutionists have recently changed their story, but not due to any logical difficulty with a beginning of only a few. There is no problem with Noah et al. populating the world post-Flood. Indeed, the population size of today is compatible with a small number about 5000 years ago.

::There is no shortage of flood water. If Earth were merely slightly flatter than today, then 99% of current inhabitants would be under water without the need for one extra drop of water.

::Evolutionists cannot explain the survival of species over time any better than the Bible does. Living creatures settle near water. Water inevitably and surprisingly floods, killing the living species. This wipes out evolution. Adding intervention by God and an Ark is one logical explanation; evolutionists don't offer '''any''' alternative, let alone a logical one.

::Finally, you duck the undeniable point about tsunamis: animals flee to high ground just before it hits the shoreline. Ducking the point doesn't change the fact, which even liberal media like PBS have fully admitted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:08, 1 November 2009 (EST)

:::I’m not sure what to make of your response; it seems to me that you have missed the point of many of the things I wrote. I think you misunderstand the implications of population bottlenecks in humans. Our DNA contains a lot of information about our ancestral history, from which we can clearly see past population bottlenecks. For example the results of the mega eruption of (???) which reduced the human population to around 10,000 individuals are clearly visible in our DNA, it is like a giant red arrow on the human genome. However there is no such bottleneck visible for such a small population as described in the story of Noah’s ark, nor is there any population bottleneck at any time period even close to 5000 years ago. The implications of this are thus: either the story of Noah’s ark is not true or DNA is meaningless, and let me make this abundantly clear - we know DNA is not meaningless, the influence of DNA has been repeatedly displayed in experiments under scientific conditions.

:::I’m not sure what you mean by “''and historically all of evolution, are based on one Adam and Eve. Evolutionists have recently changed their story, but not due to any logical difficulty with a beginning of only a few.''” so I will have to refrain from attempting an answer.

:::I will again assert that there is a problem with 8 closely related individuals repopulating the world, in my last post I explained how this cannot be the case using the science of MVP which you have yet to respond to with anything other than complete dismissal. In any case I shall add to why the world wasn’t repopulated by such a few with DNA haplotypes. I don’t know the exact specifications of Noah’s family, but it really makes little difference. Noah, his wife and his children together could amount a maximum of 1 Y DNA haplotype and 2 Mitochondrial DNA haplotypes (of which only 1 Mitochondrial DNA haplotype could survive the death of Noah). Even adding a few cousins and the like you will only be able to add a few more unique DNA haplotypes (even with the most liberal of predictions) to the list. This poses another insurmountable problem to the idea of the repopulation of the world at such a late date with so few people. There are many DNA haplotypes in the world today which fit on a family tree showing their relationship with each other. There is no way to reconcile the model of DNA haplotype descent that must be the case had the story of Noah’s ark been true with what can actually be observed. Unfortunately for advocates of Noah’s ark being a factual account, as with population bottlenecks, the family tree of DNA haplotypes can and has been verified as fact through the use of repeatable experimentation in scientific conditions. Furthermore the mutation rates of specific DNA haplotypes are predictable and known, and are totally at odds with the current diversity of DNA haplotypes descending from a very small amount as recently as 5000 years ago.

:::With your implication that if the world was flatter it could easily be covered by water, you seem to be ignoring the massive elephant in the room. For the world to become flat firstly there would need to be impossibly fast tectonic action so violent it would destroy everything on earth. Secondly you ignore the fact that should the world suddenly become flat the ensuing wave of water would obliterate everything in its path regardless of it being sheltered in a relatively flimsy ark. Thirdly the cause of the flooding according to the bible is rain, not tectonic action. Given the preceding absurdities I feel I scarcely need to assert the fact that there is no evidence of any such tectonic action occurring in the past and indeed much geological evidence suggesting it didn’t.

:::You say that evolution fails to account for the survival of species when confronted with flooding. Firstly you mistakenly assume that flooding has a 100% death rate for animals affected by it. You also mistakenly assume that flooding always affects 100% of a species range. You also assume that most ‘floods’ are much more rapid then in reality. As for animals retreating to high ground just before a tsunami hits the shoreline, I haven’t read anything about this and can offer little comment. However I expect that the vast majority of animals do not retreat like this but are ignored by the media in favour of the few that do. In any case since when has endorsement by the mass media ever been a measure of truth? [[User:jamesmackenzie|James Mackenzie]] 01:07, 5 November 2009 (EST)
::::James, first, it's obvious you didn't read the Biblical description of the Great Flood. What does Genesis 7:11 say? The "fountains of the great deep broken up" is tectonic action employed when a fault exposes an underground water source under pressure. And for the most part animals and people end up dead due to flooding, and how many fossils were ''not'' found in sedimentary (sedimentary means "water-laid") rocks? Second, you're restricting yourself to DNA haplotypes as written on a blackboard, yet refusing to see first-hand that living organisms can and do multiply very rapidly from a very few into thousands or more in a short period of time. Rats, mice, rabbits, salmon, sardines, pigeons, ants, and cockroaches do it. Want an example of a large animal doing it as well? Plains bison herds in the country number about 45,000; a century ago they numbered less than 100. Sounds like a traditional small gene pool to me. And third, evolutionists are always changing their story, and it's always going to be any story ''except'' Adam and Eve. What is it now? Some monkey named "Ardi"? Two years ago it was "Lucy"; before that it was another ''Australopithicus''; before that it was good'ol Piltdown; before that it was Darwin's face mounted to a chimp.
::::Honestly, James, we've been through this many times with many others in the past, and all you're doing is putting the same old spin on the same old story. It's been debunked thoroughly on every point; it fails the [[Scientific method]] because you can't even get past that first step; and from what I've read from the above, you're just accepting evolution and old-earth stories at face value without even trying to investigate at least ''one'' aspect of them to see whether or not it's even true. From where I stand, you have to prove it's true. So please, go ahead and do exactly that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:43, 5 November 2009 (EST)

::::James, your massive essay is unresponsive. If you don't know about animals fleeing to high ground ''before'' a tsunami hits the shoreline, then open your mind and learn about it first. Really, is that too much expect? Instead, you seem to take a position of [[deliberate ignorance]], and then go on trying to disparage it anyway. Even evolutionist sources (like PBS) admit that this phenomenon occurs, but lack any plausible materialistic explanation.

::::As to massive flooding, materialists don't explain the survival of species through historic flooding any better than the Bible does. So if you find the biblical explanation deficient, then by applying your same standard you'd find evolution even more deficient. Instead, you use unproven speculation upon speculation to try to salvage your theory, while giving the biblical theory none of the same benefits of the doubt. That's called a [[double standard]], an unattractive characteristic common to the [[liberal]] ideology.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 5 November 2009 (EST)

== Quick Reply to Karajou ==

You obviously have no idea what a DNA haplotype actually is, otherwise you would not have made such a nonsensical statement as ''"Second, you're restricting yourself to DNA haplotypes as written on a blackboard, yet refusing to see first-hand that living organisms can and do multiply very rapidly from a very few into thousands..."'' DNA haplotypes have nothing really to do with genetic viability of a small population expanding into a larger one.

And what's next? A nonsensical rant about Adam and Eve, Piltdown man (which has some suspicious links to anti evolution advocates) and Darwin's face on a chimp. It is clear that you are deeply confused about evolution, you think that Darwin's face on a chimp was an evolutionist idea? It was a cartoon by creationists intended to lampoon Darwin. You accuse me of accepting old-earth and evolution at face value, this is highly ironic since from your posts I can be reasonably sure that you do not come even close to understanding what evolution actually is. I'm frankly not surprised that you have gone though this many times before, and I’ll wager you will go through it many times again because the problem here is not with everyone else. It is your incomplete understanding that creates this cycle, a cycle that can only be broken if you actually investigated evolution from a pro evolution scientific position. But I imagine that this will never happen because I'd guess you aren't interested in the truth, rather you are probably trapped within an ‘us and them’ mentality that can never allow you to explore the possibly that the position you hold is untenable.

Please prove me wrong, explain to me in simple terms what the theory of evolution entails and if you do a reasonable job of it I will concede the point to you. Also could you tell me when DNA haplotypes have been debunked or when population bottlenecks have been debunked? I suspect what you when you say debunked is actually ignored or dismissed with no justification.

I don't like having to make such a negative reply, whilst I disagree on many levels with Andy and others I have been debating with on this page none of their replies have made me angry, whist yours has me frustrated at the ludicrous way you have responded to my points without even knowing what they are. [[User:jamesmackenzie|James Mackenzie]] 16:16, 5 November 2009 (EST)

:Two things, JamesMackenzie: First, I did investigate evolution, I know full-well what evolution consists of; I know it's a claimed "change over time" scenario; and I know full-well that evolutionists such as yourself have no intention of backing those claims up with absolute proof. I and others on this site are fed up with being given a the "hearsay" argument by evolutionists, and ''hearsay'' is all they got. Second, when directed to provide proof of evolution ''as per the Scientific Method'', you back down and turn your reply into the rant that is here. It is you who is ignoring the debunked evidence.
:So, when directed to prove it, you demonstrated an attitude problem. I think you need to edit somewhere else. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:42, 5 November 2009 (EST)
::Just a quick note, you seem to have misunderstood the scientific method. The aim is not to 'prove' the theory of evolution, this, as with all general theories, is logically impossible. Science operates by trying to falsify theories. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 16:45, 5 November 2009 (EST)
:::Oh yes, the process of falsification. And if evolution is falsified, then what's the problem? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:49, 5 November 2009 (EST)
::::Before I get bogged down in explaining the fundamentals of the scientific method all over again, may I suggest you read in more detail what it is and how it works. The article on this site actually has some rather good details on this. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 17:03, 5 November 2009 (EST)
:::::DWiggins, if you look at the history of that article, you'll discover the fact that I wrote it...[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_method&diff=188946&oldid=168951] :) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:06, 5 November 2009 (EST)
With all due respect, I would not consider 3 edits out of around 100 to in anyway constitute a claim to having 'wrote it'. I said ''some'' rather good details, insofar as it gives a reasonable overview of the scientific method but is rather clumsy in addressing more specific aspects, omitting several key points. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 18:28, 5 November 2009 (EST)
:[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_method&diff=367588&oldid=168951 That's] a pretty big contribution. -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 18:38, 5 November 2009 (EST)

James, your own postings are extremely verbose with little on topic and yet ... you accuse Karajou of a "rant"??? This talk page is your criticism of the biblical explanation of survival by mammals of a massive flood. Do you think evolution has a better explanation of how mammals could survive a massive flood? I'd love to hear it if you have one. I don't think anyone denies that all of the inhabitable earth has been flooded.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 5 November 2009 (EST)

Arguments don't go away when you call them verbose.

1. He wasn't saying that small populations don't become larger over time. That's the story of human history, but a small family with nothing other than stone tools would be fighting an enormous struggle just to survive until tomorrow and maybe raise and sustain enough children to replace those who have died. They would all live together. Disease would strike and spread fast. Up until the Renaissance, one out of every three children died before they were five, and that was within societies that had some degree of agricultural development, trade, and infrastructure. A small clan left to nothing but their own strength cannot possibly create, feed, and keep alive enough offspring to grow the population.

That's what happened when the Spanish deported the people of Rapa Nui as slaves. Passed a certain point, the population does not recover.

2. Evolution is not a theory about the Great Flood. You don't disprove it because it doesn't address the Great Flood. That's like saying the Bible is false because it doesn't talk about atoms, photons, DNA, or redox reactions.

3. There is nothing you could tweak in the atmosphere that would make people live to be 900. Changing or adding anything other than oxygen and maybe some nitrogen would be lethal, and oxygen can only increase so much before it becomes toxic. The basic nature of life in general is that it does not last nine hundred years.

4. About the Running From a Tsunami thing - There is a completely naturalistic way to explain this. The animals hear the infrasound produced by the wave rolling in and run away. The animals that can't hear infrasound get spooked and run too. Regardless, nature is infinitely more complex than the human mind can possibly understand. Just because you can't tell me why the animals run doesn't mean it's magic.

5. About the Milk thing - Infant animals are small and able to sustain themselves on milk, but where does the milk come from? Saying they lived off milk is saying they weren't infants since milk is produced only by adults. So did they pack the milk in the ark? If they did, where did it come from?

6. If the water came from under the earth's crust, wouldn't it have been steam? What have you seen coming out of the mantle that isn't scalding? Is there any evidence that such a split happened, or is it just a semi-plausible explanation for something you already made up your mind to believe?

7. Limestone takes time to form. The flood would've had to last for hundreds of years (or longer) in order to build up the global layer of rock. The more likely explanation is that, at one point in geologic time or another, all land was underwater. The limestone formed there and was transported above sea level by the normal processes of the earth.

[[User:DanPugachev|DanPugachev]] 19:06, 7 November 2009 (EST)

: Dan, logic is concise, while running from logic takes many words. The biblical account is perfectly logical. You can't identify a logical flaw in it.

: You have free will to reject logic. But if you reject it, then lots of new questions are raised about your substitute. Massive flooding undoubtedly occurred. How do you think mammals survived it? Evolution does not have a plausible, detailed explanation.

: Most evolutionists run from [[Counterexamples to evolution|facts that disprove their theory]], just as animals run to high ground before a tsunami hits shore. No, that isn't random running from being "spooked" by some mysterious ultrasound, any more than chickens ''randomly'' return from distant places at the exact same point of nightfall each day, and jump into their chicken coop in the exact same order. I know, you never heard that about chickens either. There's much an evolutionist has "never heard of." I urge to you open your mind and let logic in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 7 November 2009 (EST)
::In answer to his #6, he's implying that water underground is steamy-hot, as well as a figment of my imagination. If he'd pay more attention to geology - specifically the geology of the Great Plains - he'd probably find mention of the Ogalalla Aquifer [http://www.npwd.org/Ogallala.htm], which is a remnant of the "waters of the great deep" bursting forth in Genesis. In answer to his #5, I stated that twice above, but apparently he forgets that ''people get milk from cows''. That's ''cows'', Dan; it means you tie Bessie to the hitching post, grab a small stool, and sit for an hour filling a wooden bucket. It's where milk came from in the days before people went Krogering. Remember, Andy, that these people expect and demand that we accept whatever explanation science has to offer - and that's ''any explanation except the Bible''. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:55, 8 November 2009 (EST)

:::First off, it's not some mysterious ultrasound. It's infrasound, and it's completely different. It is emitted by tsunami waves and is very well documented as causing signs of discomfort and fear in animals and even human beings, though we cannot consciously detect it. So why do the chickens return? It isn't some combination of sense of smell, homing using the sun, and possibly detecting the earth's magnetic field (which many birds do)? Is it the hand of God, who somehow forgot to warn the people about the tsunami? It's just the animals? Stories about animals being impressive do not disprove evolution in any way.

:::Evolution does not explain it because evolution is not a theory about surviving a flood that may or may not have occurred. Outside of the Biblical story, can anyone produce a single piece of physical and indisputable evidence? Karajou, you'd call any massive aquifer a remnant of the great flood, when it is perfectly explainable that the Ogalalla formed from water moving down through the soil and into the water table when the North American glaciers melted. If it resulted from a massive flood, wouldn't you expect to see aquifers like the Ogalalla (which, yes, I have heard of) all over the world? There aren't. And if the flood happened, as it was asserted earlier, when a fault broke Pangaea apart in a process like the seafloor spreading we see today, anything that would be released would come from the mantle as steam or superheated water that would boil on the surface. [[User:DanPugachev|DanPugachev]] 12:36, 8 November 2009 (EST)
::::Indisputable evidence for the Great Flood:
:::::Fossils, of which more than 99.9% of them were found in sedimentary ("water-laid") rock. They are usually intact, and deposited as if they died in agony. ''Step 1 of the Scientific Method in this case:'' observe the burial and fossiliztion of an animal. Cannot be done due to weather conditions and biological influences (scavengers) which tend to destroy the carcass and scatter the remains (note...that fact alone is ''observable, iaw Step 1'').
:::::Footprints, which were deposited ''when the ground was wet and muddy''. Footprints include ''raindrops''[http://www.twoguysfossils.com/dino3.htm]. The traditional explanation from science is that they harden into rock over the course of millenia just by sitting there, as if no one ever heard of the first rainstorm to come along and wash them away. ''Step 1 of the Scientific Method in this case:'' Make a track and fossilize it under the natural conditions described by science and see what happens.
:::::Folded layers of rock, which cannot fold unless they are first wet layers of mud. There is an "S"-curve in the rock in this image[http://www.purchon.com/ecology/images/folds.jpg], which didn't get that way if it was ordinary dry rock. This is indicative of differing types of sediment depositing in layers, then something violent happening to cause these layers to bend before they harden. ''Experiment:'' try setting down several layers of flat slate or similar hard rock, ''then bend the whole without breaking it''. Then do the same with wet layers of clay.
:::::Oral traditions, which are found world-wide in every language and every culture; it is a preservation of a single event. In more than 70% of these traditions, the following are present: global flood; large boat or raft; less than ten survivors; carrying away of a large number of animals; landing on or near a mountain range; sacrificial offering to the gods. ''Science'' in this case, needs to dismiss this as simple ''folk tales'' [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:08, 8 November 2009 (EST)

I'm in New Zealand at the moment and have only somewhat irregular access to internet, which is the cause of my periodic outbursts interspersed by silent periods, I regret posting my last thing in a bit of a foul mood, the point of this talk page isn't evolution is is Noah's ark, and I allowed Karajou to lead my reply off topic. The point remains that there is no pro Noah's ark answer to the questions of DNA haplotypes. And now that Karajou has likely googled "DNA halotype" he will be unable to reconcile the statement that he originally made in response to that point.

"As to the mother's milk - and I did indicate this small tidbit from John Houston film - farmers milk cows and goats on a daily basis"

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|James Mackenzie]] 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)
::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|James Mackenzie]] 15:19, 10 November 2009 (EST)

==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)
:If archaeological and geological evidence shows something to be hypothetically impossible then divine intervention can be given as the solution, however if the evidence shows that something never happened then it never happened. This is the point of this debate, without physical corroboration the bible is about as historically realistic as the lord of the rings. How many serious political and social decisions are made according to what's written in the lord of the rings? conversely how many are made because of what's written in the bible? This is why this debate is necessary. [[User:Jamesmackenzie|James Mackenzie]] 15:41, 10 November 2009 (EST)
::This "debate" happens here all the time because there's always one or two individuals who want to force the issue. He listed questions above which were answered previously; in one case three times. His pattern indicates someone who refuses to listen, totally contradicting the "open mindedness" that his side claims to have a market on. And now he's bringing up dendrochronology? Since I already know the answer to that one, I doubt it will be something he'll listen to. So, since he's bringing up the constant ''argumentum ad infinitum'' - with some egotistical pressure, I might add - I'm going to have to declare his presence here at an end. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:02, 10 November 2009 (EST)
:Well we have the Word of God that it happened. The only 'evidence' that could be found in this case would be the remains of Noah's Ark, which could serve as an additional argument. The absence of evidence, on the other hand, would prove nothing, as wood decays. The Ark would also likely be used as a shelter for Noah's family, and maybe as firewood later on, so we can't expect it to have been preserved to this day.
:My point is that this debate seems be on whether specific, materialistic methods could have fed all the animals. The Bible says nothing of the actual method used, and it has left no evidence. And maybe it is simply impossible to feed that many animals with eight people. Why should we shy from accepting that the Lord could provide for them? --[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 11:06, 11 November 2009 (EST)

Tell you what, since he's here to demand that we accept his viewpoint, I'm going to make a demand of my own. Jamesmackenzie, since you came to this particular page with the intention of pushing your opinion that Noah's Ark did not exist, I'm going to call you on it. According to the Bible, Genesis 8, the ark rested in ''the mountains of Ararat''. You, Jamesmackenzie, are going to scour the area once known as the Kingdom of Urartu, which now is occupied by eastern Turkey, northern Iraq, and northwestern Iran, and I don't care how you do it. You can use Google-Earth or take a jet to do some hiking, but you are going to go over every square foot of that ground ''before you carry on with your opinion in this website''. That is the only way I will accept from you the proof needed that the ark doesn't exist. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:22, 10 November 2009 (EST)

:Well, it wasn't easy but I have scoured the entire area using Google Earth and there is nothing there. I assume that is the end of the Noah's Ark story. Should I start making appropriate adjustments to articles? --[[User:VincentV|VincentV]] 15:29, 11 November 2009 (EST)

::Way to go, VincentV. You must be brilliant. With your wisdom, can you explain and give us the detailed evolutionist explanation for how mammals survived the massive flooding that no one denies happened?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:41, 11 November 2009 (EST)

:::I detect an element of sarcasm in your post. I have just spent a lot of time undertaking a difficult task. I don't know why you think that sarcasm is an appropriate response. Also, I am not sure exactly what you mean by "the massive flooding that no one denies happened". Are you saying that no-one denies that the entire world was flooded in the manner described in the Bible? --[[User:VincentV|VincentV]] 15:49, 11 November 2009 (EST)

::::Your non-answer is an example of [[liberal style]]. The question was clear, and it's clear you don't have an answer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:36, 11 November 2009 (EST)

:::::I confess that I do not understand why you are acting in such a confrontational manner. In order to answer your question I must understand it. I asked whether you were saying that no-one denies that the entire world was flooded in the manner described in the Bible? You didn't answer. Is that what you are saying or not? Further, I am also at a loss to understand why you asked that question of me in the first place. I professed no expertise in providing "detailed evolutionist explanations". I am willing to give it a go, but all I did was carry out a task suggested by Karajou. He said that, upon the task being carried out and no ark being found, he would accept that the ark does not exist. Obviously you have different criteria in terms of evidence. I was only seeking to satisfy ''his'' evidentiary criteria. --[[User:VincentV|VincentV]] 16:44, 11 November 2009 (EST)

::::::Vincent, if you don't want to open your mind, then no one else is going to open it for you. There is no logical flaw in the biblical account of the Flood. Can you accept that? If not, you're wasting your time and ours. And, by the way, evolutionists cannot explain how mammals survived the undeniably massive flooding that did occur.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:23, 11 November 2009 (EST)

To be perfectly fair, your statement rests on the assumption that there was a global flood. I have not yet met a scientist who agrees that a flood on the scale described in the Bible occurred. I think you are misapplying the theory of evolution as well. The theory does not really try and address the question you have posed about surviving flooding, it is an attempt to answer the question of 'the origin of the species'. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 20:43, 12 November 2009 (EST)

:Your first sentence is missing some key words. You next two sentences are missing the point. Mammals didn't take airplanes to dry land a hundred miles away. Massive, undeniable flooding is an unsolved problem for evolutionists' story of descent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:29, 12 November 2009 (EST)

::Agreed. DWiggins, suggesting that a Global Flood did not occur flies in the face of 100% of the evidence. You can keep your mind closed and believe your "truth" but don't expect to be welcome here when you have to confront the actual truth, and not liberal "truth". [[User:MichaelZ|MichaelZ]] 21:39, 12 November 2009 (EST)

:::Thanks for the heads up on my last post, it seems I cut a sentence too many (fixed now). Indeed, if there were a global flood then it would be difficult to account for the survival and subsequent geographic spread of many species of mammal. But I expect you'll find that those who believe in evolution are unlikely to believe in a global flood, and so as far as they're concerned the problem doesn't exist. The question is down to the evidence for such a flood, and if it were '100%' then I don't think there would be any discussion whatsoever MichaelZ. There are few things in this world which are for certain, and when it comes to science there is no such thing as absolute certainty, science works on 'provisional truths'. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 23:07, 12 November 2009 (EST)
::::I think what the deniers of the Great Flood are forgetting is the omnipotence of God. Miracles happened, and Noah's Ark is one of them. [[User:HarryG|HarryG]] 23:18, 12 November 2009 (EST)
:::::We are not talking about anyone 'forgetting' such a thing. The fundamental point here is that not everyone shares the same assumptions, for example regarding a belief in God, the Biblical flood, or evolution. To simply counter an argument with, an opposing assumption/belief doesn't really advance the discussion as we will always simply revert to the overarching question concerning the existence of God. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 00:03, 13 November 2009 (EST)

==Open mindedness==

I notice I was banned for posting on this page, what really got to me was that you said I needed to adjust my understanding of open mindedness. I am very open minded, hence why I am presenting these arguments here for you to falsify. If you can falsify them I’d be happy to admit that Noah’s ark really existed, however you are more concerned with blocking me then attempting to answer my questions. The whole thing is fairly ironic since your idea of open mindedness seems to be accepting the words of a collection of writings without looking at the physical facts and ignoring them when they are presented to you, just as your idea of ‘liberal’ seems to be anything that you do not agree with (no true Scotsman).

As I see it there are a couple of ways this can progress from here; either you can answer my questions and we can have a civilised and rational debate, or you can just ban me again because you feel your beliefs are unable to stand up to scientific scrutiny. Should you take the cowardly option then please go through all my contributions to this Wiki and delete them, since it is highly hypocritical to remove me but keep the positive changes I have made to articles.

I find it the epitome of tedium to have to repeat myself, I’d much rather advance the discussion without recourse to repetition, but regrettably I checked the whole page again to be certain and I still cannot see any answer to the question of DNA haplotypes. Please could you reproduce it along with the answer to my other 2 questions (dendrochronology and the uninterrupted archaeology).

''“Second, you're restricting yourself to DNA haplotypes as written on a blackboard, yet refusing to see first-hand that living organisms can and do multiply very rapidly from a very few into thousands..."''

I am not accepting this as an answer because it has nothing to do with what DNA haplotypes are. Generally it should be down to you to learn for yourself what a DNA haplotype actually is and why it is relevant, but I will give a brief explanation anyway. The explanation is more for the benefit of others reading our correspondence so as to highlight how little you must know about the question you claim to have answered.

In this case DNA haplotypes have very little to do with population size or expansion so I will ignore them completely in this explanation. The greatest relevance of DNA haplotypes in this case is variation, that is to say there are far too many different DNA haplotypes in human populations than would be possible if everyone alive today was descended from 10 or less people 5000 years ago. This is the case because of the way DNA haplotypes are passed on, particularly the special Y-DNA haplotypes and MTDNA haplotypes. Y-DNA haplotypes are passed from father to son and never occur in females, MTDNA haplotypes on the other hand are passed from mother to child. DNA haplotypes each have an average rate of mutation which causes DNA haplotypes to branch into different groups. Given that we know the approximate rate of mutation and can calculate the maximum possible number of DNA haplogroups in Noah’s family we can work out if the story of Noah’s ark is feasible. In this case it is not even remotely close. Further confounding the feasibility of Noah’s ark is the massive chronological discrepancy between the time that the MTDNA founder lived and the Y-DNA founder lived. If Noah’s ark was real then surely we should expect the two founders to be alive at the same time? Instead the molecular clocks show us that the Y-DNA founder was born thousands of years after the MTDNA founder.

Since I put a good deal of care and effort into typing this explanation I feel like I deserve either to be given the actual answer to these specific questions. It is simply not enough to flatly claim this has already been answered when it demonstrably has not. Also please answer these specific questions, don’t just say something on the lines of “evolution is false because...” or the “bible is true because...” for the time being the accuracy of evolution or the bible are irrelevant, the important thing to be addressed is the above question and also dendrochronology.

Anyway ban me if you want to, it might shut me up but it won’t make what I said untrue. The human haploid genotypes will still exist, in reality all you will be doing is shutting yourself off from something that you do not understand. You should look up the definition of wilful ignorance... [[User:Jamesmackenzie|James Mackenzie]] 17:06, 15 November 2009 (EST)

Talk:Essay:Noah's Ark Was Real

2009-11-10T20:46:35Z

Jamesmackenzie:

Talk:Essay:Noah's Ark Was Real

2009-11-10T20:41:24Z

Jamesmackenzie: /* Is this debate necessary? */

I'm not sure what to make of this, is it a parody?

If not then how could the climatic conditions required for Arctic animals be maintained alongside those of desert dwelling species?

How can the geographic distribution of species and fossils be explained by all the animals disembarking from the ark at the location?

How could a vessel be large enough to hold the enormous number of animals it would take to preserve a minimum 2 of every species let alone be large enough to hold fodder for a year especially considering the highly specialized feeding requirements of many animals?

What about animals that have lifespans shorter than a year, but also require very specific conditions to be met in order to be able to reproduce? [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 14:28, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

:Keiko the killer whale (a cold-water species) was maintained for years in a Mexico City (hot environment) aquarium. Polar bears are exhibited in zoos located in temperate and hot locations around the world. Add to that a species of penguin found in the Galapagos Islands at the equator, when it should be near Antarctica.
:In the Bible, God tells Noah that "every sort of animal shall come to him" (Gen 6:20); if God can tell the animals to go to the ark, He can tell the animals where to go when leaving the ark.
:40,000 animals the size of sheep can fit into 167 railroad boxcars, which is roughly 30% of the capacity of the ark. Furthermore, you have to take into account that not every animal is full-grown when it's aboard; after all, how much space does a 30-foot anaconda take up versus a two-foot baby? Then there are birds and reptiles which could have been cared for while they were eggs; there's hibernation. [http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html] [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:02, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Galapagos penguins survive so far from the south pole because of two cold ocean currents that well up at the Galapagos islands making the water temperature much colder than would otherwise be expected for its latitude.
::40,000 sheep may be able to fit jammed into 167 railway boxes, but they cannot live there for a year and all their fodder for a year cannot fit either.
::How would hummingbirds (of which there are hundreds of species) have been supplied with enough food given the extremely specific nature of their dietary requirements, or koalas for that matter who require a huge amount of eucalyptus and only eucalyptus per day?
::How were parasites, viruses and pathogenic bacteria be prevented from totally overwhelming the animals on the ark given that the conditions would be ideal for their propagation?
::How were carnivorous animals kept fed for a whole year given the great number of prey animals it takes in the wild to support even a few large predators?
::It is strange that you feel the need to justify the story of the ark as if it were even remotely possible, but in the end you resort to explanations via magic anyway. If magic had to be used why didn't god just get rid of all the sinners in the blink of an eye? [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 07:39, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

== In answer to Mr. MacKenzie ==

Mr. MacKenzie:

Did you take the trouble to read the essay itself, or the [[Noah's Ark]] article? Your comments suggest to me that you have not. You overlook many key passages in which I answer every one of the objections you raised. With one possible exception: animals having life spans less than a year. I answer that those life spans were probably a good deal longer, before the altered state of the earth's atmosphere took their toll. Recall that the average life span of the descendants of Adam was about 900 years. After the [[Great Flood]], man's life span dropped ninety percent, and in a hurry. We must assume that the life spans of animals varied in similar proportion.

Where did [[User:Karajou]] resort to invoking miracles? For that matter, where did I? Did I not explicitly state that one must employ an economy of miracles, to go along with scientific parsimony as prescribed by [[William of Occam]]?

While I'm on the subject, you overlook one other thing. You assume that true randomness exists in a [[God]]-centered universe. It does not. Nothing, of whatever character, happens without God's direct authorization. We can guess how likely a thing might be, but if God wants to act out of the ordinary, such is within His capability and, more to the point, His authority. Hence if God wants to ruin a man for repeatedly testing Him, or testing "the fates" or "Lady Luck" or whatever he wants to call it, that's His prerogative, too. (And I've seen Him do it, too. Ask any [[Las Vegas]] gambler who doesn't know to quit while he's ahead.)

Nevertheless, you overlook still another thing: God gives explicit warnings, and equally explcit instructions, to certain people when and as He pleases. He did this in [[Noah]]'s case, again in [[Abraham]]'s case, and then in [[Moses]]'s case, in which He gave far more detailed instructions for an amazingly intricate building project: the [[Tabernacle]] and all its furnishings. And then there is [[Jesus Christ]] Himself, Whose very ministry was a miracle.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:22, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks for the reply.

:Can you substantiate the claim that humans and other animals lived longer life spans in the past? The bible obviously doesn’t count because its verisimilitude is highly questionable. I ask because the current scientific understanding at least as far as humans are concerned is that life expectancy has steadily increased with time rather than decreased.

:Anything that could not be repeated by humans using the same technology as was available at the time in question is a miracle/magic. All the animals moving to the ark and not killing each other as they assembled are certainly magical or miraculous.

:If true randomness cannot exist then how can free will exist? Also can you substantiate that this universe contains properties that might be associated with a god?

:As for my questions being answered I cannot find that in the essay or the article, particularly the parasite question and the point about specialised food supplies (koala bears). Also I’d like to add another question – If Noah and his family of 8 were the only human survivors then how come such a population bottleneck is not shown in human DNA evidence? [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 14:55, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

If you're going to dismiss the Bible ''a priori'', then we have nothing to discuss. ''You'' question the "verisimilitude" (I think you mean "veracity") of the Bible, but I do not. We address [[Biblical inerrancy]] in another article on this site, and I can also direct you to [http://creationwiki.org/Biblical_inerrancy this article] that discusses the subject in somewhat greater detail.

Let me take just one aspect of the issue: prerdictions of future events. For centuries, skeptics believed that the Book of Daniel, for example, must have been written long after [[Alexander the Great]] conquered the [[Middle East]]. Then in 1947, in the middle of the high drama surrounding the establishment of the Republic of [[Israel]], a small boy threw a rock into a cave near Qumran, and the rock's impact produced the sound of breaking pottery. The little boy checked it out, and then showed up in [[Jerusalem]] hawking what he found. These were the first of the [[Dead Sea Scrolls]]. Those scrolls include manuscripts of Daniel that clearly predate Alexander, and predict his conquest of the Holy Land exactly as it occurred. And Daniel isn't the only one.

There, by the way, is a modern miracle for you. The finding of those scrolls persuaded the [[United States]] to grant diplomatic recognition to the Republic of Israel, and made the difference between Jewish statehood and a Second Holocaust.

As I said, Daniel isn't the only one. Isaiah is another. And Isaiah predicted the most striking event of all: the ministry, death and resurrection of [[Jesus Christ]].

Any text that can get all these things absolutely right, four hundred years or more ahead of time (and against odds of ten thousand quinquagintillion to one, by the way), can certainly be trusted on other events that it recorded. Like the genealogy of Adam, and the tremendous average lifespans, and the genealogy of Shem and the tremendous decline in lifespan. And like the [[Great Flood]] and the plans of [[Noah's Ark]].

I have no trouble accepting the assembly of the animals. The same God Who gave [[Noah]] his instructions for building the [[Noah's Ark|Ark]] was certainly capable of assembling the menagerie that Noah would carry. Nor is that necessarily as difficult as you are attempting to portray. Are you assuming that the continents in Noah's day were distributed as they are today? They weren't. Initially they all fit together, like a gigantic jigsaw puzzle. The Flood got started with a hairline crack that appeared in this landmass and then went all the way through it. That crack persists as the Mid-Oceanic Ridge System. See [[Hydroplate Theory]] for some further details, and a link to an outside source that explains it in far greater detail than I have space to use here.

How can free will exist without randomness? Well, it can't. But that does not mean, by the way, that we need to accept the authority of any [[Barack Hussein Obama|one human being who is trying to pretend that he's God]]. It does mean that God not only knows what is going to happen well before it happens (and can give memoranda of instructions to whomever He chooses, whenever He chooses), but that He has ''decided ahead of time'' what is going to happen. Perhaps He has decided ahead of time to bring you to me, figuratively speaking, so that I may testify to you concerning His Existence, His Pre-eminence, and His Role in human affairs, ancient and modern.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 17:23, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks for the reply, I'll have a proper read of it tomorrow morning and answer you then, as for now, before I sleep I just wanted to say that I did indeed mean to write verisimilitude - a word which means "the appearance of truth or likelihood", so for something to have its verisimilitude lacking or questionable is not to have a lack of truth but to have a lack of a semblance of truth. [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 18:52, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

==My answers to your questions==
''Galapagos penguins survive so far from the south pole because of two cold ocean currents that well up at the Galapagos islands making the water temperature much colder than would otherwise be expected for its latitude.''
:Still the water there is a lot warmer than it would be around Antarctica, and these penguins have no problem with the hot conditions once they're out of the water.
''40,000 sheep may be able to fit jammed into 167 railway boxes, but they cannot live there for a year and all their fodder for a year cannot fit either.''
:I didn't say there were 40,000 sheep jammed in 167 boxcars, did I? What I stated was a matter of ''capacity'', and you seemed to also overlook the fact that I said this number of animals occupied 30% of the Ark's total capacity, leaving enough room for other animals, and fodder for a year.
''How would hummingbirds (of which there are hundreds of species) have been supplied with enough food given the extremely specific nature of their dietary requirements, or koalas for that matter who require a huge amount of eucalyptus and only eucalyptus per day?''
:Again, you missed what I said above, so I'll say it again. Baby birds come packaged in eggs. Baby reptiles come packaged in eggs. Baby mammals feed upon their mother's milk, and if they don't have a mom, someone is going to get milk from elsewhere and do the job. Any zookeeper or farmer knows that, and I find it strange that a self-professed scientist doesn't. Do baby koalas slurp on eucalyptus juice before they get their teeth in, or is it mother's milk?
''How were parasites, viruses and pathogenic bacteria be prevented from totally overwhelming the animals on the ark given that the conditions would be ideal for their propagation?''
:The conditions on earth during that period of time from the creation were just about perfect; viruses were virtually non-existent. As to parasites, even a monkey can pluck them from another monkey, or a tick bird can remove them from a cow; that kind of behavior has been observed and proven, IAW step one of the [[Scientific method]].
''How were carnivorous animals kept fed for a whole year given the great number of prey animals it takes in the wild to support even a few large predators?''
:Again, mother's milk. Didn't you see that displayed in the Noah's Ark segment of the John Houston film ''The Bible''?
''It is strange that you feel the need to justify the story of the ark as if it were even remotely possible, but in the end you resort to explanations via magic anyway. If magic had to be used why didn't god just get rid of all the sinners in the blink of an eye?''
:I never resorted to a ''magic'' explanation; that one is your's. And God doesn't just "get rid of all sinners" when He knows it's much better to give them an opportunity to come to repentance through Jesus Christ. You came here with the standpoint that God doesn't exist, so now I request that you prove beyond doubt on this page that God '''doesn't''' exist...and use the Scientific method when doing so. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:00, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

::Where does all this mother’s milk come from, either there are adults on the ark providing it, thereby mitigating your argument by infancy, or there is a huge stockpile of milk taking up yet more space on an already impossibly full ark leaving alone questions of spoilage! Also owt but milk for a whole year, really?

::The parasites I was specifically thinking of are the internal type that cannot be groomed off, but also must have been on the ark from the start.

::According to Christian doctrine god is omnipotent. He knows who will repent and who won’t depending on what warnings he gives therefore he can simply erase those who he knows will not fit into his criteria for survival.

::You know that I cannot prove beyond doubt that god doesn’t exist. However you should also know that I cannot prove that the Dagda and the Morrigan don’t exist and therefore the impossibility of proving the existence of anything does not prove its existence. You have however inspired me to write an essay on why I think my atheism is scientifically justified, I’ll send you a link when i get around to it.

::By the way, no hard feelings right? Just a bit of stimulating debate! [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 17:15, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

:::First, and most important, there are no hard feelings anywhere! As to the mother's milk - and I did indicate this small tidbit from John Houston film - farmers ''milk'' cows and goats on a daily basis. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:57, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

== General Reply to Jamesmackenzie ==

Two points dispose of all of Mr. MacKenzie's objections. First, there is no ''logical'' objection to the biblical account. It cannot be disproved. Let's be clear about that. It may not comport easily with someone's everyday experience 5000 years later, but the same could be said about many other facts in history also. There is simply no ''logical'' flaw in the account.

Second, the [[theory of evolution]] has even greater difficulties explaining how species survived massive flooding. No one credibly denies that worldwide flooding occurred; even today the world is over 70% covered with water, nearly all habitation occurs within 100 feet of sea level, and limestone deposits from water are found at all heights. Local, but massive, flooding occurs frequently and widely, with devastating affects. The theory of evolution does not have a more plausible explanation for how species survive this in the long run.

Put another way, if you think the saving of species from massive flooding was difficult with God's assistance, it is even more difficult without such assistance.

Finally, Mr. MacKenzie need not speculate about animal behavior 5000 years ago. Animals fled to high ground in the tsunami that devastated Indonesia merely 5 years ago. Mr. MacKenzie would likely claim (based on materialism) that such behavior is impossible or implausible, yet it undeniably occurred. No need to go back 5000 years; why not simply address behavior of 5 years ago that confound [[materialist]]s?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:21, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

:''"Two points dispose of all of Mr. MacKenzie's objections. First, there is no logical objection to the biblical account. It cannot be disproved. Let's be clear about that. It may not comport easily with someone's everyday experience 5000 years later, but the same could be said about many other facts in history also. There is simply no logical flaw in the account.”''

:There are indeed logical flaws in the story, and it can be disproved. The lack of a population bottleneck in humans from any time around when the flooding was supposed to take place is disproof of the story. The population bottleneck as described in the bible is not something that could hide; a population bottleneck of 8 individuals is extreme (the species would be classified moribund). In fact the extremity of the so called bottleneck is another logical flaw in the story, since a species requires a minimum population to remain viable (MVP(1)). The MVP for primates is estimated to be over 5,000 individuals accounting for inbreeding. Even ignoring inbreeding the MVP would still be around 1,000 individuals. That makes the most favourable (and somewhat unrealistic) estimate for minimum number of humans required for the species to survive as 125 times higher than what the bible claims we had.

:There are other logical flaws too, to name but a few: where did all this water come from? Where did all this water go to? If the world was flooded so recently then how come aquatic species are so localised and varied? Why did human lifetimes rapidly drop after the flood?

:''“Second, the theory of evolution has even greater difficulties explaining how species survived massive flooding. No one credibly denies that worldwide flooding occurred; even today the world is over 70% covered with water, nearly all habitation occurs within 100 feet of sea level, and limestone deposits from water are found at all heights. Local, but massive, flooding occurs frequently and widely, with devastating affects[sic]. The theory of evolution does not have a more plausible explanation for how species survive this in the long run.”''

:The world has indeed seen times of much higher sea levels, however it has never been totally submerged. Limestone deposits found at high altitude are more the consequence of isostatic action rather than eustatic action. During the times of high sea level the world would have been more like Indonesia and the Philippines, a global series of island chains and archipelagos, certainly extensive enough for terrestrial life to survive upon with some adaptation (island gigantism/island dwarfism, or terrestrial animals such as whales returning to the oceans).

:Also tsunamis aren’t really the same as long term flooding; the flood of a tsunami lasts days or weeks at most. It is certainly not difficult for animals from nearby lightly affected regions to rapidly colonise the tsunami hit area. However in the case of a tsunami it is also the case that not all animals will be killed even in the worst affected regions. These animals that do manage to survive will sometimes do so out of luck, but most will do so because they were stronger swimmers, or fast climbers etc. Then as the survivors repopulate the region they will pass on the traits that helped them survive the last tsunami to their offspring. In this way the gene pool of the animals that populate this region will have changed from how it was pre tsunami. Hence in this example evolution by natural selection has occurred!

:''"Put another way, if you think the saving of species from massive flooding was difficult with God's assistance, it is even more difficult without such assistance.”''

:I think you are making a chronological error here. Sea level change is gradual, and landmasses do not abruptly disappear into the sea. In fact the shrinking habitat, isolation of high ground from previously connected land and increased competition that will occur as a landmass is gradually overrun (over thousands of generations) by the ocean creates an exquisite set of conditions for evolution to occur in.
:As for humans previously having an extremely long lifetime, I’d like to specifically call that into question, especially given the fact that one of the justifications for the feasibility of the ark is that Noah lived hundreds of years and spent more than a modern lifetime constructing the ark. From a biological point of view the idea of historical humans living to the age of 900 is preposterous. There is a fairly consistent trend observable in archaeological evidence of human lifetimes lengthening over time. I’d be interested to hear about the remains of ancient humans that show signs of extremely (and unfeasibly even by modern standards) advanced age in their bones and teeth.

:(1)Minimum viable population – This is the threshold number of individuals required by a species to remain viable. It is defined as the point when the likelihood of extinction due to insufficient numbers of individuals remaining reaches 95%

:Also as an aside, whilst it is perfectly correct to spell Mackenzie a few different ways, including MacKenzie, I spell my name in the former manner. [[User:jamesmackenzie|James Mackenzie]] 21:37, 1 November 2009 (EST)

::Your reply is extremely verbose, but identifies no logical flaw in the biblical account. All of Christianity, and historically all of evolution, are based on one Adam and Eve. Evolutionists have recently changed their story, but not due to any logical difficulty with a beginning of only a few. There is no problem with Noah et al. populating the world post-Flood. Indeed, the population size of today is compatible with a small number about 5000 years ago.

::There is no shortage of flood water. If Earth were merely slightly flatter than today, then 99% of current inhabitants would be under water without the need for one extra drop of water.

::Evolutionists cannot explain the survival of species over time any better than the Bible does. Living creatures settle near water. Water inevitably and surprisingly floods, killing the living species. This wipes out evolution. Adding intervention by God and an Ark is one logical explanation; evolutionists don't offer '''any''' alternative, let alone a logical one.

::Finally, you duck the undeniable point about tsunamis: animals flee to high ground just before it hits the shoreline. Ducking the point doesn't change the fact, which even liberal media like PBS have fully admitted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:08, 1 November 2009 (EST)

:::I’m not sure what to make of your response; it seems to me that you have missed the point of many of the things I wrote. I think you misunderstand the implications of population bottlenecks in humans. Our DNA contains a lot of information about our ancestral history, from which we can clearly see past population bottlenecks. For example the results of the mega eruption of (???) which reduced the human population to around 10,000 individuals are clearly visible in our DNA, it is like a giant red arrow on the human genome. However there is no such bottleneck visible for such a small population as described in the story of Noah’s ark, nor is there any population bottleneck at any time period even close to 5000 years ago. The implications of this are thus: either the story of Noah’s ark is not true or DNA is meaningless, and let me make this abundantly clear - we know DNA is not meaningless, the influence of DNA has been repeatedly displayed in experiments under scientific conditions.

:::I’m not sure what you mean by “''and historically all of evolution, are based on one Adam and Eve. Evolutionists have recently changed their story, but not due to any logical difficulty with a beginning of only a few.''” so I will have to refrain from attempting an answer.

:::I will again assert that there is a problem with 8 closely related individuals repopulating the world, in my last post I explained how this cannot be the case using the science of MVP which you have yet to respond to with anything other than complete dismissal. In any case I shall add to why the world wasn’t repopulated by such a few with DNA haplotypes. I don’t know the exact specifications of Noah’s family, but it really makes little difference. Noah, his wife and his children together could amount a maximum of 1 Y DNA haplotype and 2 Mitochondrial DNA haplotypes (of which only 1 Mitochondrial DNA haplotype could survive the death of Noah). Even adding a few cousins and the like you will only be able to add a few more unique DNA haplotypes (even with the most liberal of predictions) to the list. This poses another insurmountable problem to the idea of the repopulation of the world at such a late date with so few people. There are many DNA haplotypes in the world today which fit on a family tree showing their relationship with each other. There is no way to reconcile the model of DNA haplotype descent that must be the case had the story of Noah’s ark been true with what can actually be observed. Unfortunately for advocates of Noah’s ark being a factual account, as with population bottlenecks, the family tree of DNA haplotypes can and has been verified as fact through the use of repeatable experimentation in scientific conditions. Furthermore the mutation rates of specific DNA haplotypes are predictable and known, and are totally at odds with the current diversity of DNA haplotypes descending from a very small amount as recently as 5000 years ago.

:::With your implication that if the world was flatter it could easily be covered by water, you seem to be ignoring the massive elephant in the room. For the world to become flat firstly there would need to be impossibly fast tectonic action so violent it would destroy everything on earth. Secondly you ignore the fact that should the world suddenly become flat the ensuing wave of water would obliterate everything in its path regardless of it being sheltered in a relatively flimsy ark. Thirdly the cause of the flooding according to the bible is rain, not tectonic action. Given the preceding absurdities I feel I scarcely need to assert the fact that there is no evidence of any such tectonic action occurring in the past and indeed much geological evidence suggesting it didn’t.

:::You say that evolution fails to account for the survival of species when confronted with flooding. Firstly you mistakenly assume that flooding has a 100% death rate for animals affected by it. You also mistakenly assume that flooding always affects 100% of a species range. You also assume that most ‘floods’ are much more rapid then in reality. As for animals retreating to high ground just before a tsunami hits the shoreline, I haven’t read anything about this and can offer little comment. However I expect that the vast majority of animals do not retreat like this but are ignored by the media in favour of the few that do. In any case since when has endorsement by the mass media ever been a measure of truth? [[User:jamesmackenzie|James Mackenzie]] 01:07, 5 November 2009 (EST)
::::James, first, it's obvious you didn't read the Biblical description of the Great Flood. What does Genesis 7:11 say? The "fountains of the great deep broken up" is tectonic action employed when a fault exposes an underground water source under pressure. And for the most part animals and people end up dead due to flooding, and how many fossils were ''not'' found in sedimentary (sedimentary means "water-laid") rocks? Second, you're restricting yourself to DNA haplotypes as written on a blackboard, yet refusing to see first-hand that living organisms can and do multiply very rapidly from a very few into thousands or more in a short period of time. Rats, mice, rabbits, salmon, sardines, pigeons, ants, and cockroaches do it. Want an example of a large animal doing it as well? Plains bison herds in the country number about 45,000; a century ago they numbered less than 100. Sounds like a traditional small gene pool to me. And third, evolutionists are always changing their story, and it's always going to be any story ''except'' Adam and Eve. What is it now? Some monkey named "Ardi"? Two years ago it was "Lucy"; before that it was another ''Australopithicus''; before that it was good'ol Piltdown; before that it was Darwin's face mounted to a chimp.
::::Honestly, James, we've been through this many times with many others in the past, and all you're doing is putting the same old spin on the same old story. It's been debunked thoroughly on every point; it fails the [[Scientific method]] because you can't even get past that first step; and from what I've read from the above, you're just accepting evolution and old-earth stories at face value without even trying to investigate at least ''one'' aspect of them to see whether or not it's even true. From where I stand, you have to prove it's true. So please, go ahead and do exactly that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:43, 5 November 2009 (EST)

::::James, your massive essay is unresponsive. If you don't know about animals fleeing to high ground ''before'' a tsunami hits the shoreline, then open your mind and learn about it first. Really, is that too much expect? Instead, you seem to take a position of [[deliberate ignorance]], and then go on trying to disparage it anyway. Even evolutionist sources (like PBS) admit that this phenomenon occurs, but lack any plausible materialistic explanation.

::::As to massive flooding, materialists don't explain the survival of species through historic flooding any better than the Bible does. So if you find the biblical explanation deficient, then by applying your same standard you'd find evolution even more deficient. Instead, you use unproven speculation upon speculation to try to salvage your theory, while giving the biblical theory none of the same benefits of the doubt. That's called a [[double standard]], an unattractive characteristic common to the [[liberal]] ideology.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 5 November 2009 (EST)

== Quick Reply to Karajou ==

You obviously have no idea what a DNA haplotype actually is, otherwise you would not have made such a nonsensical statement as ''"Second, you're restricting yourself to DNA haplotypes as written on a blackboard, yet refusing to see first-hand that living organisms can and do multiply very rapidly from a very few into thousands..."'' DNA haplotypes have nothing really to do with genetic viability of a small population expanding into a larger one.

And what's next? A nonsensical rant about Adam and Eve, Piltdown man (which has some suspicious links to anti evolution advocates) and Darwin's face on a chimp. It is clear that you are deeply confused about evolution, you think that Darwin's face on a chimp was an evolutionist idea? It was a cartoon by creationists intended to lampoon Darwin. You accuse me of accepting old-earth and evolution at face value, this is highly ironic since from your posts I can be reasonably sure that you do not come even close to understanding what evolution actually is. I'm frankly not surprised that you have gone though this many times before, and I’ll wager you will go through it many times again because the problem here is not with everyone else. It is your incomplete understanding that creates this cycle, a cycle that can only be broken if you actually investigated evolution from a pro evolution scientific position. But I imagine that this will never happen because I'd guess you aren't interested in the truth, rather you are probably trapped within an ‘us and them’ mentality that can never allow you to explore the possibly that the position you hold is untenable.

Please prove me wrong, explain to me in simple terms what the theory of evolution entails and if you do a reasonable job of it I will concede the point to you. Also could you tell me when DNA haplotypes have been debunked or when population bottlenecks have been debunked? I suspect what you when you say debunked is actually ignored or dismissed with no justification.

I don't like having to make such a negative reply, whilst I disagree on many levels with Andy and others I have been debating with on this page none of their replies have made me angry, whist yours has me frustrated at the ludicrous way you have responded to my points without even knowing what they are. [[User:jamesmackenzie|James Mackenzie]] 16:16, 5 November 2009 (EST)

:Two things, JamesMackenzie: First, I did investigate evolution, I know full-well what evolution consists of; I know it's a claimed "change over time" scenario; and I know full-well that evolutionists such as yourself have no intention of backing those claims up with absolute proof. I and others on this site are fed up with being given a the "hearsay" argument by evolutionists, and ''hearsay'' is all they got. Second, when directed to provide proof of evolution ''as per the Scientific Method'', you back down and turn your reply into the rant that is here. It is you who is ignoring the debunked evidence.
:So, when directed to prove it, you demonstrated an attitude problem. I think you need to edit somewhere else. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:42, 5 November 2009 (EST)
::Just a quick note, you seem to have misunderstood the scientific method. The aim is not to 'prove' the theory of evolution, this, as with all general theories, is logically impossible. Science operates by trying to falsify theories. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 16:45, 5 November 2009 (EST)
:::Oh yes, the process of falsification. And if evolution is falsified, then what's the problem? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:49, 5 November 2009 (EST)
::::Before I get bogged down in explaining the fundamentals of the scientific method all over again, may I suggest you read in more detail what it is and how it works. The article on this site actually has some rather good details on this. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 17:03, 5 November 2009 (EST)
:::::DWiggins, if you look at the history of that article, you'll discover the fact that I wrote it...[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_method&diff=188946&oldid=168951] :) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:06, 5 November 2009 (EST)
With all due respect, I would not consider 3 edits out of around 100 to in anyway constitute a claim to having 'wrote it'. I said ''some'' rather good details, insofar as it gives a reasonable overview of the scientific method but is rather clumsy in addressing more specific aspects, omitting several key points. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 18:28, 5 November 2009 (EST)
:[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_method&diff=367588&oldid=168951 That's] a pretty big contribution. -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 18:38, 5 November 2009 (EST)

James, your own postings are extremely verbose with little on topic and yet ... you accuse Karajou of a "rant"??? This talk page is your criticism of the biblical explanation of survival by mammals of a massive flood. Do you think evolution has a better explanation of how mammals could survive a massive flood? I'd love to hear it if you have one. I don't think anyone denies that all of the inhabitable earth has been flooded.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 5 November 2009 (EST)

Arguments don't go away when you call them verbose.

1. He wasn't saying that small populations don't become larger over time. That's the story of human history, but a small family with nothing other than stone tools would be fighting an enormous struggle just to survive until tomorrow and maybe raise and sustain enough children to replace those who have died. They would all live together. Disease would strike and spread fast. Up until the Renaissance, one out of every three children died before they were five, and that was within societies that had some degree of agricultural development, trade, and infrastructure. A small clan left to nothing but their own strength cannot possibly create, feed, and keep alive enough offspring to grow the population.

That's what happened when the Spanish deported the people of Rapa Nui as slaves. Passed a certain point, the population does not recover.

2. Evolution is not a theory about the Great Flood. You don't disprove it because it doesn't address the Great Flood. That's like saying the Bible is false because it doesn't talk about atoms, photons, DNA, or redox reactions.

3. There is nothing you could tweak in the atmosphere that would make people live to be 900. Changing or adding anything other than oxygen and maybe some nitrogen would be lethal, and oxygen can only increase so much before it becomes toxic. The basic nature of life in general is that it does not last nine hundred years.

4. About the Running From a Tsunami thing - There is a completely naturalistic way to explain this. The animals hear the infrasound produced by the wave rolling in and run away. The animals that can't hear infrasound get spooked and run too. Regardless, nature is infinitely more complex than the human mind can possibly understand. Just because you can't tell me why the animals run doesn't mean it's magic.

5. About the Milk thing - Infant animals are small and able to sustain themselves on milk, but where does the milk come from? Saying they lived off milk is saying they weren't infants since milk is produced only by adults. So did they pack the milk in the ark? If they did, where did it come from?

6. If the water came from under the earth's crust, wouldn't it have been steam? What have you seen coming out of the mantle that isn't scalding? Is there any evidence that such a split happened, or is it just a semi-plausible explanation for something you already made up your mind to believe?

7. Limestone takes time to form. The flood would've had to last for hundreds of years (or longer) in order to build up the global layer of rock. The more likely explanation is that, at one point in geologic time or another, all land was underwater. The limestone formed there and was transported above sea level by the normal processes of the earth.

[[User:DanPugachev|DanPugachev]] 19:06, 7 November 2009 (EST)

: Dan, logic is concise, while running from logic takes many words. The biblical account is perfectly logical. You can't identify a logical flaw in it.

: You have free will to reject logic. But if you reject it, then lots of new questions are raised about your substitute. Massive flooding undoubtedly occurred. How do you think mammals survived it? Evolution does not have a plausible, detailed explanation.

: Most evolutionists run from [[Counterexamples to evolution|facts that disprove their theory]], just as animals run to high ground before a tsunami hits shore. No, that isn't random running from being "spooked" by some mysterious ultrasound, any more than chickens ''randomly'' return from distant places at the exact same point of nightfall each day, and jump into their chicken coop in the exact same order. I know, you never heard that about chickens either. There's much an evolutionist has "never heard of." I urge to you open your mind and let logic in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 7 November 2009 (EST)
::In answer to his #6, he's implying that water underground is steamy-hot, as well as a figment of my imagination. If he'd pay more attention to geology - specifically the geology of the Great Plains - he'd probably find mention of the Ogalalla Aquifer [http://www.npwd.org/Ogallala.htm], which is a remnant of the "waters of the great deep" bursting forth in Genesis. In answer to his #5, I stated that twice above, but apparently he forgets that ''people get milk from cows''. That's ''cows'', Dan; it means you tie Bessie to the hitching post, grab a small stool, and sit for an hour filling a wooden bucket. It's where milk came from in the days before people went Krogering. Remember, Andy, that these people expect and demand that we accept whatever explanation science has to offer - and that's ''any explanation except the Bible''. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:55, 8 November 2009 (EST)

:::First off, it's not some mysterious ultrasound. It's infrasound, and it's completely different. It is emitted by tsunami waves and is very well documented as causing signs of discomfort and fear in animals and even human beings, though we cannot consciously detect it. So why do the chickens return? It isn't some combination of sense of smell, homing using the sun, and possibly detecting the earth's magnetic field (which many birds do)? Is it the hand of God, who somehow forgot to warn the people about the tsunami? It's just the animals? Stories about animals being impressive do not disprove evolution in any way.

:::Evolution does not explain it because evolution is not a theory about surviving a flood that may or may not have occurred. Outside of the Biblical story, can anyone produce a single piece of physical and indisputable evidence? Karajou, you'd call any massive aquifer a remnant of the great flood, when it is perfectly explainable that the Ogalalla formed from water moving down through the soil and into the water table when the North American glaciers melted. If it resulted from a massive flood, wouldn't you expect to see aquifers like the Ogalalla (which, yes, I have heard of) all over the world? There aren't. And if the flood happened, as it was asserted earlier, when a fault broke Pangaea apart in a process like the seafloor spreading we see today, anything that would be released would come from the mantle as steam or superheated water that would boil on the surface. [[User:DanPugachev|DanPugachev]] 12:36, 8 November 2009 (EST)
::::Indisputable evidence for the Great Flood:
:::::Fossils, of which more than 99.9% of them were found in sedimentary ("water-laid") rock. They are usually intact, and deposited as if they died in agony. ''Step 1 of the Scientific Method in this case:'' observe the burial and fossiliztion of an animal. Cannot be done due to weather conditions and biological influences (scavengers) which tend to destroy the carcass and scatter the remains (note...that fact alone is ''observable, iaw Step 1'').
:::::Footprints, which were deposited ''when the ground was wet and muddy''. Footprints include ''raindrops''[http://www.twoguysfossils.com/dino3.htm]. The traditional explanation from science is that they harden into rock over the course of millenia just by sitting there, as if no one ever heard of the first rainstorm to come along and wash them away. ''Step 1 of the Scientific Method in this case:'' Make a track and fossilize it under the natural conditions described by science and see what happens.
:::::Folded layers of rock, which cannot fold unless they are first wet layers of mud. There is an "S"-curve in the rock in this image[http://www.purchon.com/ecology/images/folds.jpg], which didn't get that way if it was ordinary dry rock. This is indicative of differing types of sediment depositing in layers, then something violent happening to cause these layers to bend before they harden. ''Experiment:'' try setting down several layers of flat slate or similar hard rock, ''then bend the whole without breaking it''. Then do the same with wet layers of clay.
:::::Oral traditions, which are found world-wide in every language and every culture; it is a preservation of a single event. In more than 70% of these traditions, the following are present: global flood; large boat or raft; less than ten survivors; carrying away of a large number of animals; landing on or near a mountain range; sacrificial offering to the gods. ''Science'' in this case, needs to dismiss this as simple ''folk tales'' [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:08, 8 November 2009 (EST)

I'm in New Zealand at the moment and have only somewhat irregular access to internet, which is the cause of my periodic outbursts interspersed by silent periods, I regret posting my last thing in a bit of a foul mood, the point of this talk page isn't evolution is is Noah's ark, and I allowed Karajou to lead my reply off topic. The point remains that there is no pro Noah's ark answer to the questions of DNA haplotypes. And now that Karajou has likely googled "DNA halotype" he will be unable to reconcile the statement that he originally made in response to that point.

"As to the mother's milk - and I did indicate this small tidbit from John Houston film - farmers milk cows and goats on a daily basis"

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)
::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?==

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)
:If archaeological and geological evidence shows something to be hypothetically impossible then divine intervention can be given as the solution, however if the evidence shows that something never happened then it never happened. This is the point of this debate, without physical corroboration the bible is about as historically realistic as the lord of the rings. [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 15:41, 10 November 2009 (EST)

Talk:Essay:Noah's Ark Was Real

2009-11-10T20:28:20Z

Jamesmackenzie: /* Quick Reply to Karajou */

I'm not sure what to make of this, is it a parody?

If not then how could the climatic conditions required for Arctic animals be maintained alongside those of desert dwelling species?

How can the geographic distribution of species and fossils be explained by all the animals disembarking from the ark at the location?

How could a vessel be large enough to hold the enormous number of animals it would take to preserve a minimum 2 of every species let alone be large enough to hold fodder for a year especially considering the highly specialized feeding requirements of many animals?

What about animals that have lifespans shorter than a year, but also require very specific conditions to be met in order to be able to reproduce? [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 14:28, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

:Keiko the killer whale (a cold-water species) was maintained for years in a Mexico City (hot environment) aquarium. Polar bears are exhibited in zoos located in temperate and hot locations around the world. Add to that a species of penguin found in the Galapagos Islands at the equator, when it should be near Antarctica.
:In the Bible, God tells Noah that "every sort of animal shall come to him" (Gen 6:20); if God can tell the animals to go to the ark, He can tell the animals where to go when leaving the ark.
:40,000 animals the size of sheep can fit into 167 railroad boxcars, which is roughly 30% of the capacity of the ark. Furthermore, you have to take into account that not every animal is full-grown when it's aboard; after all, how much space does a 30-foot anaconda take up versus a two-foot baby? Then there are birds and reptiles which could have been cared for while they were eggs; there's hibernation. [http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html] [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:02, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Galapagos penguins survive so far from the south pole because of two cold ocean currents that well up at the Galapagos islands making the water temperature much colder than would otherwise be expected for its latitude.
::40,000 sheep may be able to fit jammed into 167 railway boxes, but they cannot live there for a year and all their fodder for a year cannot fit either.
::How would hummingbirds (of which there are hundreds of species) have been supplied with enough food given the extremely specific nature of their dietary requirements, or koalas for that matter who require a huge amount of eucalyptus and only eucalyptus per day?
::How were parasites, viruses and pathogenic bacteria be prevented from totally overwhelming the animals on the ark given that the conditions would be ideal for their propagation?
::How were carnivorous animals kept fed for a whole year given the great number of prey animals it takes in the wild to support even a few large predators?
::It is strange that you feel the need to justify the story of the ark as if it were even remotely possible, but in the end you resort to explanations via magic anyway. If magic had to be used why didn't god just get rid of all the sinners in the blink of an eye? [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 07:39, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

== In answer to Mr. MacKenzie ==

Mr. MacKenzie:

Did you take the trouble to read the essay itself, or the [[Noah's Ark]] article? Your comments suggest to me that you have not. You overlook many key passages in which I answer every one of the objections you raised. With one possible exception: animals having life spans less than a year. I answer that those life spans were probably a good deal longer, before the altered state of the earth's atmosphere took their toll. Recall that the average life span of the descendants of Adam was about 900 years. After the [[Great Flood]], man's life span dropped ninety percent, and in a hurry. We must assume that the life spans of animals varied in similar proportion.

Where did [[User:Karajou]] resort to invoking miracles? For that matter, where did I? Did I not explicitly state that one must employ an economy of miracles, to go along with scientific parsimony as prescribed by [[William of Occam]]?

While I'm on the subject, you overlook one other thing. You assume that true randomness exists in a [[God]]-centered universe. It does not. Nothing, of whatever character, happens without God's direct authorization. We can guess how likely a thing might be, but if God wants to act out of the ordinary, such is within His capability and, more to the point, His authority. Hence if God wants to ruin a man for repeatedly testing Him, or testing "the fates" or "Lady Luck" or whatever he wants to call it, that's His prerogative, too. (And I've seen Him do it, too. Ask any [[Las Vegas]] gambler who doesn't know to quit while he's ahead.)

Nevertheless, you overlook still another thing: God gives explicit warnings, and equally explcit instructions, to certain people when and as He pleases. He did this in [[Noah]]'s case, again in [[Abraham]]'s case, and then in [[Moses]]'s case, in which He gave far more detailed instructions for an amazingly intricate building project: the [[Tabernacle]] and all its furnishings. And then there is [[Jesus Christ]] Himself, Whose very ministry was a miracle.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:22, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks for the reply.

:Can you substantiate the claim that humans and other animals lived longer life spans in the past? The bible obviously doesn’t count because its verisimilitude is highly questionable. I ask because the current scientific understanding at least as far as humans are concerned is that life expectancy has steadily increased with time rather than decreased.

:Anything that could not be repeated by humans using the same technology as was available at the time in question is a miracle/magic. All the animals moving to the ark and not killing each other as they assembled are certainly magical or miraculous.

:If true randomness cannot exist then how can free will exist? Also can you substantiate that this universe contains properties that might be associated with a god?

:As for my questions being answered I cannot find that in the essay or the article, particularly the parasite question and the point about specialised food supplies (koala bears). Also I’d like to add another question – If Noah and his family of 8 were the only human survivors then how come such a population bottleneck is not shown in human DNA evidence? [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 14:55, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

If you're going to dismiss the Bible ''a priori'', then we have nothing to discuss. ''You'' question the "verisimilitude" (I think you mean "veracity") of the Bible, but I do not. We address [[Biblical inerrancy]] in another article on this site, and I can also direct you to [http://creationwiki.org/Biblical_inerrancy this article] that discusses the subject in somewhat greater detail.

Let me take just one aspect of the issue: prerdictions of future events. For centuries, skeptics believed that the Book of Daniel, for example, must have been written long after [[Alexander the Great]] conquered the [[Middle East]]. Then in 1947, in the middle of the high drama surrounding the establishment of the Republic of [[Israel]], a small boy threw a rock into a cave near Qumran, and the rock's impact produced the sound of breaking pottery. The little boy checked it out, and then showed up in [[Jerusalem]] hawking what he found. These were the first of the [[Dead Sea Scrolls]]. Those scrolls include manuscripts of Daniel that clearly predate Alexander, and predict his conquest of the Holy Land exactly as it occurred. And Daniel isn't the only one.

There, by the way, is a modern miracle for you. The finding of those scrolls persuaded the [[United States]] to grant diplomatic recognition to the Republic of Israel, and made the difference between Jewish statehood and a Second Holocaust.

As I said, Daniel isn't the only one. Isaiah is another. And Isaiah predicted the most striking event of all: the ministry, death and resurrection of [[Jesus Christ]].

Any text that can get all these things absolutely right, four hundred years or more ahead of time (and against odds of ten thousand quinquagintillion to one, by the way), can certainly be trusted on other events that it recorded. Like the genealogy of Adam, and the tremendous average lifespans, and the genealogy of Shem and the tremendous decline in lifespan. And like the [[Great Flood]] and the plans of [[Noah's Ark]].

I have no trouble accepting the assembly of the animals. The same God Who gave [[Noah]] his instructions for building the [[Noah's Ark|Ark]] was certainly capable of assembling the menagerie that Noah would carry. Nor is that necessarily as difficult as you are attempting to portray. Are you assuming that the continents in Noah's day were distributed as they are today? They weren't. Initially they all fit together, like a gigantic jigsaw puzzle. The Flood got started with a hairline crack that appeared in this landmass and then went all the way through it. That crack persists as the Mid-Oceanic Ridge System. See [[Hydroplate Theory]] for some further details, and a link to an outside source that explains it in far greater detail than I have space to use here.

How can free will exist without randomness? Well, it can't. But that does not mean, by the way, that we need to accept the authority of any [[Barack Hussein Obama|one human being who is trying to pretend that he's God]]. It does mean that God not only knows what is going to happen well before it happens (and can give memoranda of instructions to whomever He chooses, whenever He chooses), but that He has ''decided ahead of time'' what is going to happen. Perhaps He has decided ahead of time to bring you to me, figuratively speaking, so that I may testify to you concerning His Existence, His Pre-eminence, and His Role in human affairs, ancient and modern.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 17:23, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks for the reply, I'll have a proper read of it tomorrow morning and answer you then, as for now, before I sleep I just wanted to say that I did indeed mean to write verisimilitude - a word which means "the appearance of truth or likelihood", so for something to have its verisimilitude lacking or questionable is not to have a lack of truth but to have a lack of a semblance of truth. [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 18:52, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

==My answers to your questions==
''Galapagos penguins survive so far from the south pole because of two cold ocean currents that well up at the Galapagos islands making the water temperature much colder than would otherwise be expected for its latitude.''
:Still the water there is a lot warmer than it would be around Antarctica, and these penguins have no problem with the hot conditions once they're out of the water.
''40,000 sheep may be able to fit jammed into 167 railway boxes, but they cannot live there for a year and all their fodder for a year cannot fit either.''
:I didn't say there were 40,000 sheep jammed in 167 boxcars, did I? What I stated was a matter of ''capacity'', and you seemed to also overlook the fact that I said this number of animals occupied 30% of the Ark's total capacity, leaving enough room for other animals, and fodder for a year.
''How would hummingbirds (of which there are hundreds of species) have been supplied with enough food given the extremely specific nature of their dietary requirements, or koalas for that matter who require a huge amount of eucalyptus and only eucalyptus per day?''
:Again, you missed what I said above, so I'll say it again. Baby birds come packaged in eggs. Baby reptiles come packaged in eggs. Baby mammals feed upon their mother's milk, and if they don't have a mom, someone is going to get milk from elsewhere and do the job. Any zookeeper or farmer knows that, and I find it strange that a self-professed scientist doesn't. Do baby koalas slurp on eucalyptus juice before they get their teeth in, or is it mother's milk?
''How were parasites, viruses and pathogenic bacteria be prevented from totally overwhelming the animals on the ark given that the conditions would be ideal for their propagation?''
:The conditions on earth during that period of time from the creation were just about perfect; viruses were virtually non-existent. As to parasites, even a monkey can pluck them from another monkey, or a tick bird can remove them from a cow; that kind of behavior has been observed and proven, IAW step one of the [[Scientific method]].
''How were carnivorous animals kept fed for a whole year given the great number of prey animals it takes in the wild to support even a few large predators?''
:Again, mother's milk. Didn't you see that displayed in the Noah's Ark segment of the John Houston film ''The Bible''?
''It is strange that you feel the need to justify the story of the ark as if it were even remotely possible, but in the end you resort to explanations via magic anyway. If magic had to be used why didn't god just get rid of all the sinners in the blink of an eye?''
:I never resorted to a ''magic'' explanation; that one is your's. And God doesn't just "get rid of all sinners" when He knows it's much better to give them an opportunity to come to repentance through Jesus Christ. You came here with the standpoint that God doesn't exist, so now I request that you prove beyond doubt on this page that God '''doesn't''' exist...and use the Scientific method when doing so. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:00, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

::Where does all this mother’s milk come from, either there are adults on the ark providing it, thereby mitigating your argument by infancy, or there is a huge stockpile of milk taking up yet more space on an already impossibly full ark leaving alone questions of spoilage! Also owt but milk for a whole year, really?

::The parasites I was specifically thinking of are the internal type that cannot be groomed off, but also must have been on the ark from the start.

::According to Christian doctrine god is omnipotent. He knows who will repent and who won’t depending on what warnings he gives therefore he can simply erase those who he knows will not fit into his criteria for survival.

::You know that I cannot prove beyond doubt that god doesn’t exist. However you should also know that I cannot prove that the Dagda and the Morrigan don’t exist and therefore the impossibility of proving the existence of anything does not prove its existence. You have however inspired me to write an essay on why I think my atheism is scientifically justified, I’ll send you a link when i get around to it.

::By the way, no hard feelings right? Just a bit of stimulating debate! [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 17:15, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

:::First, and most important, there are no hard feelings anywhere! As to the mother's milk - and I did indicate this small tidbit from John Houston film - farmers ''milk'' cows and goats on a daily basis. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:57, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

== General Reply to Jamesmackenzie ==

Two points dispose of all of Mr. MacKenzie's objections. First, there is no ''logical'' objection to the biblical account. It cannot be disproved. Let's be clear about that. It may not comport easily with someone's everyday experience 5000 years later, but the same could be said about many other facts in history also. There is simply no ''logical'' flaw in the account.

Second, the [[theory of evolution]] has even greater difficulties explaining how species survived massive flooding. No one credibly denies that worldwide flooding occurred; even today the world is over 70% covered with water, nearly all habitation occurs within 100 feet of sea level, and limestone deposits from water are found at all heights. Local, but massive, flooding occurs frequently and widely, with devastating affects. The theory of evolution does not have a more plausible explanation for how species survive this in the long run.

Put another way, if you think the saving of species from massive flooding was difficult with God's assistance, it is even more difficult without such assistance.

Finally, Mr. MacKenzie need not speculate about animal behavior 5000 years ago. Animals fled to high ground in the tsunami that devastated Indonesia merely 5 years ago. Mr. MacKenzie would likely claim (based on materialism) that such behavior is impossible or implausible, yet it undeniably occurred. No need to go back 5000 years; why not simply address behavior of 5 years ago that confound [[materialist]]s?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:21, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

:''"Two points dispose of all of Mr. MacKenzie's objections. First, there is no logical objection to the biblical account. It cannot be disproved. Let's be clear about that. It may not comport easily with someone's everyday experience 5000 years later, but the same could be said about many other facts in history also. There is simply no logical flaw in the account.”''

:There are indeed logical flaws in the story, and it can be disproved. The lack of a population bottleneck in humans from any time around when the flooding was supposed to take place is disproof of the story. The population bottleneck as described in the bible is not something that could hide; a population bottleneck of 8 individuals is extreme (the species would be classified moribund). In fact the extremity of the so called bottleneck is another logical flaw in the story, since a species requires a minimum population to remain viable (MVP(1)). The MVP for primates is estimated to be over 5,000 individuals accounting for inbreeding. Even ignoring inbreeding the MVP would still be around 1,000 individuals. That makes the most favourable (and somewhat unrealistic) estimate for minimum number of humans required for the species to survive as 125 times higher than what the bible claims we had.

:There are other logical flaws too, to name but a few: where did all this water come from? Where did all this water go to? If the world was flooded so recently then how come aquatic species are so localised and varied? Why did human lifetimes rapidly drop after the flood?

:''“Second, the theory of evolution has even greater difficulties explaining how species survived massive flooding. No one credibly denies that worldwide flooding occurred; even today the world is over 70% covered with water, nearly all habitation occurs within 100 feet of sea level, and limestone deposits from water are found at all heights. Local, but massive, flooding occurs frequently and widely, with devastating affects[sic]. The theory of evolution does not have a more plausible explanation for how species survive this in the long run.”''

:The world has indeed seen times of much higher sea levels, however it has never been totally submerged. Limestone deposits found at high altitude are more the consequence of isostatic action rather than eustatic action. During the times of high sea level the world would have been more like Indonesia and the Philippines, a global series of island chains and archipelagos, certainly extensive enough for terrestrial life to survive upon with some adaptation (island gigantism/island dwarfism, or terrestrial animals such as whales returning to the oceans).

:Also tsunamis aren’t really the same as long term flooding; the flood of a tsunami lasts days or weeks at most. It is certainly not difficult for animals from nearby lightly affected regions to rapidly colonise the tsunami hit area. However in the case of a tsunami it is also the case that not all animals will be killed even in the worst affected regions. These animals that do manage to survive will sometimes do so out of luck, but most will do so because they were stronger swimmers, or fast climbers etc. Then as the survivors repopulate the region they will pass on the traits that helped them survive the last tsunami to their offspring. In this way the gene pool of the animals that populate this region will have changed from how it was pre tsunami. Hence in this example evolution by natural selection has occurred!

:''"Put another way, if you think the saving of species from massive flooding was difficult with God's assistance, it is even more difficult without such assistance.”''

:I think you are making a chronological error here. Sea level change is gradual, and landmasses do not abruptly disappear into the sea. In fact the shrinking habitat, isolation of high ground from previously connected land and increased competition that will occur as a landmass is gradually overrun (over thousands of generations) by the ocean creates an exquisite set of conditions for evolution to occur in.
:As for humans previously having an extremely long lifetime, I’d like to specifically call that into question, especially given the fact that one of the justifications for the feasibility of the ark is that Noah lived hundreds of years and spent more than a modern lifetime constructing the ark. From a biological point of view the idea of historical humans living to the age of 900 is preposterous. There is a fairly consistent trend observable in archaeological evidence of human lifetimes lengthening over time. I’d be interested to hear about the remains of ancient humans that show signs of extremely (and unfeasibly even by modern standards) advanced age in their bones and teeth.

:(1)Minimum viable population – This is the threshold number of individuals required by a species to remain viable. It is defined as the point when the likelihood of extinction due to insufficient numbers of individuals remaining reaches 95%

:Also as an aside, whilst it is perfectly correct to spell Mackenzie a few different ways, including MacKenzie, I spell my name in the former manner. [[User:jamesmackenzie|James Mackenzie]] 21:37, 1 November 2009 (EST)

::Your reply is extremely verbose, but identifies no logical flaw in the biblical account. All of Christianity, and historically all of evolution, are based on one Adam and Eve. Evolutionists have recently changed their story, but not due to any logical difficulty with a beginning of only a few. There is no problem with Noah et al. populating the world post-Flood. Indeed, the population size of today is compatible with a small number about 5000 years ago.

::There is no shortage of flood water. If Earth were merely slightly flatter than today, then 99% of current inhabitants would be under water without the need for one extra drop of water.

::Evolutionists cannot explain the survival of species over time any better than the Bible does. Living creatures settle near water. Water inevitably and surprisingly floods, killing the living species. This wipes out evolution. Adding intervention by God and an Ark is one logical explanation; evolutionists don't offer '''any''' alternative, let alone a logical one.

::Finally, you duck the undeniable point about tsunamis: animals flee to high ground just before it hits the shoreline. Ducking the point doesn't change the fact, which even liberal media like PBS have fully admitted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:08, 1 November 2009 (EST)

:::I’m not sure what to make of your response; it seems to me that you have missed the point of many of the things I wrote. I think you misunderstand the implications of population bottlenecks in humans. Our DNA contains a lot of information about our ancestral history, from which we can clearly see past population bottlenecks. For example the results of the mega eruption of (???) which reduced the human population to around 10,000 individuals are clearly visible in our DNA, it is like a giant red arrow on the human genome. However there is no such bottleneck visible for such a small population as described in the story of Noah’s ark, nor is there any population bottleneck at any time period even close to 5000 years ago. The implications of this are thus: either the story of Noah’s ark is not true or DNA is meaningless, and let me make this abundantly clear - we know DNA is not meaningless, the influence of DNA has been repeatedly displayed in experiments under scientific conditions.

:::I’m not sure what you mean by “''and historically all of evolution, are based on one Adam and Eve. Evolutionists have recently changed their story, but not due to any logical difficulty with a beginning of only a few.''” so I will have to refrain from attempting an answer.

:::I will again assert that there is a problem with 8 closely related individuals repopulating the world, in my last post I explained how this cannot be the case using the science of MVP which you have yet to respond to with anything other than complete dismissal. In any case I shall add to why the world wasn’t repopulated by such a few with DNA haplotypes. I don’t know the exact specifications of Noah’s family, but it really makes little difference. Noah, his wife and his children together could amount a maximum of 1 Y DNA haplotype and 2 Mitochondrial DNA haplotypes (of which only 1 Mitochondrial DNA haplotype could survive the death of Noah). Even adding a few cousins and the like you will only be able to add a few more unique DNA haplotypes (even with the most liberal of predictions) to the list. This poses another insurmountable problem to the idea of the repopulation of the world at such a late date with so few people. There are many DNA haplotypes in the world today which fit on a family tree showing their relationship with each other. There is no way to reconcile the model of DNA haplotype descent that must be the case had the story of Noah’s ark been true with what can actually be observed. Unfortunately for advocates of Noah’s ark being a factual account, as with population bottlenecks, the family tree of DNA haplotypes can and has been verified as fact through the use of repeatable experimentation in scientific conditions. Furthermore the mutation rates of specific DNA haplotypes are predictable and known, and are totally at odds with the current diversity of DNA haplotypes descending from a very small amount as recently as 5000 years ago.

:::With your implication that if the world was flatter it could easily be covered by water, you seem to be ignoring the massive elephant in the room. For the world to become flat firstly there would need to be impossibly fast tectonic action so violent it would destroy everything on earth. Secondly you ignore the fact that should the world suddenly become flat the ensuing wave of water would obliterate everything in its path regardless of it being sheltered in a relatively flimsy ark. Thirdly the cause of the flooding according to the bible is rain, not tectonic action. Given the preceding absurdities I feel I scarcely need to assert the fact that there is no evidence of any such tectonic action occurring in the past and indeed much geological evidence suggesting it didn’t.

:::You say that evolution fails to account for the survival of species when confronted with flooding. Firstly you mistakenly assume that flooding has a 100% death rate for animals affected by it. You also mistakenly assume that flooding always affects 100% of a species range. You also assume that most ‘floods’ are much more rapid then in reality. As for animals retreating to high ground just before a tsunami hits the shoreline, I haven’t read anything about this and can offer little comment. However I expect that the vast majority of animals do not retreat like this but are ignored by the media in favour of the few that do. In any case since when has endorsement by the mass media ever been a measure of truth? [[User:jamesmackenzie|James Mackenzie]] 01:07, 5 November 2009 (EST)
::::James, first, it's obvious you didn't read the Biblical description of the Great Flood. What does Genesis 7:11 say? The "fountains of the great deep broken up" is tectonic action employed when a fault exposes an underground water source under pressure. And for the most part animals and people end up dead due to flooding, and how many fossils were ''not'' found in sedimentary (sedimentary means "water-laid") rocks? Second, you're restricting yourself to DNA haplotypes as written on a blackboard, yet refusing to see first-hand that living organisms can and do multiply very rapidly from a very few into thousands or more in a short period of time. Rats, mice, rabbits, salmon, sardines, pigeons, ants, and cockroaches do it. Want an example of a large animal doing it as well? Plains bison herds in the country number about 45,000; a century ago they numbered less than 100. Sounds like a traditional small gene pool to me. And third, evolutionists are always changing their story, and it's always going to be any story ''except'' Adam and Eve. What is it now? Some monkey named "Ardi"? Two years ago it was "Lucy"; before that it was another ''Australopithicus''; before that it was good'ol Piltdown; before that it was Darwin's face mounted to a chimp.
::::Honestly, James, we've been through this many times with many others in the past, and all you're doing is putting the same old spin on the same old story. It's been debunked thoroughly on every point; it fails the [[Scientific method]] because you can't even get past that first step; and from what I've read from the above, you're just accepting evolution and old-earth stories at face value without even trying to investigate at least ''one'' aspect of them to see whether or not it's even true. From where I stand, you have to prove it's true. So please, go ahead and do exactly that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:43, 5 November 2009 (EST)

::::James, your massive essay is unresponsive. If you don't know about animals fleeing to high ground ''before'' a tsunami hits the shoreline, then open your mind and learn about it first. Really, is that too much expect? Instead, you seem to take a position of [[deliberate ignorance]], and then go on trying to disparage it anyway. Even evolutionist sources (like PBS) admit that this phenomenon occurs, but lack any plausible materialistic explanation.

::::As to massive flooding, materialists don't explain the survival of species through historic flooding any better than the Bible does. So if you find the biblical explanation deficient, then by applying your same standard you'd find evolution even more deficient. Instead, you use unproven speculation upon speculation to try to salvage your theory, while giving the biblical theory none of the same benefits of the doubt. That's called a [[double standard]], an unattractive characteristic common to the [[liberal]] ideology.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 5 November 2009 (EST)

== Quick Reply to Karajou ==

You obviously have no idea what a DNA haplotype actually is, otherwise you would not have made such a nonsensical statement as ''"Second, you're restricting yourself to DNA haplotypes as written on a blackboard, yet refusing to see first-hand that living organisms can and do multiply very rapidly from a very few into thousands..."'' DNA haplotypes have nothing really to do with genetic viability of a small population expanding into a larger one.

And what's next? A nonsensical rant about Adam and Eve, Piltdown man (which has some suspicious links to anti evolution advocates) and Darwin's face on a chimp. It is clear that you are deeply confused about evolution, you think that Darwin's face on a chimp was an evolutionist idea? It was a cartoon by creationists intended to lampoon Darwin. You accuse me of accepting old-earth and evolution at face value, this is highly ironic since from your posts I can be reasonably sure that you do not come even close to understanding what evolution actually is. I'm frankly not surprised that you have gone though this many times before, and I’ll wager you will go through it many times again because the problem here is not with everyone else. It is your incomplete understanding that creates this cycle, a cycle that can only be broken if you actually investigated evolution from a pro evolution scientific position. But I imagine that this will never happen because I'd guess you aren't interested in the truth, rather you are probably trapped within an ‘us and them’ mentality that can never allow you to explore the possibly that the position you hold is untenable.

Please prove me wrong, explain to me in simple terms what the theory of evolution entails and if you do a reasonable job of it I will concede the point to you. Also could you tell me when DNA haplotypes have been debunked or when population bottlenecks have been debunked? I suspect what you when you say debunked is actually ignored or dismissed with no justification.

I don't like having to make such a negative reply, whilst I disagree on many levels with Andy and others I have been debating with on this page none of their replies have made me angry, whist yours has me frustrated at the ludicrous way you have responded to my points without even knowing what they are. [[User:jamesmackenzie|James Mackenzie]] 16:16, 5 November 2009 (EST)

:Two things, JamesMackenzie: First, I did investigate evolution, I know full-well what evolution consists of; I know it's a claimed "change over time" scenario; and I know full-well that evolutionists such as yourself have no intention of backing those claims up with absolute proof. I and others on this site are fed up with being given a the "hearsay" argument by evolutionists, and ''hearsay'' is all they got. Second, when directed to provide proof of evolution ''as per the Scientific Method'', you back down and turn your reply into the rant that is here. It is you who is ignoring the debunked evidence.
:So, when directed to prove it, you demonstrated an attitude problem. I think you need to edit somewhere else. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:42, 5 November 2009 (EST)
::Just a quick note, you seem to have misunderstood the scientific method. The aim is not to 'prove' the theory of evolution, this, as with all general theories, is logically impossible. Science operates by trying to falsify theories. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 16:45, 5 November 2009 (EST)
:::Oh yes, the process of falsification. And if evolution is falsified, then what's the problem? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:49, 5 November 2009 (EST)
::::Before I get bogged down in explaining the fundamentals of the scientific method all over again, may I suggest you read in more detail what it is and how it works. The article on this site actually has some rather good details on this. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 17:03, 5 November 2009 (EST)
:::::DWiggins, if you look at the history of that article, you'll discover the fact that I wrote it...[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_method&diff=188946&oldid=168951] :) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:06, 5 November 2009 (EST)
With all due respect, I would not consider 3 edits out of around 100 to in anyway constitute a claim to having 'wrote it'. I said ''some'' rather good details, insofar as it gives a reasonable overview of the scientific method but is rather clumsy in addressing more specific aspects, omitting several key points. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 18:28, 5 November 2009 (EST)
:[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_method&diff=367588&oldid=168951 That's] a pretty big contribution. -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 18:38, 5 November 2009 (EST)

James, your own postings are extremely verbose with little on topic and yet ... you accuse Karajou of a "rant"??? This talk page is your criticism of the biblical explanation of survival by mammals of a massive flood. Do you think evolution has a better explanation of how mammals could survive a massive flood? I'd love to hear it if you have one. I don't think anyone denies that all of the inhabitable earth has been flooded.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 5 November 2009 (EST)

Arguments don't go away when you call them verbose.

1. He wasn't saying that small populations don't become larger over time. That's the story of human history, but a small family with nothing other than stone tools would be fighting an enormous struggle just to survive until tomorrow and maybe raise and sustain enough children to replace those who have died. They would all live together. Disease would strike and spread fast. Up until the Renaissance, one out of every three children died before they were five, and that was within societies that had some degree of agricultural development, trade, and infrastructure. A small clan left to nothing but their own strength cannot possibly create, feed, and keep alive enough offspring to grow the population.

That's what happened when the Spanish deported the people of Rapa Nui as slaves. Passed a certain point, the population does not recover.

2. Evolution is not a theory about the Great Flood. You don't disprove it because it doesn't address the Great Flood. That's like saying the Bible is false because it doesn't talk about atoms, photons, DNA, or redox reactions.

3. There is nothing you could tweak in the atmosphere that would make people live to be 900. Changing or adding anything other than oxygen and maybe some nitrogen would be lethal, and oxygen can only increase so much before it becomes toxic. The basic nature of life in general is that it does not last nine hundred years.

4. About the Running From a Tsunami thing - There is a completely naturalistic way to explain this. The animals hear the infrasound produced by the wave rolling in and run away. The animals that can't hear infrasound get spooked and run too. Regardless, nature is infinitely more complex than the human mind can possibly understand. Just because you can't tell me why the animals run doesn't mean it's magic.

5. About the Milk thing - Infant animals are small and able to sustain themselves on milk, but where does the milk come from? Saying they lived off milk is saying they weren't infants since milk is produced only by adults. So did they pack the milk in the ark? If they did, where did it come from?

6. If the water came from under the earth's crust, wouldn't it have been steam? What have you seen coming out of the mantle that isn't scalding? Is there any evidence that such a split happened, or is it just a semi-plausible explanation for something you already made up your mind to believe?

7. Limestone takes time to form. The flood would've had to last for hundreds of years (or longer) in order to build up the global layer of rock. The more likely explanation is that, at one point in geologic time or another, all land was underwater. The limestone formed there and was transported above sea level by the normal processes of the earth.

[[User:DanPugachev|DanPugachev]] 19:06, 7 November 2009 (EST)

: Dan, logic is concise, while running from logic takes many words. The biblical account is perfectly logical. You can't identify a logical flaw in it.

: You have free will to reject logic. But if you reject it, then lots of new questions are raised about your substitute. Massive flooding undoubtedly occurred. How do you think mammals survived it? Evolution does not have a plausible, detailed explanation.

: Most evolutionists run from [[Counterexamples to evolution|facts that disprove their theory]], just as animals run to high ground before a tsunami hits shore. No, that isn't random running from being "spooked" by some mysterious ultrasound, any more than chickens ''randomly'' return from distant places at the exact same point of nightfall each day, and jump into their chicken coop in the exact same order. I know, you never heard that about chickens either. There's much an evolutionist has "never heard of." I urge to you open your mind and let logic in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 7 November 2009 (EST)
::In answer to his #6, he's implying that water underground is steamy-hot, as well as a figment of my imagination. If he'd pay more attention to geology - specifically the geology of the Great Plains - he'd probably find mention of the Ogalalla Aquifer [http://www.npwd.org/Ogallala.htm], which is a remnant of the "waters of the great deep" bursting forth in Genesis. In answer to his #5, I stated that twice above, but apparently he forgets that ''people get milk from cows''. That's ''cows'', Dan; it means you tie Bessie to the hitching post, grab a small stool, and sit for an hour filling a wooden bucket. It's where milk came from in the days before people went Krogering. Remember, Andy, that these people expect and demand that we accept whatever explanation science has to offer - and that's ''any explanation except the Bible''. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:55, 8 November 2009 (EST)

:::First off, it's not some mysterious ultrasound. It's infrasound, and it's completely different. It is emitted by tsunami waves and is very well documented as causing signs of discomfort and fear in animals and even human beings, though we cannot consciously detect it. So why do the chickens return? It isn't some combination of sense of smell, homing using the sun, and possibly detecting the earth's magnetic field (which many birds do)? Is it the hand of God, who somehow forgot to warn the people about the tsunami? It's just the animals? Stories about animals being impressive do not disprove evolution in any way.

:::Evolution does not explain it because evolution is not a theory about surviving a flood that may or may not have occurred. Outside of the Biblical story, can anyone produce a single piece of physical and indisputable evidence? Karajou, you'd call any massive aquifer a remnant of the great flood, when it is perfectly explainable that the Ogalalla formed from water moving down through the soil and into the water table when the North American glaciers melted. If it resulted from a massive flood, wouldn't you expect to see aquifers like the Ogalalla (which, yes, I have heard of) all over the world? There aren't. And if the flood happened, as it was asserted earlier, when a fault broke Pangaea apart in a process like the seafloor spreading we see today, anything that would be released would come from the mantle as steam or superheated water that would boil on the surface. [[User:DanPugachev|DanPugachev]] 12:36, 8 November 2009 (EST)
::::Indisputable evidence for the Great Flood:
:::::Fossils, of which more than 99.9% of them were found in sedimentary ("water-laid") rock. They are usually intact, and deposited as if they died in agony. ''Step 1 of the Scientific Method in this case:'' observe the burial and fossiliztion of an animal. Cannot be done due to weather conditions and biological influences (scavengers) which tend to destroy the carcass and scatter the remains (note...that fact alone is ''observable, iaw Step 1'').
:::::Footprints, which were deposited ''when the ground was wet and muddy''. Footprints include ''raindrops''[http://www.twoguysfossils.com/dino3.htm]. The traditional explanation from science is that they harden into rock over the course of millenia just by sitting there, as if no one ever heard of the first rainstorm to come along and wash them away. ''Step 1 of the Scientific Method in this case:'' Make a track and fossilize it under the natural conditions described by science and see what happens.
:::::Folded layers of rock, which cannot fold unless they are first wet layers of mud. There is an "S"-curve in the rock in this image[http://www.purchon.com/ecology/images/folds.jpg], which didn't get that way if it was ordinary dry rock. This is indicative of differing types of sediment depositing in layers, then something violent happening to cause these layers to bend before they harden. ''Experiment:'' try setting down several layers of flat slate or similar hard rock, ''then bend the whole without breaking it''. Then do the same with wet layers of clay.
:::::Oral traditions, which are found world-wide in every language and every culture; it is a preservation of a single event. In more than 70% of these traditions, the following are present: global flood; large boat or raft; less than ten survivors; carrying away of a large number of animals; landing on or near a mountain range; sacrificial offering to the gods. ''Science'' in this case, needs to dismiss this as simple ''folk tales'' [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:08, 8 November 2009 (EST)

I'm in New Zealand at the moment and have only somewhat irregular access to internet, which is the cause of my periodic outbursts interspersed by silent periods, I regret posting my last thing in a bit of a foul mood, the point of this talk page isn't evolution is is Noah's ark, and I allowed Karajou to lead my reply off topic. The point remains that there is no pro Noah's ark answer to the questions of DNA haplotypes. And now that Karajou has likely googled "DNA halotype" he will be unable to reconcile the statement that he originally made in response to that point.

"As to the mother's milk - and I did indicate this small tidbit from John Houston film - farmers milk cows and goats on a daily basis"

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)
::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?==

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)

Talk:Essay:Noah's Ark Was Real

2009-11-09T03:43:44Z

Jamesmackenzie: /* Quick Reply to Karajou */

Talk:Essay:Noah's Ark Was Real

2009-11-09T03:41:34Z

Jamesmackenzie: /* Quick Reply to Karajou */

I'm not sure what to make of this, is it a parody?

If not then how could the climatic conditions required for Arctic animals be maintained alongside those of desert dwelling species?

How can the geographic distribution of species and fossils be explained by all the animals disembarking from the ark at the location?

How could a vessel be large enough to hold the enormous number of animals it would take to preserve a minimum 2 of every species let alone be large enough to hold fodder for a year especially considering the highly specialized feeding requirements of many animals?

What about animals that have lifespans shorter than a year, but also require very specific conditions to be met in order to be able to reproduce? [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 14:28, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

:Keiko the killer whale (a cold-water species) was maintained for years in a Mexico City (hot environment) aquarium. Polar bears are exhibited in zoos located in temperate and hot locations around the world. Add to that a species of penguin found in the Galapagos Islands at the equator, when it should be near Antarctica.
:In the Bible, God tells Noah that "every sort of animal shall come to him" (Gen 6:20); if God can tell the animals to go to the ark, He can tell the animals where to go when leaving the ark.
:40,000 animals the size of sheep can fit into 167 railroad boxcars, which is roughly 30% of the capacity of the ark. Furthermore, you have to take into account that not every animal is full-grown when it's aboard; after all, how much space does a 30-foot anaconda take up versus a two-foot baby? Then there are birds and reptiles which could have been cared for while they were eggs; there's hibernation. [http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html] [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:02, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Galapagos penguins survive so far from the south pole because of two cold ocean currents that well up at the Galapagos islands making the water temperature much colder than would otherwise be expected for its latitude.
::40,000 sheep may be able to fit jammed into 167 railway boxes, but they cannot live there for a year and all their fodder for a year cannot fit either.
::How would hummingbirds (of which there are hundreds of species) have been supplied with enough food given the extremely specific nature of their dietary requirements, or koalas for that matter who require a huge amount of eucalyptus and only eucalyptus per day?
::How were parasites, viruses and pathogenic bacteria be prevented from totally overwhelming the animals on the ark given that the conditions would be ideal for their propagation?
::How were carnivorous animals kept fed for a whole year given the great number of prey animals it takes in the wild to support even a few large predators?
::It is strange that you feel the need to justify the story of the ark as if it were even remotely possible, but in the end you resort to explanations via magic anyway. If magic had to be used why didn't god just get rid of all the sinners in the blink of an eye? [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 07:39, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

== In answer to Mr. MacKenzie ==

Mr. MacKenzie:

Did you take the trouble to read the essay itself, or the [[Noah's Ark]] article? Your comments suggest to me that you have not. You overlook many key passages in which I answer every one of the objections you raised. With one possible exception: animals having life spans less than a year. I answer that those life spans were probably a good deal longer, before the altered state of the earth's atmosphere took their toll. Recall that the average life span of the descendants of Adam was about 900 years. After the [[Great Flood]], man's life span dropped ninety percent, and in a hurry. We must assume that the life spans of animals varied in similar proportion.

Where did [[User:Karajou]] resort to invoking miracles? For that matter, where did I? Did I not explicitly state that one must employ an economy of miracles, to go along with scientific parsimony as prescribed by [[William of Occam]]?

While I'm on the subject, you overlook one other thing. You assume that true randomness exists in a [[God]]-centered universe. It does not. Nothing, of whatever character, happens without God's direct authorization. We can guess how likely a thing might be, but if God wants to act out of the ordinary, such is within His capability and, more to the point, His authority. Hence if God wants to ruin a man for repeatedly testing Him, or testing "the fates" or "Lady Luck" or whatever he wants to call it, that's His prerogative, too. (And I've seen Him do it, too. Ask any [[Las Vegas]] gambler who doesn't know to quit while he's ahead.)

Nevertheless, you overlook still another thing: God gives explicit warnings, and equally explcit instructions, to certain people when and as He pleases. He did this in [[Noah]]'s case, again in [[Abraham]]'s case, and then in [[Moses]]'s case, in which He gave far more detailed instructions for an amazingly intricate building project: the [[Tabernacle]] and all its furnishings. And then there is [[Jesus Christ]] Himself, Whose very ministry was a miracle.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:22, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks for the reply.

:Can you substantiate the claim that humans and other animals lived longer life spans in the past? The bible obviously doesn’t count because its verisimilitude is highly questionable. I ask because the current scientific understanding at least as far as humans are concerned is that life expectancy has steadily increased with time rather than decreased.

:Anything that could not be repeated by humans using the same technology as was available at the time in question is a miracle/magic. All the animals moving to the ark and not killing each other as they assembled are certainly magical or miraculous.

:If true randomness cannot exist then how can free will exist? Also can you substantiate that this universe contains properties that might be associated with a god?

:As for my questions being answered I cannot find that in the essay or the article, particularly the parasite question and the point about specialised food supplies (koala bears). Also I’d like to add another question – If Noah and his family of 8 were the only human survivors then how come such a population bottleneck is not shown in human DNA evidence? [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 14:55, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

If you're going to dismiss the Bible ''a priori'', then we have nothing to discuss. ''You'' question the "verisimilitude" (I think you mean "veracity") of the Bible, but I do not. We address [[Biblical inerrancy]] in another article on this site, and I can also direct you to [http://creationwiki.org/Biblical_inerrancy this article] that discusses the subject in somewhat greater detail.

Let me take just one aspect of the issue: prerdictions of future events. For centuries, skeptics believed that the Book of Daniel, for example, must have been written long after [[Alexander the Great]] conquered the [[Middle East]]. Then in 1947, in the middle of the high drama surrounding the establishment of the Republic of [[Israel]], a small boy threw a rock into a cave near Qumran, and the rock's impact produced the sound of breaking pottery. The little boy checked it out, and then showed up in [[Jerusalem]] hawking what he found. These were the first of the [[Dead Sea Scrolls]]. Those scrolls include manuscripts of Daniel that clearly predate Alexander, and predict his conquest of the Holy Land exactly as it occurred. And Daniel isn't the only one.

There, by the way, is a modern miracle for you. The finding of those scrolls persuaded the [[United States]] to grant diplomatic recognition to the Republic of Israel, and made the difference between Jewish statehood and a Second Holocaust.

As I said, Daniel isn't the only one. Isaiah is another. And Isaiah predicted the most striking event of all: the ministry, death and resurrection of [[Jesus Christ]].

Any text that can get all these things absolutely right, four hundred years or more ahead of time (and against odds of ten thousand quinquagintillion to one, by the way), can certainly be trusted on other events that it recorded. Like the genealogy of Adam, and the tremendous average lifespans, and the genealogy of Shem and the tremendous decline in lifespan. And like the [[Great Flood]] and the plans of [[Noah's Ark]].

I have no trouble accepting the assembly of the animals. The same God Who gave [[Noah]] his instructions for building the [[Noah's Ark|Ark]] was certainly capable of assembling the menagerie that Noah would carry. Nor is that necessarily as difficult as you are attempting to portray. Are you assuming that the continents in Noah's day were distributed as they are today? They weren't. Initially they all fit together, like a gigantic jigsaw puzzle. The Flood got started with a hairline crack that appeared in this landmass and then went all the way through it. That crack persists as the Mid-Oceanic Ridge System. See [[Hydroplate Theory]] for some further details, and a link to an outside source that explains it in far greater detail than I have space to use here.

How can free will exist without randomness? Well, it can't. But that does not mean, by the way, that we need to accept the authority of any [[Barack Hussein Obama|one human being who is trying to pretend that he's God]]. It does mean that God not only knows what is going to happen well before it happens (and can give memoranda of instructions to whomever He chooses, whenever He chooses), but that He has ''decided ahead of time'' what is going to happen. Perhaps He has decided ahead of time to bring you to me, figuratively speaking, so that I may testify to you concerning His Existence, His Pre-eminence, and His Role in human affairs, ancient and modern.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 17:23, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks for the reply, I'll have a proper read of it tomorrow morning and answer you then, as for now, before I sleep I just wanted to say that I did indeed mean to write verisimilitude - a word which means "the appearance of truth or likelihood", so for something to have its verisimilitude lacking or questionable is not to have a lack of truth but to have a lack of a semblance of truth. [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 18:52, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

==My answers to your questions==
''Galapagos penguins survive so far from the south pole because of two cold ocean currents that well up at the Galapagos islands making the water temperature much colder than would otherwise be expected for its latitude.''
:Still the water there is a lot warmer than it would be around Antarctica, and these penguins have no problem with the hot conditions once they're out of the water.
''40,000 sheep may be able to fit jammed into 167 railway boxes, but they cannot live there for a year and all their fodder for a year cannot fit either.''
:I didn't say there were 40,000 sheep jammed in 167 boxcars, did I? What I stated was a matter of ''capacity'', and you seemed to also overlook the fact that I said this number of animals occupied 30% of the Ark's total capacity, leaving enough room for other animals, and fodder for a year.
''How would hummingbirds (of which there are hundreds of species) have been supplied with enough food given the extremely specific nature of their dietary requirements, or koalas for that matter who require a huge amount of eucalyptus and only eucalyptus per day?''
:Again, you missed what I said above, so I'll say it again. Baby birds come packaged in eggs. Baby reptiles come packaged in eggs. Baby mammals feed upon their mother's milk, and if they don't have a mom, someone is going to get milk from elsewhere and do the job. Any zookeeper or farmer knows that, and I find it strange that a self-professed scientist doesn't. Do baby koalas slurp on eucalyptus juice before they get their teeth in, or is it mother's milk?
''How were parasites, viruses and pathogenic bacteria be prevented from totally overwhelming the animals on the ark given that the conditions would be ideal for their propagation?''
:The conditions on earth during that period of time from the creation were just about perfect; viruses were virtually non-existent. As to parasites, even a monkey can pluck them from another monkey, or a tick bird can remove them from a cow; that kind of behavior has been observed and proven, IAW step one of the [[Scientific method]].
''How were carnivorous animals kept fed for a whole year given the great number of prey animals it takes in the wild to support even a few large predators?''
:Again, mother's milk. Didn't you see that displayed in the Noah's Ark segment of the John Houston film ''The Bible''?
''It is strange that you feel the need to justify the story of the ark as if it were even remotely possible, but in the end you resort to explanations via magic anyway. If magic had to be used why didn't god just get rid of all the sinners in the blink of an eye?''
:I never resorted to a ''magic'' explanation; that one is your's. And God doesn't just "get rid of all sinners" when He knows it's much better to give them an opportunity to come to repentance through Jesus Christ. You came here with the standpoint that God doesn't exist, so now I request that you prove beyond doubt on this page that God '''doesn't''' exist...and use the Scientific method when doing so. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:00, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

::Where does all this mother’s milk come from, either there are adults on the ark providing it, thereby mitigating your argument by infancy, or there is a huge stockpile of milk taking up yet more space on an already impossibly full ark leaving alone questions of spoilage! Also owt but milk for a whole year, really?

::The parasites I was specifically thinking of are the internal type that cannot be groomed off, but also must have been on the ark from the start.

::According to Christian doctrine god is omnipotent. He knows who will repent and who won’t depending on what warnings he gives therefore he can simply erase those who he knows will not fit into his criteria for survival.

::You know that I cannot prove beyond doubt that god doesn’t exist. However you should also know that I cannot prove that the Dagda and the Morrigan don’t exist and therefore the impossibility of proving the existence of anything does not prove its existence. You have however inspired me to write an essay on why I think my atheism is scientifically justified, I’ll send you a link when i get around to it.

::By the way, no hard feelings right? Just a bit of stimulating debate! [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 17:15, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

:::First, and most important, there are no hard feelings anywhere! As to the mother's milk - and I did indicate this small tidbit from John Houston film - farmers ''milk'' cows and goats on a daily basis. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:57, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

== General Reply to Jamesmackenzie ==

Two points dispose of all of Mr. MacKenzie's objections. First, there is no ''logical'' objection to the biblical account. It cannot be disproved. Let's be clear about that. It may not comport easily with someone's everyday experience 5000 years later, but the same could be said about many other facts in history also. There is simply no ''logical'' flaw in the account.

Second, the [[theory of evolution]] has even greater difficulties explaining how species survived massive flooding. No one credibly denies that worldwide flooding occurred; even today the world is over 70% covered with water, nearly all habitation occurs within 100 feet of sea level, and limestone deposits from water are found at all heights. Local, but massive, flooding occurs frequently and widely, with devastating affects. The theory of evolution does not have a more plausible explanation for how species survive this in the long run.

Put another way, if you think the saving of species from massive flooding was difficult with God's assistance, it is even more difficult without such assistance.

Finally, Mr. MacKenzie need not speculate about animal behavior 5000 years ago. Animals fled to high ground in the tsunami that devastated Indonesia merely 5 years ago. Mr. MacKenzie would likely claim (based on materialism) that such behavior is impossible or implausible, yet it undeniably occurred. No need to go back 5000 years; why not simply address behavior of 5 years ago that confound [[materialist]]s?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:21, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

:''"Two points dispose of all of Mr. MacKenzie's objections. First, there is no logical objection to the biblical account. It cannot be disproved. Let's be clear about that. It may not comport easily with someone's everyday experience 5000 years later, but the same could be said about many other facts in history also. There is simply no logical flaw in the account.”''

:There are indeed logical flaws in the story, and it can be disproved. The lack of a population bottleneck in humans from any time around when the flooding was supposed to take place is disproof of the story. The population bottleneck as described in the bible is not something that could hide; a population bottleneck of 8 individuals is extreme (the species would be classified moribund). In fact the extremity of the so called bottleneck is another logical flaw in the story, since a species requires a minimum population to remain viable (MVP(1)). The MVP for primates is estimated to be over 5,000 individuals accounting for inbreeding. Even ignoring inbreeding the MVP would still be around 1,000 individuals. That makes the most favourable (and somewhat unrealistic) estimate for minimum number of humans required for the species to survive as 125 times higher than what the bible claims we had.

:There are other logical flaws too, to name but a few: where did all this water come from? Where did all this water go to? If the world was flooded so recently then how come aquatic species are so localised and varied? Why did human lifetimes rapidly drop after the flood?

:''“Second, the theory of evolution has even greater difficulties explaining how species survived massive flooding. No one credibly denies that worldwide flooding occurred; even today the world is over 70% covered with water, nearly all habitation occurs within 100 feet of sea level, and limestone deposits from water are found at all heights. Local, but massive, flooding occurs frequently and widely, with devastating affects[sic]. The theory of evolution does not have a more plausible explanation for how species survive this in the long run.”''

:The world has indeed seen times of much higher sea levels, however it has never been totally submerged. Limestone deposits found at high altitude are more the consequence of isostatic action rather than eustatic action. During the times of high sea level the world would have been more like Indonesia and the Philippines, a global series of island chains and archipelagos, certainly extensive enough for terrestrial life to survive upon with some adaptation (island gigantism/island dwarfism, or terrestrial animals such as whales returning to the oceans).

:Also tsunamis aren’t really the same as long term flooding; the flood of a tsunami lasts days or weeks at most. It is certainly not difficult for animals from nearby lightly affected regions to rapidly colonise the tsunami hit area. However in the case of a tsunami it is also the case that not all animals will be killed even in the worst affected regions. These animals that do manage to survive will sometimes do so out of luck, but most will do so because they were stronger swimmers, or fast climbers etc. Then as the survivors repopulate the region they will pass on the traits that helped them survive the last tsunami to their offspring. In this way the gene pool of the animals that populate this region will have changed from how it was pre tsunami. Hence in this example evolution by natural selection has occurred!

:''"Put another way, if you think the saving of species from massive flooding was difficult with God's assistance, it is even more difficult without such assistance.”''

:I think you are making a chronological error here. Sea level change is gradual, and landmasses do not abruptly disappear into the sea. In fact the shrinking habitat, isolation of high ground from previously connected land and increased competition that will occur as a landmass is gradually overrun (over thousands of generations) by the ocean creates an exquisite set of conditions for evolution to occur in.
:As for humans previously having an extremely long lifetime, I’d like to specifically call that into question, especially given the fact that one of the justifications for the feasibility of the ark is that Noah lived hundreds of years and spent more than a modern lifetime constructing the ark. From a biological point of view the idea of historical humans living to the age of 900 is preposterous. There is a fairly consistent trend observable in archaeological evidence of human lifetimes lengthening over time. I’d be interested to hear about the remains of ancient humans that show signs of extremely (and unfeasibly even by modern standards) advanced age in their bones and teeth.

:(1)Minimum viable population – This is the threshold number of individuals required by a species to remain viable. It is defined as the point when the likelihood of extinction due to insufficient numbers of individuals remaining reaches 95%

:Also as an aside, whilst it is perfectly correct to spell Mackenzie a few different ways, including MacKenzie, I spell my name in the former manner. [[User:jamesmackenzie|James Mackenzie]] 21:37, 1 November 2009 (EST)

::Your reply is extremely verbose, but identifies no logical flaw in the biblical account. All of Christianity, and historically all of evolution, are based on one Adam and Eve. Evolutionists have recently changed their story, but not due to any logical difficulty with a beginning of only a few. There is no problem with Noah et al. populating the world post-Flood. Indeed, the population size of today is compatible with a small number about 5000 years ago.

::There is no shortage of flood water. If Earth were merely slightly flatter than today, then 99% of current inhabitants would be under water without the need for one extra drop of water.

::Evolutionists cannot explain the survival of species over time any better than the Bible does. Living creatures settle near water. Water inevitably and surprisingly floods, killing the living species. This wipes out evolution. Adding intervention by God and an Ark is one logical explanation; evolutionists don't offer '''any''' alternative, let alone a logical one.

::Finally, you duck the undeniable point about tsunamis: animals flee to high ground just before it hits the shoreline. Ducking the point doesn't change the fact, which even liberal media like PBS have fully admitted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:08, 1 November 2009 (EST)

:::I’m not sure what to make of your response; it seems to me that you have missed the point of many of the things I wrote. I think you misunderstand the implications of population bottlenecks in humans. Our DNA contains a lot of information about our ancestral history, from which we can clearly see past population bottlenecks. For example the results of the mega eruption of (???) which reduced the human population to around 10,000 individuals are clearly visible in our DNA, it is like a giant red arrow on the human genome. However there is no such bottleneck visible for such a small population as described in the story of Noah’s ark, nor is there any population bottleneck at any time period even close to 5000 years ago. The implications of this are thus: either the story of Noah’s ark is not true or DNA is meaningless, and let me make this abundantly clear - we know DNA is not meaningless, the influence of DNA has been repeatedly displayed in experiments under scientific conditions.

:::I’m not sure what you mean by “''and historically all of evolution, are based on one Adam and Eve. Evolutionists have recently changed their story, but not due to any logical difficulty with a beginning of only a few.''” so I will have to refrain from attempting an answer.

:::I will again assert that there is a problem with 8 closely related individuals repopulating the world, in my last post I explained how this cannot be the case using the science of MVP which you have yet to respond to with anything other than complete dismissal. In any case I shall add to why the world wasn’t repopulated by such a few with DNA haplotypes. I don’t know the exact specifications of Noah’s family, but it really makes little difference. Noah, his wife and his children together could amount a maximum of 1 Y DNA haplotype and 2 Mitochondrial DNA haplotypes (of which only 1 Mitochondrial DNA haplotype could survive the death of Noah). Even adding a few cousins and the like you will only be able to add a few more unique DNA haplotypes (even with the most liberal of predictions) to the list. This poses another insurmountable problem to the idea of the repopulation of the world at such a late date with so few people. There are many DNA haplotypes in the world today which fit on a family tree showing their relationship with each other. There is no way to reconcile the model of DNA haplotype descent that must be the case had the story of Noah’s ark been true with what can actually be observed. Unfortunately for advocates of Noah’s ark being a factual account, as with population bottlenecks, the family tree of DNA haplotypes can and has been verified as fact through the use of repeatable experimentation in scientific conditions. Furthermore the mutation rates of specific DNA haplotypes are predictable and known, and are totally at odds with the current diversity of DNA haplotypes descending from a very small amount as recently as 5000 years ago.

:::With your implication that if the world was flatter it could easily be covered by water, you seem to be ignoring the massive elephant in the room. For the world to become flat firstly there would need to be impossibly fast tectonic action so violent it would destroy everything on earth. Secondly you ignore the fact that should the world suddenly become flat the ensuing wave of water would obliterate everything in its path regardless of it being sheltered in a relatively flimsy ark. Thirdly the cause of the flooding according to the bible is rain, not tectonic action. Given the preceding absurdities I feel I scarcely need to assert the fact that there is no evidence of any such tectonic action occurring in the past and indeed much geological evidence suggesting it didn’t.

:::You say that evolution fails to account for the survival of species when confronted with flooding. Firstly you mistakenly assume that flooding has a 100% death rate for animals affected by it. You also mistakenly assume that flooding always affects 100% of a species range. You also assume that most ‘floods’ are much more rapid then in reality. As for animals retreating to high ground just before a tsunami hits the shoreline, I haven’t read anything about this and can offer little comment. However I expect that the vast majority of animals do not retreat like this but are ignored by the media in favour of the few that do. In any case since when has endorsement by the mass media ever been a measure of truth? [[User:jamesmackenzie|James Mackenzie]] 01:07, 5 November 2009 (EST)
::::James, first, it's obvious you didn't read the Biblical description of the Great Flood. What does Genesis 7:11 say? The "fountains of the great deep broken up" is tectonic action employed when a fault exposes an underground water source under pressure. And for the most part animals and people end up dead due to flooding, and how many fossils were ''not'' found in sedimentary (sedimentary means "water-laid") rocks? Second, you're restricting yourself to DNA haplotypes as written on a blackboard, yet refusing to see first-hand that living organisms can and do multiply very rapidly from a very few into thousands or more in a short period of time. Rats, mice, rabbits, salmon, sardines, pigeons, ants, and cockroaches do it. Want an example of a large animal doing it as well? Plains bison herds in the country number about 45,000; a century ago they numbered less than 100. Sounds like a traditional small gene pool to me. And third, evolutionists are always changing their story, and it's always going to be any story ''except'' Adam and Eve. What is it now? Some monkey named "Ardi"? Two years ago it was "Lucy"; before that it was another ''Australopithicus''; before that it was good'ol Piltdown; before that it was Darwin's face mounted to a chimp.
::::Honestly, James, we've been through this many times with many others in the past, and all you're doing is putting the same old spin on the same old story. It's been debunked thoroughly on every point; it fails the [[Scientific method]] because you can't even get past that first step; and from what I've read from the above, you're just accepting evolution and old-earth stories at face value without even trying to investigate at least ''one'' aspect of them to see whether or not it's even true. From where I stand, you have to prove it's true. So please, go ahead and do exactly that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:43, 5 November 2009 (EST)

::::James, your massive essay is unresponsive. If you don't know about animals fleeing to high ground ''before'' a tsunami hits the shoreline, then open your mind and learn about it first. Really, is that too much expect? Instead, you seem to take a position of [[deliberate ignorance]], and then go on trying to disparage it anyway. Even evolutionist sources (like PBS) admit that this phenomenon occurs, but lack any plausible materialistic explanation.

::::As to massive flooding, materialists don't explain the survival of species through historic flooding any better than the Bible does. So if you find the biblical explanation deficient, then by applying your same standard you'd find evolution even more deficient. Instead, you use unproven speculation upon speculation to try to salvage your theory, while giving the biblical theory none of the same benefits of the doubt. That's called a [[double standard]], an unattractive characteristic common to the [[liberal]] ideology.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 5 November 2009 (EST)

== Quick Reply to Karajou ==

You obviously have no idea what a DNA haplotype actually is, otherwise you would not have made such a nonsensical statement as ''"Second, you're restricting yourself to DNA haplotypes as written on a blackboard, yet refusing to see first-hand that living organisms can and do multiply very rapidly from a very few into thousands..."'' DNA haplotypes have nothing really to do with genetic viability of a small population expanding into a larger one.

And what's next? A nonsensical rant about Adam and Eve, Piltdown man (which has some suspicious links to anti evolution advocates) and Darwin's face on a chimp. It is clear that you are deeply confused about evolution, you think that Darwin's face on a chimp was an evolutionist idea? It was a cartoon by creationists intended to lampoon Darwin. You accuse me of accepting old-earth and evolution at face value, this is highly ironic since from your posts I can be reasonably sure that you do not come even close to understanding what evolution actually is. I'm frankly not surprised that you have gone though this many times before, and I’ll wager you will go through it many times again because the problem here is not with everyone else. It is your incomplete understanding that creates this cycle, a cycle that can only be broken if you actually investigated evolution from a pro evolution scientific position. But I imagine that this will never happen because I'd guess you aren't interested in the truth, rather you are probably trapped within an ‘us and them’ mentality that can never allow you to explore the possibly that the position you hold is untenable.

Please prove me wrong, explain to me in simple terms what the theory of evolution entails and if you do a reasonable job of it I will concede the point to you. Also could you tell me when DNA haplotypes have been debunked or when population bottlenecks have been debunked? I suspect what you when you say debunked is actually ignored or dismissed with no justification.

I don't like having to make such a negative reply, whilst I disagree on many levels with Andy and others I have been debating with on this page none of their replies have made me angry, whist yours has me frustrated at the ludicrous way you have responded to my points without even knowing what they are. [[User:jamesmackenzie|James Mackenzie]] 16:16, 5 November 2009 (EST)

:Two things, JamesMackenzie: First, I did investigate evolution, I know full-well what evolution consists of; I know it's a claimed "change over time" scenario; and I know full-well that evolutionists such as yourself have no intention of backing those claims up with absolute proof. I and others on this site are fed up with being given a the "hearsay" argument by evolutionists, and ''hearsay'' is all they got. Second, when directed to provide proof of evolution ''as per the Scientific Method'', you back down and turn your reply into the rant that is here. It is you who is ignoring the debunked evidence.
:So, when directed to prove it, you demonstrated an attitude problem. I think you need to edit somewhere else. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:42, 5 November 2009 (EST)
::Just a quick note, you seem to have misunderstood the scientific method. The aim is not to 'prove' the theory of evolution, this, as with all general theories, is logically impossible. Science operates by trying to falsify theories. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 16:45, 5 November 2009 (EST)
:::Oh yes, the process of falsification. And if evolution is falsified, then what's the problem? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:49, 5 November 2009 (EST)
::::Before I get bogged down in explaining the fundamentals of the scientific method all over again, may I suggest you read in more detail what it is and how it works. The article on this site actually has some rather good details on this. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 17:03, 5 November 2009 (EST)
:::::DWiggins, if you look at the history of that article, you'll discover the fact that I wrote it...[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_method&diff=188946&oldid=168951] :) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:06, 5 November 2009 (EST)
With all due respect, I would not consider 3 edits out of around 100 to in anyway constitute a claim to having 'wrote it'. I said ''some'' rather good details, insofar as it gives a reasonable overview of the scientific method but is rather clumsy in addressing more specific aspects, omitting several key points. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 18:28, 5 November 2009 (EST)
:[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_method&diff=367588&oldid=168951 That's] a pretty big contribution. -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 18:38, 5 November 2009 (EST)

James, your own postings are extremely verbose with little on topic and yet ... you accuse Karajou of a "rant"??? This talk page is your criticism of the biblical explanation of survival by mammals of a massive flood. Do you think evolution has a better explanation of how mammals could survive a massive flood? I'd love to hear it if you have one. I don't think anyone denies that all of the inhabitable earth has been flooded.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 5 November 2009 (EST)

Arguments don't go away when you call them verbose.

1. He wasn't saying that small populations don't become larger over time. That's the story of human history, but a small family with nothing other than stone tools would be fighting an enormous struggle just to survive until tomorrow and maybe raise and sustain enough children to replace those who have died. They would all live together. Disease would strike and spread fast. Up until the Renaissance, one out of every three children died before they were five, and that was within societies that had some degree of agricultural development, trade, and infrastructure. A small clan left to nothing but their own strength cannot possibly create, feed, and keep alive enough offspring to grow the population.

That's what happened when the Spanish deported the people of Rapa Nui as slaves. Passed a certain point, the population does not recover.

2. Evolution is not a theory about the Great Flood. You don't disprove it because it doesn't address the Great Flood. That's like saying the Bible is false because it doesn't talk about atoms, photons, DNA, or redox reactions.

3. There is nothing you could tweak in the atmosphere that would make people live to be 900. Changing or adding anything other than oxygen and maybe some nitrogen would be lethal, and oxygen can only increase so much before it becomes toxic. The basic nature of life in general is that it does not last nine hundred years.

4. About the Running From a Tsunami thing - There is a completely naturalistic way to explain this. The animals hear the infrasound produced by the wave rolling in and run away. The animals that can't hear infrasound get spooked and run too. Regardless, nature is infinitely more complex than the human mind can possibly understand. Just because you can't tell me why the animals run doesn't mean it's magic.

5. About the Milk thing - Infant animals are small and able to sustain themselves on milk, but where does the milk come from? Saying they lived off milk is saying they weren't infants since milk is produced only by adults. So did they pack the milk in the ark? If they did, where did it come from?

6. If the water came from under the earth's crust, wouldn't it have been steam? What have you seen coming out of the mantle that isn't scalding? Is there any evidence that such a split happened, or is it just a semi-plausible explanation for something you already made up your mind to believe?

7. Limestone takes time to form. The flood would've had to last for hundreds of years (or longer) in order to build up the global layer of rock. The more likely explanation is that, at one point in geologic time or another, all land was underwater. The limestone formed there and was transported above sea level by the normal processes of the earth.

[[User:DanPugachev|DanPugachev]] 19:06, 7 November 2009 (EST)

: Dan, logic is concise, while running from logic takes many words. The biblical account is perfectly logical. You can't identify a logical flaw in it.

: You have free will to reject logic. But if you reject it, then lots of new questions are raised about your substitute. Massive flooding undoubtedly occurred. How do you think mammals survived it? Evolution does not have a plausible, detailed explanation.

: Most evolutionists run from [[Counterexamples to evolution|facts that disprove their theory]], just as animals run to high ground before a tsunami hits shore. No, that isn't random running from being "spooked" by some mysterious ultrasound, any more than chickens ''randomly'' return from distant places at the exact same point of nightfall each day, and jump into their chicken coop in the exact same order. I know, you never heard that about chickens either. There's much an evolutionist has "never heard of." I urge to you open your mind and let logic in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 7 November 2009 (EST)
::In answer to his #6, he's implying that water underground is steamy-hot, as well as a figment of my imagination. If he'd pay more attention to geology - specifically the geology of the Great Plains - he'd probably find mention of the Ogalalla Aquifer [http://www.npwd.org/Ogallala.htm], which is a remnant of the "waters of the great deep" bursting forth in Genesis. In answer to his #5, I stated that twice above, but apparently he forgets that ''people get milk from cows''. That's ''cows'', Dan; it means you tie Bessie to the hitching post, grab a small stool, and sit for an hour filling a wooden bucket. It's where milk came from in the days before people went Krogering. Remember, Andy, that these people expect and demand that we accept whatever explanation science has to offer - and that's ''any explanation except the Bible''. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:55, 8 November 2009 (EST)

:::First off, it's not some mysterious ultrasound. It's infrasound, and it's completely different. It is emitted by tsunami waves and is very well documented as causing signs of discomfort and fear in animals and even human beings, though we cannot consciously detect it. So why do the chickens return? It isn't some combination of sense of smell, homing using the sun, and possibly detecting the earth's magnetic field (which many birds do)? Is it the hand of God, who somehow forgot to warn the people about the tsunami? It's just the animals? Stories about animals being impressive do not disprove evolution in any way.

:::Evolution does not explain it because evolution is not a theory about surviving a flood that may or may not have occurred. Outside of the Biblical story, can anyone produce a single piece of physical and indisputable evidence? Karajou, you'd call any massive aquifer a remnant of the great flood, when it is perfectly explainable that the Ogalalla formed from water moving down through the soil and into the water table when the North American glaciers melted. If it resulted from a massive flood, wouldn't you expect to see aquifers like the Ogalalla (which, yes, I have heard of) all over the world? There aren't. And if the flood happened, as it was asserted earlier, when a fault broke Pangaea apart in a process like the seafloor spreading we see today, anything that would be released would come from the mantle as steam or superheated water that would boil on the surface. [[User:DanPugachev|DanPugachev]] 12:36, 8 November 2009 (EST)
::::Indisputable evidence for the Great Flood:
:::::Fossils, of which more than 99.9% of them were found in sedimentary ("water-laid") rock. They are usually intact, and deposited as if they died in agony. ''Step 1 of the Scientific Method in this case:'' observe the burial and fossiliztion of an animal. Cannot be done due to weather conditions and biological influences (scavengers) which tend to destroy the carcass and scatter the remains (note...that fact alone is ''observable, iaw Step 1'').
:::::Footprints, which were deposited ''when the ground was wet and muddy''. Footprints include ''raindrops''[http://www.twoguysfossils.com/dino3.htm]. The traditional explanation from science is that they harden into rock over the course of millenia just by sitting there, as if no one ever heard of the first rainstorm to come along and wash them away. ''Step 1 of the Scientific Method in this case:'' Make a track and fossilize it under the natural conditions described by science and see what happens.
:::::Folded layers of rock, which cannot fold unless they are first wet layers of mud. There is an "S"-curve in the rock in this image[http://www.purchon.com/ecology/images/folds.jpg], which didn't get that way if it was ordinary dry rock. This is indicative of differing types of sediment depositing in layers, then something violent happening to cause these layers to bend before they harden. ''Experiment:'' try setting down several layers of flat slate or similar hard rock, ''then bend the whole without breaking it''. Then do the same with wet layers of clay.
:::::Oral traditions, which are found world-wide in every language and every culture; it is a preservation of a single event. In more than 70% of these traditions, the following are present: global flood; large boat or raft; less than ten survivors; carrying away of a large number of animals; landing on or near a mountain range; sacrificial offering to the gods. ''Science'' in this case, needs to dismiss this as simple ''folk tales'' [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:08, 8 November 2009 (EST)

I'm in New Zealand at the moment and have only somewhat irregular access to internet, which is the cause of my periodic outbursts interspersed by silent periods, I regret posting my last thing in a bit of a foul mood, the point of this talk page isn't evolution is is Noah's ark, and I allowed Karajou to lead my reply off topic. The point remains that there is no pro Noah's ark answer to the questions of DNA haplotypes.

"As to the mother's milk - and I did indicate this small tidbit from John Houston film - farmers milk cows and goats on a daily basis"

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)

Talk:Essay:Noah's Ark Was Real

2009-11-05T21:18:14Z

Jamesmackenzie:

Talk:Essay:Noah's Ark Was Real

2009-11-05T06:09:11Z

Jamesmackenzie: /* General Reply to Jamesmackenzie */

Talk:Essay:Noah's Ark Was Real

2009-11-02T02:41:28Z

Jamesmackenzie: /* General Reply to Jamesmackenzie */

Talk:Essay:Noah's Ark Was Real

2009-11-02T02:40:38Z

Jamesmackenzie: /* General Reply to Aschlafly */

Talk:Essay:Noah's Ark Was Real

2009-10-29T22:52:17Z

Jamesmackenzie: /* In answer to Mr. MacKenzie */

Gaelic

2009-10-29T22:00:47Z

Jamesmackenzie:

[[Image:Maxgoidelic.jpg‎|thumb|right|300px|Goidelic languages at the zenith of their influence in the British Isles]]
'''Gaelic''' refers to three closely related modern [[Indo-European]] [[Celtic]] languages spoken in parts of the British Isles and northern Nova Scotia. [[Irish Gaelic]], usually known as ''Irish'' (or ''Gaelige'' in its own speech), is spoken on the island of [[Ireland]], Manx Gaelic on the [[Isle of Man]], and [[Scottish Gaelic]] (or ''Gaidhlig'') in the Western [[Highlands of Scotland]] and the [[Hebrides]]. Scottish Gaelic was at one stage the dominant (but never the only) language in [[Scotland]]. These three languages form the Goidelic (from ''goidel'' (Ir.)= an Irishman) group of [[Celtic]] languages, as opposed to the Brythonic group which comprises Welsh, Cornish and Breton. Gaelic has been in danger of becoming extinct in many of the traditional Gaelic speaking areas, but now a Gaelic renaissance has slowed this trend if not yet reversed it. In Ireland, for example, many or all road signs are written in Gaelic, and the language is taught in public schools.

==Further Readings==
*[http://www.ceantar.org/Dicts/MF2/index.html], Gaelic Dictionary.

[[Category:Celtic languages]]

Celt

2009-10-29T21:47:32Z

Jamesmackenzie: /* History */

The '''Celts''' are a people who have inhabited [[Europe]] since the early iron age. Whilst they were once the pre-eminent power in Europe conflicts against the Ancient Romans, migrating Germanic tribes and internecine warfare led to a loss of much of their influence. Today [[Celtic languages]] are still the primary spoken language along parts of the European [[Atlantic]] fringe.

The International Celtic Congress recognises the modern Celtic heartland to consist of [[Scotland]], The isle of Man, [[Ireland]] (north and south combined), [[Wales]], [[Cornwall]] and [[Brittany]]. Some regions where no significant numbers of Celtic language speakers remain are often considered Celtic including [[England]] and Galicia. Whilst it had been previously thought that invading Germanic peoples such as [[Saxons]] from the continent and [[vikings|Vikingr]] from Scandinavia had totally wiped out the Celts in eastern England, genetic studies now show that the replacement was merely cultural with the majority of DNA in England sharing much the same indigenous origins as that of the culturally Celtic portion of the British isles. <ref>Sykes, Bryan (2006), Blood of the Isles: Exploring the Genetic Roots of Our Tribal History, Bantam, ISBN 0593056523</ref>

==History==
[[Image:Extent200BC.jpg|thumb|right|300px|The height of Celtic power, 200BC]]

The origin of the Celts is currently disputed, genetic evidence suggests the Celts originated in south west [[France]] <ref>Oppenheimer, S. (2006) The Origins of the British: A Genetic Detective Story. Robinson Publishing.</ref> whilst cultural and some historical evidence suggests that the Celts originated in [[Switzerland]]. The Celts were never a single unified power but rather a collection of related tribes and kingdoms which, in the 3rd century BC, at their greatest spread covered vast swathes of Europe from the [[Black Sea]] to the Atlantic Ocean. Much of the early accounts of the Celts come from Hellenic sources as the Celts had little written language until the middle ages. Because the greatest contact between the Celts and [[Greeks]] was martial much of the early records are of such a nature and also of uncertain neutrality. One non military account of the early celts is from the latin writer Avienus who states that the Celts were famous seafarers who built vessels from leather rather than pine. <ref>Rankin, D. (1996) Celts and the classical world. Routledge.</ref>

The dominance of the Celts over Europe was gradually replaced by the rise of Rome and then finished on the continent by the great Germanic migrations that caused Rome's fall. Whilst the Celts in mainland Europe were in catastrophic decline the Insular Celts of the British isles were thriving. The Insular Celts were a major factor in the spread of Christianity in north west Europe during this time. During the middle ages the smaller Celtic kingdoms of the British Isles amalgamated into larger kingdoms, such as Rìoghachd na h-Alba which later became the kingdom of Scotland. Much of the history of the Celts at this time is occupied with internal conflict amongst rival Celtic Kingdoms and Clans and external conflict against Anglo-Saxons, Vikings and Normans.

The growth of the [[British Empire]] provided a vehicle for the spread of Celtic people to far flung regions of the world. The diaspora of Goidelic Celts was particularly large, due in large amount to the high proportion of Scots and Irish in the armies of the British Empire and also the catastrophic effects of the potato famines and the highland clearances on Goidelic regions of Britain. The majority of [[Australia|Australians]] and [[New Zealand|New Zealanders]] have Celtic roots. <ref>http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/bb8db737e2af84b8ca2571780015701e/636F496B2B943F12CA2573D200109DA9?opendocument</ref> Canada is another place that received a particularly large amount of Celtic immigration, mostly from Scotland, and at one time Scottish Gaelic was the third most prevalent language after English and French. Today Gaelic in [[Canada]] is much less important with only a few thousand speakers remaining, most of whom live on Cape Breton Island in Nova Scotia. Irish immigration to the [[USA]] also had an important impact on its history, and though migration of non Celtic peoples to the USA has always been much higher than in the antipodes, leading to a large dilution of Celtic blood, the cultural impact of the Irish on contemporary American culture and religion has been disproportionately large.

==Current Issues==

Important issues affecting Celts today include the preservation and expansion of their languages which are threatened by the global spread of English and also by greater autonomy in the Celtic nations. Whilst the [[United Kingdom]] and the Republic of Ireland are now becoming more and more aware of these issues, the situation is rather different in France where regional autonomy and indigenous languages are a politically sensitive subject.

==Pronunciation==

The name "Celt" and the adjective "Celtic" is correctly pronounced as if it began with ''K'' as there is no soft ''C'' sound in any Celtic language.

The Boston Celtics basketball team is named after the Celts, a loose reference to Boston's Irish association; the team name is always pronounced with a soft ''c,'' as if it were spelled "seltics"; the same applies the the [[Glasgow]] football team Celtic F.C.

==See also==
*[[Celtic languages]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:People]]
[[Category:culture]]
[[Category:Medieval History]]
[[Category: Ancient History]]

Celtic languages

2009-10-29T21:45:43Z

Jamesmackenzie: /* Insular Celtic languages */

The '''Celtic languages''' are a subgroup of the [[Indo-European languages|Indo-European]] language family. The language family is divided into two groups: The Continental Celtic languages (all of which are now extinct) and the Insular Celtic Languages.

==Continental Celtic languages==
Continental Celtic languages were once widespread throughout Europe with a range from northern [[Portugal]] in the west to central Anatolia in the east. However today all Continental Celtic languages are extinct, largely replaced by Germanic and Italic languages in West and Central Europe, Slavonic languages in the Balkans and Turkish in Anatolia. Not enough is known about many of the continental Celtic languages to precisely determine their relationships with each other.

'''Celtiberian''' (Extinct)

Celtiberian was spoken in northern [[Spain]] and shares some features with Insular Goidelic languages.

'''Gaulish''' (Extinct)

Gaulish was spoken in [[France]] as well parts of [[Belgium]], [[Switzerland]] and northern [[Italy]].

'''Lepontic''' (Extinct)

Lepontic was spoken in parts of [[Austria]] and northern Italy.

'''Noric''' (Extinct)

Noric was spoken in parts of Austria and [[Slovenia]].

'''Galatian''' (Extinct)

Galatian was spoken in the area around Ankara in Anatolia.

'''Lusitanian''' (Extinct) (uncertain affiliation)

Lusitanian was a language spoken in northern Portugal, it is uncertain whether it was truly a Celtic language at all.

==Insular Celtic languages==
The Insular Celtic languages originated in the British Isles and are further divided into Goidelic and Brythonic groups.

[[Image:Tree2.jpg‎|Political boundaries of North America]]

===Goidelic languages===

'''[[Scottish Gaelic|Gàidhlig/Scottish Gaelic]]'''

Gàidhlig was once the main language of [[Scotland]] and some far northern extremes of [[England]] although it never totally dominated the whole of Scotland. Today it is mainly limited to the north and west of the country. The main bastions of Gàidhlig are the western isles.

'''[[Irish language|Gaeilge/Irish]]'''

Gaeilge was at its height the dominant language throughout [[Ireland]] and parts of western Wales, since the 12th century it has been in decline and is now only truly spoken as a community language in relatively isolated parts of western Ireland.

'''[[Manx language|Gaelg/Manx]]'''

Gaelg is the Manx variety of Gaelic, it is closer to Gàidhlig than Gaeilge but has a distinct spelling system and a high proportion of Norse loanwords. The last native speaker died in 1974, but the language is currently undergoing a resurrection.

===Brythonic languages===

'''Cumbric''' (Extinct)

Cumbric is the extinct brythonic language of northern England and southern Scotland. The language was closely related to [[Welsh]]. In the south the language gradually gave way to Anglic and in the north to Gàidhlig. It is estimated that Cumbric went extinct some time around the 12th century.

'''[[Welsh language|Cymraeg/Welsh]]'''

Cymraeg is the official language of Wales, it is widely spoken in north Wales, particularly amongst the older and younger generations reflecting the fact that it is a language in revival. Cymraeg is also spoken in some areas in the Argentinian region of Patagonia. Of all Celtic languages Cymraeg has the largest number of first language speakers.

'''Brezhoneg/Breton'''

Brezhoneg is spoken in Brittany, particularly the western regions. Although Brezhoneg is spoken by people on the European continent it is not a Continental Celtic language as was once thought, but is actually an insular Celtic language closely related to Kernewek. Brezhoneg faces problems with ageing speakers and resistance to Brezhoneg education by the French central government.

'''[[Cornish language|Kernewek/Cornish]]'''

Kernewek was once the language of Cornwall, Devon, Somerset and Dorset. Anglo-saxon conquests pushed the language further and further west until Kernewek was spoken only west of the river Tamar. Later the English language continued the encroachment of Kernewek from the east until according to Richard Carew's Survey of Cornwall in 1602 the language was almost totally gone. Today there are no native speakers, but a few people are fluent speakers of Kernewek as a second language and interest in the language is increasing.

===Pictish language===

'''Pictish''' (Extinct)

Pictish is a little understood language that was spoken in East Scotland before being replaced by Gàidhlig, no consensus has been reached on exactly where it fits within the Celtic language group. Some linguists hold that Pictish is closely related to Gaulish whilst others claim it is a Brythonic language closely related to welsh. A likely explanation is that Pictish was most closely related to the Brythonic languages but had diverged from them early and still contained a higher influence from Continental Celtic languages.

==See also==
*[[Celt]]

[[Category:Celtic languages| ]]

Gaelic

2009-10-29T21:43:25Z

Jamesmackenzie:

[[Image:Maxgoidelic.jpg‎|thumb|right|300px|Goidelic languages at the zenith of their influence in the British Isles]]
'''Gaelic''' refers to three closely related modern [[Indo-European]] [[Celtic]] languages spoken on the islands [[Great Britain]] and [[Ireland]]. [[Irish Gaelic]], usually known as ''Irish'' (or ''Gaelige'' in its own speech), is spoken on the island of [[Ireland]], Manx Gaelic on the [[Isle of Man]], and [[Scottish Gaelic]] (or ''Gaidhlig'') in the Western [[Highlands of Scotland]] and the [[Hebrides]]. Scottish Gaelic was at one stage the dominant (but never the only) language in [[Scotland]]. These three languages form the Goidelic (from ''goidel'' (Ir.)= an Irishman) group of [[Celtic]] languages, as opposed to the Brythonic group which comprises Welsh, Cornish and Breton. Gaelic has been in danger of becoming extinct in many of the traditional Gaelic speaking areas, but now a Gaelic renaissance has slowed this trend if not yet reversed it. In Ireland, for example, many or all road signs are written in Gaelic, and the language is taught in public schools.

==Further Readings==
*[http://www.ceantar.org/Dicts/MF2/index.html], Gaelic Dictionary.

[[Category:Celtic languages]]

Talk:Essay:Noah's Ark Was Real

2009-10-29T21:15:50Z

Jamesmackenzie: /* My answers to your questions */

Talk:Essay:Noah's Ark Was Real

2009-10-29T18:55:14Z

Jamesmackenzie:

Talk:Crop circles

2009-10-29T18:17:20Z

Jamesmackenzie:

'''Stonehenge, geometric pattern.'''

[[Image:Ston.jpg]]

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 11:23, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:Joaquín, why did you revert my edits? "Crop circles" is not a proper noun, and as such should not be capitalized. A crop circle is not simply a "geometric pattern," otherwise any [[quilt]] would be a crop circle. I looked in those (''very'' poor) sources, and I couldn't find any claim that crop circles existed in the 13th century. The most shocking thing is that you continue to maintain that Stonehenge and Hadrian's wall are crop circles. Both are made of '''stone'''! And Hadrian's wall isn't even in a pattern, it's a line! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:06, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::Dan

::I wander why you removed the information about Stonehenge. It is now in the middle of an explanation as you can see in the talk page of that article. According to the theory (?) it is a geometrical pattern and consequently a "crop circle" (near a Myth?). Neither Jazzman831 nor you asked me about it before deleting. That is not the right way to collaborate. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:28, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Joaquin, what you had in the article didn't make one bit of sense. If there had been an explanation, a citation, that would have been different. The proper way to have added it would have been with all information in place, not some idea of adding that later. Does this not seem logical to you? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:09, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Joaquín, nice to see you have an interest in crop circles, I have lived in Wiltshire (the world capital for crop circles) and can tell you unconditionally they are man-made, in fact I have participated in making them myself. Eltjo Haselhoff is a guitarist and not really a reliable authority, I just think that your edit is a little too supportive of the unsubstantiated and frankly a bit mental alien theories. Why is Stonehenge linked to this article, that is a bit baffling since it has no connection with crop cirlces? [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 14:17, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Noah's Ark Was Real

2009-10-29T11:46:21Z

Jamesmackenzie:

Talk:Essay:Noah's Ark Was Real

2009-10-29T11:40:49Z

Jamesmackenzie:

Talk:Essay:Noah's Ark Was Real

2009-10-29T11:39:55Z

Jamesmackenzie:

Talk:Essay:Noah's Ark Was Real

2009-10-29T11:39:43Z

Jamesmackenzie:

Talk:Ignorance and disbelief

2009-10-28T20:12:13Z

Jamesmackenzie:

By using your own logic how can 55% of scientists who stand by unaided evolution be wrong? Also the 40% you quote is actually scientists who believe in evolution but also think god guided it. 5% of scientists disagree with evolution, if you read the source you quoted you must be aware of this, so either you purposely misquoted or you didn't even bother reading a source. Furthermore the category "scientist" includes people whose area of study is nothing to do with evolution. If you looked at a poll from biologists you would likely see results that support evolution even more.

Making further use of the source you so generously provided you can see that college graduates are almost 4 times as likely to support naturalistic evolution than people who lack a high school diploma. People with an income over $50,000 are more than twice as likely to believe in naturalistic evolution than people with an income under $20,000. [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 16:09, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Ignorance and disbelief

2009-10-28T20:09:41Z

Jamesmackenzie: Created page with 'By using your own logic how can 55% of scientists who stand by unaided evolution be wrong? Also the 40% you quote is actual scientists who believe in evolution but also think god...'

By using your own logic how can 55% of scientists who stand by unaided evolution be wrong? Also the 40% you quote is actual scientists who believe in evolution but also think god guided it. 5% of scientists disagree with evolution, if you read the source you quoted you must be aware of this, so either you purposely misquoted or you didn't even bother reading a source. Furthermore the category "scientist" includes people whose area of study is nothing to do with evolution. If you looked at a poll from biologists you would likely see results that support evolution even more.

Making further use of the source you so generously provided you can see that college graduates are almost 4 times as likely to support naturalistic evolution than people who lack a high school diploma. People with an income over $50,000 are more than twice as likely to believe in naturalistic evolution than people with an income under $20,000. [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 16:09, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Noah's Ark Was Real

2009-10-28T18:28:45Z

Jamesmackenzie: Created page with 'I'm not sure what to make of this, is it a parody? If not then how could the climatic conditions required for Arctic animals be maintained alongside those of desert dwelling sp...'

Scots language

2009-10-27T12:49:07Z

Jamesmackenzie: Redirected page to Scots

#REDIRECT [[Scots]]

Scots

2009-10-27T12:49:01Z

Jamesmackenzie:

==Scots (the people)==
The term '''Scots''' can refer to the people of [[Scotland]]. The Scottish are a [[Celt|Celtic]] people.

==Scots (the language)==
'''Scots''' is a language descended from Old English, it is spoken by up to 1,500,000 people in the Lowlands of Scotland and parts of Northern Ireland where it is known as Ulster Scots or Ullans.

Scots is part of the Anglic language group along with the closely related, and sometimes mutually intelligible, [[English]] language.

==External links==

* [http://www.scots-online.org/ Scots-online]
* [http://www.scotslanguage.com/ Scots Language Centre]
* [http://www.scotstext.org/ ScotsteXt] - books, poems and texts in Scots
* [http://www.scots-online.org/dictionary The Online Scots Dictionary]
* [http://www.dsl.ac.uk/dsl/ The Dictionary of the Scots Language]
* [http://sco.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Scots Wikipedia]<ref>As liberally biased as the English version [http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia]</ref>.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Scottish Languages]]
[[category:Germanic languages]]

Talk:Scots language

2009-10-26T00:02:20Z

Jamesmackenzie:

This information in this article is covered by the [[Scots]] page, also the grammar is bad. I suggest deletion as a superfluous article. [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 20:02, 25 October 2009 (EDT)

Scots

2009-10-25T23:02:48Z

Jamesmackenzie: punctuation

==Scots (the people)==
The term '''Scots''' can refer to the people of [[Scotland]]. The Scottish are a [[Celt|Celtic]] people.

==Scots the language==
'''Scots''' is a language descended from Old English, it is spoken by up to 1,500,000 people in the Lowlands of Scotland and parts of Northern Ireland where it is known as Ulster Scots or Ullans.

Scots is part of the Anglic language group along with the closely related, and sometimes mutually intelligible, [[English]] language.

* [http://www.scots-online.org/ Scots-online]
* [http://www.scotslanguage.com/ Scots Language Centre]
* [http://www.scotstext.org/ ScotsteXt] - books, poems and texts in Scots
* [http://www.scots-online.org/dictionary The Online Scots Dictionary]
* [http://www.dsl.ac.uk/dsl/ The Dictionary of the Scots Language]
* [http://sco.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Scots Wikipedia]<ref>As liberally biased as the English version [http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia]</ref>.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Scottish Languages]]
[[category:Germanic languages]]

Talk:Scots language

2009-10-25T23:02:08Z

Jamesmackenzie: delete this superfluous article?

This information in this article is covered by the [[Scots]] page, also the grammar is bad. I suggest deletion as a superfluous article.

Gaelic

2009-10-25T22:59:17Z

Jamesmackenzie:

'''Gaelic''' refers to three closely related modern [[Indo-European]] [[Celtic]] languages spoken on the islands [[Great Britain]] and [[Ireland]]. [[Irish Gaelic]], usually known as ''Irish'' (or ''Gaelige'' in its own speech), is spoken on the island of [[Ireland]], Manx Gaelic on the [[Isle of Man]], and [[Scottish Gaelic]] (or ''Gaidhlig'') in the Western [[Highlands of Scotland]] and the [[Hebrides]]. Scottish Gaelic was at one stage the dominant (but never the only) language in [[Scotland]]. These three languages form the Goidelic (from ''goidel'' (Ir.)= an Irishman) group of [[Celtic]] languages, as opposed to the Brythonic group which comprises Welsh, Cornish and Breton. Gaelic has been in danger of becoming extinct in many of the traditional Gaelic speaking areas, but now a Gaelic renaissance has slowed this trend if not yet reversed it. In Ireland, for example, many or all road signs are written in Gaelic, and the language is taught in public schools.

==Further Readings==
*[http://www.ceantar.org/Dicts/MF2/index.html], Gaelic Dictionary.

[[Category:Celtic languages]]

Scottish Gaelic

2009-10-25T22:58:28Z

Jamesmackenzie:

'''Gàidhlig''', or '''Scottish Gaelic''', is a language spoken primarily in [[Scotland]] but also in Cape Breton Island, [[Canada]]. The Distribution of Gàidhlig speakers in Scotland roughly matches the geographic Highlands region, indeed the Gàidhlig word ''Gàidhealtacht'' (Gaeldom in english) has become synonymous with the word Highlands when describing the region.

==Language Family==

Gàidhlig is a [[Celtic language]] most closely related to [[Irish language|Gaeilge]] and [[Manx language|Gaelg]], the Irish and Manx branches of the Goidelic language group. The full filiation of Gàidhlig is as follows:

*Indo-European
:*Celtic
::*Insular Celtic
:::*Goidelic
::::*Gàidhlig

==History==

It is currently no consensus on how long Gàidhlig has been spoken in Scotland, in some parts of Scotland Gàidhlig never gained total dominance, with Brythonic Pictish being replaced by Lowland Scots. Some historians have made a case for the continual presence of Goidelic peoples in western Scotland since the insular Celtic language diverged. This is currently the most compelling case is based on archaeological, linguistic, geographic and genetic evidence as opposed to mythological evidence that cannot be verified as having a factual basis. It is known and accepted that there has been a Gàidhlig presence in the western Highlands and Inner Hebrides since pre Roman times.<ref>Campbell, Ewan (2001). "Were the Scots Irish?". Antiquity 75: 285-92</ref>

In 400AD the kingdom of Dál Riata emerged in the western Highlands and began to aggressively expand, conquering land in Ulster and more pertinently Scotland where it spread the Goidelic language. Dál Riatan expansion was checked at around 600AD, but 200 years later Gaelic kings took control of Pictish kingdoms through marriage and merged the new acquisitions with Dál Riata to form ''Rìoghachd na h-Alba'' - the kingdom of Scotland. This kingdom was the platform by which Gàidhlig came to dominate Scottish language north of the river forth and also in the Southern Uplands.

After the year 1200AD Gàidhlig began to be superseded in the south by Lowland Scots but remained dominant in the Highland. This dominance in the Highlands began to slip during the Highland clearances when Gaelic culture was severely repressed. Today the language has a strong presence only in the Hebrides, though it is also present with smaller influence across most of the Highlands, isolated parts of the Southern Uplands and the city of Glasgow.

==Current status==

As of 2005 discrimination against Gàidhlig is beginning to be reversed with the language gaining official status in Scotland, as well as the foundation of an organisation (Bòrd na Gàidhlig) with the function of:

* promoting, and facilitating the promotion of the use and understanding of the Gaelic language, and Gaelic education and Gaelic culture.

*advising (either on request or when it thinks fit) the Scottish Ministers, public bodies and other persons exercising functions of a public nature on matters relating to the Gaelic language, Gaelic education and Gaelic culture.

*advising (on request) other persons on matters relating to the Gaelic language, Gaelic education and Gaelic culture.

*monitoring, and reporting to the Scottish Ministers on, the implementation of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages dated 5 November 1992 in relation to the Gaelic language.<ref>http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/acts2005/asp_20050007_en_1#1</ref>

In addition to the creation of ''Bòrd na Gàidhlig'', the Government of Scotland is introducing bilingual road signs through the Highlands and Islands regions of Scotland and encouraging Gàidhlig language lessons in schools, as well as founding Gàidhlig medium schools where Gàidhlig is the primary language of learning. Gàidhlig is now also a formal language of communication within the [[EU]], although this doesn't grant full recognition to Gàidhlig in the EU is is seen as a step on the way to potential official status for Gàidhlig.

In September 2008 the [[BBC]] launched a Gàidhlig television channel called BBC ALBA.

==The Language==

Originally Gàidhlig used the Ogham alphabet. Ogham script was designed to be carved onto things, traditionally the corners of stones, but in the absence of a corner a line could be cut into the medium to fulfil the role of the corner edge. Gàidhlig later adopted latin symbols, this alphabet called aibidil which is in use today has 18 characters (13 consonants and 5 vowels).

Historically Gàidhlig had 3 dialects Lowland Gaelic, Galwegian Gaelic and Highland Gaelic with only the latter surviving to the present day.

Ulster Irish is the most closely related language to Gàidhlig that remains in use today.

==See Also==
* [[Dòmhnall Ruadh Chorùna]]
* [[celt]]
* [[celtic languages]]

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Celtic languages]]
[[Category: Scottish Languages]]
[[Category:Scotland]]

Scots

2009-10-25T22:53:38Z

Jamesmackenzie:

==Scots (the people)==
The term '''Scots''' can refer to the people of [[Scotland]]. The Scottish are a [[Celt|Celtic]] people.

==Scots the language==
'''Scots''' is a language descended from Old English, it is spoken by up to 1,500,000 people in the Lowlands of Scotland and parts of Northern Ireland where it is known as Ulster Scots or Ullans.

Scots is part of the Anglic language group along with the closely related, and sometimes mutually intelligible [[English]] language.

* [http://www.scots-online.org/ Scots-online]
* [http://www.scotslanguage.com/ Scots Language Centre]
* [http://www.scotstext.org/ ScotsteXt] - books, poems and texts in Scots
* [http://www.scots-online.org/dictionary The Online Scots Dictionary]
* [http://www.dsl.ac.uk/dsl/ The Dictionary of the Scots Language]
* [http://sco.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Scots Wikipedia]<ref>As liberally biased as the English version [http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia]</ref>.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Scottish Languages]]
[[category:Germanic languages]]

User:Jamesmackenzie

2009-10-25T19:40:45Z

Jamesmackenzie:

==My favourite bible passage==

''Judges 1:19'' - And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley,

<blockquote><div style="text-decoration:blink"><big><big>'''[[Failure|because they had chariots of iron.]]'''</big></big></div></blockquote>

==About me==

I'm a 21 year old tri-national (NZL/AUS/GBR) student at the University of Plymouth. I have attended both private and state schools in Britain, state school in New Zealand and been home schooled in Australia.

==My beliefs==

I recognise that the world is approximately 4.5x109 years old, and that life very likely began with self replicating molecules about 3.5x109 years ago. I am a firm proponent of the theory of modern evolutionary synthesis.

==My politics==

My politics are a fusion of British/Antipodean Conservatism with Scientism and International Neo-Realism.

==What I'm working on==

[[Scottish Gaelic]]

[[Celt]]

[[Celtic languages]]

Quebec City

2009-10-25T17:44:23Z

Jamesmackenzie: grammar

'''Québec City''' is the second largest city and capital of the [[Canada|Canadian]] province [[Québec]]. The [[French]] explorer and leader [[Samuel de Champlain]] founded a settlement at Québec in 1608, although earlier settlements had been attempted, the first in 1535, although harsh winters and hostile natives prevented a city from flourishing. The fate of Canada was decided in Québec in 1763 during the [[Seven Years' War]] when the [[British]] army under General [[James Wolfe]] defeated the French general [[Louis-Joseph de Montcalm]] and took the city. France would later cede New France to Great Britain. The lack of a French threat decreased the need for the American colonies to depend on Great Britain for protection.

The City is unique in North America as the old part of the city is surrounded by city walls. A large hotel, the [[Chateau Frontenac]] over looks the narrowing of the [[Saint Lawrence River]] and the entire city. The city is well known for it's winter festival, The ''Carnaval de Québec'', held in february since 1894. Québec city celebrated it's 400th anniversary in 2008.

==Tourist Information==
*[http://www.quebec-travelguide.com/ Quebec Travel Guide]

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Canadian Cities and Towns]]
[[Category:Quebec]]
[[Category:Urban History]]
[[Category:Canadian History]]

Scottish Gaelic

2009-10-25T17:42:08Z

Jamesmackenzie:

Mother

2009-10-24T22:53:42Z

Jamesmackenzie:

A mother is the female [[parent]] of an organism. It is often implied, however, to refer to human parents, unless otherwise stated.

The [[Bible]] states that one must honor thy mother and thy father, meaning that you must respect your parents, indeed the bible prescribes death as the punishment for cursing ones mother.

[[Category:Family]]

Queen (band)

2009-10-24T22:49:11Z

Jamesmackenzie: moved comma

'''Queen''' was a [[British]] rock band composed of lead singer Freddie Mercury, guitarist Brian May, drummer Roger Taylor, and bassist John Deacon. They were active from 1970 until 1997. After Mercury's death due to bronchial pneumonia resulting from AIDS in 1991, the band released one more album - ''Made in Heaven'' (1995) based on unfinished material left by Mercury.<ref>http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/biography_story/338:294/1/Freddie_Mercury.htm</ref> Because of their distinctive sound, Queen is consistently ranked among the most successful and influential bands of all time.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4420308.stm</ref> Their hit songs include "Bohemian Rhapsody", "Killer Queen", "Another One Bites the Dust", "We are the Champions", "You're my Best Friend", "Somebody to Love", and "March of the Black Queen".

==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Bands]]

Talk:Celtic languages

2009-10-24T22:44:44Z

Jamesmackenzie: Created page with '==Needs pics== Please someone with image uploading powers to upload an image for this page. Image linked here - ~~~~'

==Needs pics==

Please someone with image uploading powers to upload an image for this page.

[[Conservapedia:Image_upload_requests#Celtic_languages|Image linked here]] - [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 18:44, 24 October 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Celt

2009-10-24T22:43:32Z

Jamesmackenzie:

==Re-written/merge==

I have re-written this article and expanded it to a position from where I can begin to expand it into a more thorough article over the next couple of weeks. If anyone is interested in helping to expand and invigorate this article and related ones please contact me here or through my talk page. I'm particularly interested in uploading some pictures, so I would be grateful for some help from someone who has the ability to do that. [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 11:46, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

This should probably be merged with the article [[Celts]]. --[[User:OscarJ|OscarJ]] 11:50, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Agreed, having two articles for the same thing seems a bit redundant, what is the procedure for this? Obviously I'd rather this article wasn't consigned to oblivion since I just typed it and intend to expand it further, but I also think its the better article of the two (though the title Celts is probably better than Celt).
:::::I've moved most of the content of the other article here and made it a redirect to this article. --[[User:OscarJ|OscarJ]] 14:12, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

==Needs pics==

Please someone with image uploading powers to upload an image for this page.

[[Conservapedia:Image_upload_requests#Celt|Image linked here]] - [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 18:43, 24 October 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Iceland

2009-10-24T22:38:12Z

Jamesmackenzie: Created page with '==Not the oldest continuously functioning parliament== The Icelandic parliament was disbanded from 1800 to 1845, the oldest continuously functioning parliament is the Tynwald in...'

==Not the oldest continuously functioning parliament==

The Icelandic parliament was disbanded from 1800 to 1845, the oldest continuously functioning parliament is the Tynwald in the Isle of Man. [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 18:38, 24 October 2009 (EDT)

Iceland

2009-10-24T22:34:33Z

Jamesmackenzie:

{{Country
|name =''Lýðveldið Ísland''
|map =Iceland rel 81.JPG
|map2 =Iceland location.png
|flag =Flag of Iceland.png
|arms =Arms of Iceland.png
|capital =Reykjavík
|capital-raw =
|government =Republic
|government-raw =
|language =Icelandic
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president =Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir
|pm-raw =
|area =39,600 sq mi
|pop =313,376
|pop-basis =2008
|gdp =$19.9 billion
|gdp-year =2007
|gdp-pc =$64,033
|currency =Icelandic króna
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''Iceland''' is an [[island]] [[nation]] situated in the [[North Atlantic]], between [[Britain]] and [[Greenland]]. The capital is [[Reykjavik]]. Uninhabited until the tenth century, it was colonized by [[Vikings]] - the [[Icelandic]] language is still remarkably similar to [[Old Norse]], far more so than its cognate languages [[Norwegian]], [[Swedish]] and [[Danish]].

Iceland enjoyed one of the highest standards of living during its financial bubble, but the worldwide [[Financial Crisis of 2008]] ruined the economy and bankrupted all its banks, leaving a gigantic national debt that will take many years to repay.

It has the oldest (though not continuously functioning) [[Parliament]]. It was traditionally ruled as part of Denmark until 1944, when it declared itself an independent republic. Iceland was occupied by British and American forces in 1940, following the German invasion of Denmark, to prevent its occupation by Germany.

==Geography==
Iceland is a volcanic island in the North Atlantic Ocean east of Greenland and immediately south of the Arctic Circle. It lies about 4,200 kilometers (2,600 mi.) from New York and 830 kilometers (520 mi.) from Scotland. About 79% of Iceland's land area, which is of recent volcanic origin, consists of glaciers, lakes, a mountainous lava desert (highest elevation 2,000 meters--6,590 ft.--above sea level), and other wasteland. About 28% of the land is used for grazing, and 1% is cultivated. The inhabited areas are on the coast, particularly in the southwest where about 60% of the population lives. Because of the Gulf Stream's moderating influence, the climate is characterized by damp, cool summers and relatively mild but windy winters. In Reykjavík, the average temperature is 11°C (52°F) in July and -1°C (30°F) in January.

Iceland's territory was augmented by the emergence of the island of [[Surtsey]] from beneath the waves in the years 1963-67, following submarine volcanic eruptions. The island is subject to erosion, and now occupies .54 square miles (1.4 km2), about half its area in 1967.
*Area: 103,000 sq. km. (39,600 sq. mi.); about the size of Virginia or slightly larger than Ireland.
*Cities: Capital--Reykjavík (pop. 117,898). Other towns--Kópavogur (28,665), Hafnarfjörður (24,895), Akureyri (17,278).
*Terrain: Rugged.
*Climate: Maritime temperate.
*Highest elevation: Hvannadalshnjúkur at Vatnajökull Glacier, at 2,110 meters (6,923 ft.).

==People==
Most Icelanders are descendants of Norwegian settlers and Celts from the British Isles, and the population is remarkably homogeneous. According to Icelandic Government statistics, 93% of the nation's inhabitants live in urban areas (localities with populations greater than 200) and about 60% live in the Reykjavík metropolitan area. Of the Nordic languages, the Icelandic language is closest to the Old Norse language and has remained relatively unchanged since the 12th century. About 91% of the population belongs to the state church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, or other Lutheran Churches. However, Iceland has complete religious liberty, and about 20 other religious congregations are present.

Most Icelandic surnames are based on patronymy, or the adoption of the father's first given name. For example, Magnus and Anna, children of a man named Pétur, would hold the surname Pétursson and Pétursdóttir, respectively. Magnus' children, in turn, would inherit the surname Magnusson, while Anna's children would claim their father's first given name as their surname. Women normally maintain their original surnames after marriage. This system of surnames is required by law, except for the descendants of those who had acquired family names before 1913. Most Icelanders, while reserved by nature, rarely call each other by their surnames, and even phone directories are based on first names. Because of its small size and relative homogeneity, Iceland holds all the characteristics of a very close-knit society.
*Population (January 1, 2008): 313,376.
*Annual growth rate (2007): 1.8%.
*Ethnic group: Relatively homogenous mixture of descendants of Norwegians and Celts.
*Religion: Evangelical Lutheran, 86%.
*Language: Icelandic.
*Education: Compulsory up to age 16. Attendance--99%. Literacy--99.9%.
*Health: Infant mortality rate (2001-2006 average)--2.4/1,000. Life expectancy (2006)--men 79.4 years, women 83 years.
*Work force (2007, 181,500): Commerce--32.4%; manufacturing--10.2%; fishing/fish processing--4.2%; construction--8.9%; transport and communications--6.3%; agriculture--3.4%; government, education, and health--27.3%; other services--7.1%. Unemployment (2007): 2.3%.

====Cultural Achievements====
The Sagas, almost all written between 1180 and 1300 A.D., remain Iceland's best-known literary accomplishment, and they have no surviving counterpart anywhere in the Nordic world. Based on Norwegian and Icelandic histories and genealogies, the Sagas present views of Nordic life and times up to 1100 A.D. The Saga writers sought to record their heroes' great achievements and to glorify the virtues of courage, pride, and honor, focusing in the later Sagas on early Icelandic settlers. The best-known Icelandic writer of the 20th century is the 1955 Nobel Prize winner Halldór Kiljan Laxness. The literacy rate is 99.9%, and literature and poetry are a legendary passion with the population. Per capita publication of books and magazines is the highest in the world.

Unlike its literature, Iceland's fine arts did not flourish until the 19th century because the population was small and scattered. Iceland's most famous painters are Ásgrímur Jónsson, Jón Stefánsson, and Jóhannes Kjarval, all of whom worked during the first half of the 20th century. The best-known modern sculptor, Ásmundur Sveinsson (1893-1982), drew his inspiration from Icelandic folklore and the Sagas for many of his works. Today, Kristján Jóhannsson is Iceland's most famous opera singer, while pop singer Björk and progressive rock band Sigur Rós are well known internationally.

==Government==
The president, elected to a 4-year term, has limited powers. When Iceland became a republic in 1944, the post of president was created to fill the void left by the Danish king. Although the president is popularly elected and has limited veto powers (he can force a public referendum on a proposed law by refusing to sign it--a power that has only once been exercised), the expectation is that the president should play the same limited role as a monarch in a traditional parliamentary system.

The prime minister and cabinet exercise most executive functions. The parliament is composed of 63 members, elected every 4 years unless it is dissolved sooner. Suffrage for presidential and parliamentary elections is universal for those 18 and older, and members of the parliament are elected on the basis of parties' proportional representation in six constituencies. The judiciary consists of the Supreme Court, district courts, and various special courts. The constitution protects the judiciary from infringement by the other two branches.

===Principal Government Officials===
*President--Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson
*Prime Minister--Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir
*Foreign Minister--Ingibjörg Sólrún Gísladóttir
*Minister of Finance--Árni M. Mathiesen
*Minister of Justice and Ecclesiastical Affairs--Björn Bjarnason
*Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries--Einar Kristinn Guðfinnson
*Minister of Communications--Kristján L. Möller
*Minister of Industry and Nordic Cooperation--Össur Skarphéðinsson
*Minister for the Environment--Þórunn Sveinbjarnardóttir
*Minister of Commerce--Björgvin G. Sigurðsson
*Minister of Health--Guðlaugur Þór Þórðarson
*Minister of Social Affairs--Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir
*Minister of Education, Science and Culture--Þorgerður Katrín Gunnarsdóttir
*Speaker of Althingi--Sturla Böðvarsson
*Ambassador to the U.S.--Albert Jónsson
*Ambassador to the UN--Hjálmar W. Hannesson
*Ambassador to NATO--Thorsteinn Ingólfsson
*Ambassador to the EU--Stefán Haukur Jóhannesson

===Political Conditions===
Iceland's current government coalition was formed after the May 2007 parliamentary elections by the conservative Independence Party (IP) and the center-left Social Democratic Alliance. The two parties hold a large majority in parliament, with 43 out of 63 seats.

The current government replaced a coalition of the Independence Party and the Progressive Party (PP) that had been in power since 1995. Longtime IP leader Davíð Oddsson was Prime Minister 1991-2004, making him the longest-serving prime minister in Europe (from 1991 to 1995, the IP was in coalition with the Social Democratic Party). IP Deputy Chair Geir Haarde succeeded Oddsson as party chair when the latter retired from politics in 2005. At the same time, Haarde took over as Foreign Minister, and on June 15, 2006 he became Prime Minister when the PP leader and Prime Minister Halldór Ásgrímsson also left the political scene. In May 2007 the Independence Party and the Social Democratic Alliance formed a new government after an abysmal showing by the Progressive Party. Geir Haarde continued as Prime Minister, and Ingibjörg Sólrún Gísladóttir, chairman of the Social Democratic Alliance took over as Foreign Minister.

The centrist agrarian Progressive Party has been a party to government for over 30 years in the past four decades. Its support dropped from 23% in the 1995 parliamentary election to 12% in 2007. The party has dealt with internal instability in the past few years, and power struggles have lead to frequent change in the party's leadership. Chairman Jón Sigurðsson stepped down after the 2007 elections and was replaced by Deputy Chairman Guðni Ágústsson.

Three left-wing parties--the Social Democratic Party, the People's Alliance, and the Women's List--formed an electoral coalition prior to the 1999 parliamentary election in the hope of mounting a credible challenge to the long-dominant Independence Party. But the dream of creating a united left coalition failed when disaffected leftists formed a new splinter party called the Left Green Movement, led by former deputy People's Alliance leader Steingrímur Sigfússon. With this defection, the left coalition won a disappointing 27% of the vote (17 seats) in the 1999 election, four percentage points below what the three parties had won running separately in 1995. Their 31% (20 seats) showing in 2003 recaptured this ground but did not suffice to topple the government. The Left Greens won a respectable 9% of the vote (5 seats) in 2003, but in the 2007 election they improved significantly, with 14% of the total vote (9 seats). Another new faction, the Liberal Party, won just over 7% (4 seats) in 2003 based on its strong opposition to the current fishing management system, and clung to roughly 6% in 2007.

Despite the poor electoral showing in 1999, the three left-wing parties decided to merge formally in 2000, creating a new party, the Social Democratic Alliance, led by Ingibjörg Sólrún Gísladóttir. The party has found it difficult to reconcile the widely varying foreign policy views of its members, which range from strong support for NATO membership to pacifism and a desire for neutrality.

Iceland's current President is Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, a former political science professor who led the far-left People's Alliance in 1987-95 and served as Finance Minister in 1988-91. Although Grímsson won office with only a 41% plurality in 1996, he was not challenged for re-election in 2000. He was re-elected again on June 26, 2004. In 2008 Grímsson was re-elected by default, as no other candidate declared their intention to run against him. Since no opposition candidate was declared, the presidential election scheduled for June 28 was cancelled. This follows a well-established tradition of giving deference to sitting presidents. Once in office, a president can generally count on serving as many terms as he or she likes, assuming good behavior. Reflecting the belief that the president is "above politics," presidential candidates run for election as individuals--since 1952, political parties have played no role in nominating or endorsing candidates. President Grímsson has occasionally drawn criticism that he breaches the bounds of presidential etiquette by being too outspoken on sensitive political issues.

===Foreign Relations===
Iceland maintains diplomatic and commercial relations with practically all nations, but its ties with other Nordic states, with the United States, and with the other NATO member states are particularly close. Icelanders remain especially proud of the role Iceland played in hosting the historic 1986 summit in Reykjavík between President Reagan and Soviet leader Gorbachev, which set the stage for the end of the Cold War.

Iceland has greatly increased its international profile since the early 1990s. Since the mid-1990s, Iceland has opened a number of missions overseas for a total of 22, including an embassy in Beijing, giving Iceland a diplomatic presence in all five permanent member countries of the UN Security Council. Not coincidentally, it has announced its candidacy to serve on the UN Security Council in 2009-2010. In the past few years, Iceland has also established missions to the Council of Europe in Strasbourg and to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Vienna. In 1998, it bolstered its delegation to NATO, assigning a permanent representative to the military committee for the first time ever.

Notwithstanding its status as an unarmed nation, Iceland has been eager to do its part to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security. One of the niches it is helping to fill is in civilian peacekeeping and crisis management. It took a significant step forward in this area in 2001 by launching its Icelandic Crisis Response Unit (ICRU). In setting up the ICRU, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs established a roster of over 100 experts in various occupations (police officers, nurses, doctors, lawyers, engineers, journalists, etc.) who will be specially trained and prepared to deploy to trouble spots abroad on short notice.

Peacekeeping has been a permanent item in the Icelandic state budget since 1994, and Iceland has been an active member of the UN Peacekeeping Committee since 1997. With the formal establishment of the ICRU, the government decided to increase the number of deployed peacekeepers to 50, though the timeline for that goal has shifted. The key emerging niche capability of the ICRU is airport administration following the successful management of the airport in Pristina, Kosovo, in 2003 and of the airport in Kabul, Afghanistan, in 2004-2005.

Icelanders have a strong emotional bond with the Baltic states, and Iceland prides itself on being the first country to have recognized these countries' claim for independence in 1991.

====Membership in International Organizations====
Iceland is a member of the following organizations: Arctic Council, Barents Euro-Arctic Council; Council of Baltic Sea States; Council of Europe; European Economic Area; European Free Trade Organization; EFTA Court; EFTA Surveillance Authority; North Atlantic Treaty Organization; Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; International Criminal Police Organization; International Council for the Exploration of the Sea; International Hydrographic Organization; International Maritime Satellite Organization; International Union for the Publication of Custom Tariffs; Nordic Council; North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission; North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization; the International Whaling Commission; and the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission.

It also is a member of the United Nations and most of its related organizations, specialized agencies, and commissions, including the International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization, World Tourism Organization, Food and Agricultural Organization, International Atomic Energy Agency, International Civil Aviation Organization, International Fund for Agricultural Development; Industrial Development Organization; International Labor Organization, International Maritime Organization, International Telecommunications Union, UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, Universal Postal Union, World Health Organization, and World Meteorological Organization; World Intellectual Property Organization; International Bank for Reconstruction and Development; International Development Association; International Finance Corporation Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency and International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes; UN Conference on Disarmament; Economic Commission for Europe; UN High Commissioner for Refugees; Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights; Commission of Human Rights; UN Conference on Trade and Development.

==Defense==
The U.S. and Iceland signed a bilateral agreement in 1951 stipulating that the U.S. would make arrangements for Iceland's defense on behalf of NATO and providing for basing rights for U.S. forces in Iceland. In March 2006 the U.S. announced it would continue to provide for Iceland's defense but without permanently basing forces in the country; Naval Air Station Keflavik closed in September 2006 after 55 years. The Government of Iceland expressed disappointment, and even opposition politicians opposed to the U.S. military presence criticized the manner of the closing, but bilateral discussions ensued to explore new ways of ensuring the country's security, with an emphasis on a "visible defense." Negotiations concluded with a Technical Agreement on base closure issues (e.g., facilities return, environmental cleanup, residual value) signed on September 29, 2006, and a "Joint Understanding" on future bilateral security cooperation (focusing on defending Iceland and the North Atlantic region against emerging threats such as terrorism and trafficking) signed by the Secretary of State, Prime Minister Haarde, and Foreign Minister Valgerdur Sverrisdóttir in Washington on October 11, 2006. The United States also cooperated with local officials to mitigate the impact of job losses at the Air Station, notably by encouraging U.S. investment in industry and tourism development in the Keflavík area. The Government of Iceland announced in spring 2007 that a large portion of the former base site would be converted into the university-level "Atlantic Center of Excellence" with operations commencing in fall 2007.

Cooperative activities in the context of the new agreements began almost immediately, with the arrival of the amphibious ship USS Wasp in Reykjavík on October 12, 2006 (the first U.S. Navy port visit since 2002) to demonstrate the Navy's rapid reaction capability and to support counterterrorism training by units of Iceland's Coast Guard and police. In November 2006 a U.S. Navy P-3 patrol aircraft arrived at Keflavík for joint search and rescue, disaster surveillance, and maritime interdiction training. Northern Viking 2007, a U.S.-led air defense exercise, took place in August 2007, and planning for subsequent joint endeavors is underway.

The 2008 budget for the Government of Iceland is the first in the country's history to include funding for defense ($8.2 million); the money is earmarked for support of cooperative defense activities, military exercises in Iceland, and maintenance of defense-related facilities. This funding is in addition to roughly $12 million in new expenditures for the operation of the Iceland Air Defense System radar sites, which the United States handed over to Iceland on August 15, 2007.

The Government of Iceland contributes financially to NATO's international overhead costs and recently has taken a more active role in NATO deliberations, planning, and peacekeeping. Iceland hosted the NATO Foreign Ministers' Meeting in Reykjavík in June 1987 and again in May 2002. Iceland hosted the NATO Military Committee in April 2007 and hosted the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in October 2007.

==Economy==
Traditionally marine products have accounted for the majority of Iceland's exports of goods, but for the first time ever, in 2008 aluminum exports will exceed marine product exports. Other important exports include ferro-silicon alloys, equipment and electronic machinery for fishing and fish processing, and pharmaceuticals. The vast majority of Iceland's exports go to the European Union (EU) and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries, followed by the United States and Japan. The U.S. is by far the largest foreign investor in Iceland. Iceland's relatively liberal trading policy was strengthened by accession to the European Economic Area in 1994 and by the Uruguay Round agreement, which also brought significantly improved market access for Iceland's exports, particularly seafood products. The agricultural sector, however, remains heavily subsidized and protected. Iceland became a full member of the European Free Trade Association in 1970 and entered into a free trade agreement with the European Community in 1973. Under the European Economic Area agreement, which took effect January 1, 1994, there is basically free cross-border movement of capital, labor, goods, and services between Iceland, EU, and EEA countries.
*GDP (2007): $19.9 billion.
*GDP growth rate (2005): 5.8%; (2006): 4.2%; (2007) 3.8%.
*Per capita GDP (2007): $64,033.
*Inflation rate (2007): 5.1%; (June 2008, 12-month change): 12.7%.
*Central government budget (2007): $6.3 billion; (projected 2008): $6.7 billion.
*Annual budget surplus (2006): 1.4% of GDP.
*Net central government debt (2007): 4.9% of GDP.
*Natural resources: Marine products, hydroelectric and geothermal power.
*Agriculture: Products--potatoes, tomatoes, cucumbers, carrots, roses, livestock.
*Industry: Types--aluminum smelting, fishing and fish processing technology, ferro-silicon alloy production, hydro and geothermal power, tourism, information technology.
*Trade: Exports of goods (2007)--$4.8 billion: marine products 41.8% industrial products 38.9%, agriculture 1.1%, and miscellaneous 18.2%. Partners--EEA 78.4% (Netherlands 21.3%, Germany 13.4%, U.K. 13.2%, Ireland 7.6%, Spain 4.6%, Norway 3.8%, Denmark 3.3%); U.S. 5.3% ($250 million); Japan 4.2%. Imports (2007)--$6.7 billion: industrial supplies 26.7%; capital goods, parts, accessories 21.5%; consumer goods 15.7%; transport equipment 20.5%; food and beverages 6.8%; fuels and lubricants 8%. Partners--EEA 64.6% (Germany 12.1%, Sweden 10%, Denmark 7.4%, Netherlands 5.6%, U.K. 5.4%, Norway 4.6%, Italy 3.4%); U.S. 13.5% ($208 million); China 5.1%; Japan 4.7%.

Iceland's economy was historically prone to inflation due to periods of rapid growth and its dependence on a few key export sectors, such as fish, which could fluctuate significantly in quantity and price from one year to the next. For example, inflation exceeded 43% in 1974 and 59% in 1980, before falling to 15% in 1987, and then rising to 30% in 1988, which resulted in devaluations of the krona. In the 1990s and continuing until 2006, Iceland experienced several years of strong economic growth, thanks to economic reforms, deregulation, and low inflation, averaging around 4%. The economy suffered a setback in spring 2006 when credit rating agencies and other international financial firms released a number of reports raising questions about the activities and stability of Iceland's major banks and the state of the Icelandic economy. These reports were widely covered in the international financial press, causing a marked drop in the value of shares listed on the Icelandic stock exchange and of the Icelandic krona. The market recovered as reforms were made in the banking sector. The financial sector was hit hard by the global credit crisis beginning in 2007. Although Icelandic banks had limited sub-prime mortgage market exposure, they were affected by the general lack of available capital. In the first six months of 2008, the Icelandic krona was devalued by 30% and inflation rose to nearly 12%. Because of Iceland's high current account deficit, high inflation, and high private sector debt levels, the global financial community and the foreign media closely monitored the situation. In turn, the Icelandic Government has carefully followed foreign confidence in the Icelandic economy because access to foreign capital, which Icelandic business people have used aggressively in overseas investments, is extremely important. Wealthy Icelanders have heavily invested in the retail and real estate markets in Denmark and the U.K. and telecom, pharmaceutical, banking, and financial sectors in Eastern Europe. Their success, beginning in the late 1990s, created for the first time a "super-rich" elite in Icelandic society.

Iceland has few proven mineral resources, but has abundant hydroelectric and geothermal energy resources. These clean energy sources provide for nearly 100% of electricity generation and home heating. Iceland's energy resources support power-intensive export industries, such as aluminum smelting. The Kárahnjúkar hydroelectric project is the largest single electrical station in the country, with capacity of 690 megawatts (mw). Other major hydroelectric stations include Búrfell (270 mw), Hrauneyjarfoss (210 mw), Sigalda (150 mw), and Blanda (150 mw). Iceland-based Nordural Aluminum is a wholly owned investment of Century Aluminum of Monterey, California. The plant employs more than 450 people and recently expanded its production capacity to 220,000 tons per year. A new smelter owned by Alcoa, another U.S.-owned aluminum company, began operations in June 2007 and will have a production capacity of 346,000 tons per year when fully operational. The Kárahnjúkar hydroelectric power plant, completed in early 2007, was built to provide power to the Alcoa smelter. Over $2 billion was invested to build the power plant and smelter, making the combined project the largest in Icelandic history.

Iceland has no railroads. Organized road building began about 1900 and has greatly expanded in the past decade. The current national road system connects most of the population centers along the coastal areas and consists of about 13,000 kilometers (8,125 mi.) of roads, of which about 4,800 kilometers (2,982 mi.) are paved. Regular air and sea service connects Reykjavík with the other main population centers.

==History==
Iceland was settled in the late 9th and early 10th centuries, principally by people of Norse origin. In 930 A.D., the ruling chiefs established a republican constitution and an assembly called the Althingi (Alþingi) the oldest parliament in the world. Iceland remained independent until 1262, when it entered into a treaty establishing a union with the Norwegian monarchy. Iceland passed to Denmark in the late 14th century when Norway and Denmark were united under the Danish crown.

In the early 19th century, national consciousness revived in Iceland. The Althingi had been abolished in 1800 but was reestablished in 1843 as a consultative assembly. In 1874, Denmark granted Iceland limited home rule, which was expanded in scope in 1904. The constitution, written in 1874, was revised in 1903, and a minister for Icelandic affairs, residing in Reykjavík, was made responsible to the Althingi. The Act of Union, a 1918 agreement with Denmark, recognized Iceland as a fully sovereign state united with Denmark under a common king. Iceland established its own flag, but Denmark continued to represent Icelandic foreign affairs and defense interests.

German occupation of Denmark in 1940 severed communications between Iceland and Denmark. Consequently, Iceland moved immediately to assume control over its own territorial waters and foreign affairs. In May 1940, British military forces occupied Iceland. In July 1941, responsibility for Iceland's defense passed to the United States. Following a plebiscite, Iceland formally became an independent republic on June 17, 1944. In October 1946, the Icelandic and U.S. Governments agreed to terminate U.S. responsibility for the defense of Iceland, but the United States retained certain rights at Keflavík. Iceland became a charter member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1949. After the outbreak of hostilities in Korea in 1950, and pursuant to the request of NATO military authorities, the United States and Iceland agreed that the United States should again make arrangements for Iceland's defense. A bilateral defense agreement signed on May 5, 1951, remains in force, even though the U.S. military forces are no longer permanently stationed in Iceland. Iceland is the only NATO country with no standing military of its own.

During the 2009 economic crisis, the then-current [[prime minister]] Geir Haarde stepped down, and [[lesbian]] Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir took control of the Icelandic parliament (or Althing). At the time she was the only "out" [[homosexual]] head of government, though she was not elected. However, she was recently re-elected by the Icelandic people, highlighting the radical left-leanings of this country and its culture.

{| style="width: 100%; background:transparent; border: 2px solid #000099;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1"
!colspan=2 style="width: 100%; text-align: center; background-color: #000088; color: white; "|'''Copyright Details'''
|-
!style="background-color: #000088; color:white;"|License:
|style=" background-color: none;"| This work is in the [[Public Domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the U.S. Code
|-
!style=" background-color: #000088; color:white;"|Source:
|style="background-color: none;border-top: 2px solid black"| File available from the {{{1|[[United States Federal Government]] [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3396.htm]}}}.
|}

[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:Nordic Countries]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:Islands]]

Queen (band)

2009-10-24T21:08:16Z

Jamesmackenzie:

'''Queen''' was a [[British]] rock band composed of lead singer Freddie Mercury, guitarist Brian May, drummer Roger Taylor, and bassist John Deacon. They were active from 1970 until 1997. After Mercury's death due to bronchial pneumonia resulting from AIDS in 1991 the band released one more album - ''Made in Heaven'' (1995), based on unfinished material left by Mercury.<ref>http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/biography_story/338:294/1/Freddie_Mercury.htm</ref> Because of their distinctive sound, Queen is consistently ranked among the most successful and influential bands of all time.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4420308.stm</ref> Their hit songs include "Bohemian Rhapsody", "Killer Queen", "Another One Bites the Dust", "We are the Champions", "You're my Best Friend", "Somebody to Love", and "March of the Black Queen".

==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Bands]]

Celt

2009-10-24T17:22:31Z

Jamesmackenzie:

The '''Celts''' are a people who have inhabited [[Europe]] since the early iron age. Whilst they were once the pre-eminent power in Europe conflicts against the Ancient Romans, migrating Germanic tribes and internecine warfare led to a loss of much of their influence. Today [[Celtic languages]] are still the primary spoken language along parts of the European [[Atlantic]] fringe.

The International Celtic Congress recognises the modern Celtic heartland to consist of [[Scotland]], The isle of Man, [[Ireland]] (north and south combined), [[Wales]], [[Cornwall]] and [[Brittany]]. Some regions where no significant numbers of Celtic language speakers remain are often considered Celtic including [[England]] and Galicia. Whilst it had been previously thought that invading Germanic peoples such as [[Saxons]] from the continent and [[vikings|Vikingr]] from Scandinavia had totally wiped out the Celts in eastern England, genetic studies now show that the replacement was merely cultural with the majority of DNA in England sharing much the same indigenous origins as that of the culturally Celtic portion of the British isles. <ref>Sykes, Bryan (2006), Blood of the Isles: Exploring the Genetic Roots of Our Tribal History, Bantam, ISBN 0593056523</ref>

==History==

The origin of the Celts is currently disputed, genetic evidence suggests the Celts originated in south west [[France]] <ref>Oppenheimer, S. (2006) The Origins of the British: A Genetic Detective Story. Robinson Publishing.</ref> whilst cultural and some historical evidence suggests that the Celts originated in [[Switzerland]]. The Celts were never a single unified power but rather a collection of related tribes and kingdoms which, in the 3rd century BC, at their greatest spread covered vast swathes of Europe from the [[Black Sea]] to the Atlantic Ocean. Much of the early accounts of the Celts come from Hellenic sources as the Celts had little written language until the middle ages. Because the greatest contact between the Celts and [[Greeks]] was martial much of the early records are of such a nature and also of uncertain neutrality. One non military account of the early celts is from the latin writer Avienus who states that the Celts were famous seafarers who built vessels from leather rather than pine. <ref>Rankin, D. (1996) Celts and the classical world. Routledge.</ref>

The dominance of the Celts over Europe was gradually replaced by the rise of Rome and then finished on the continent by the great Germanic migrations that caused Rome's fall. Whilst the Celts in mainland Europe were in catastrophic decline the Insular Celts of the British isles were thriving. The Insular Celts were a major factor in the spread of Christianity in north west Europe during this time. During the middle ages the smaller Celtic kingdoms of the British Isles amalgamated into larger kingdoms, such as Rìoghachd na h-Alba which later became the kingdom of Scotland. Much of the history of the Celts at this time is occupied with internal conflict amongst rival Celtic Kingdoms and Clans and external conflict against Anglo-Saxons, Vikings and Normans.

The growth of the [[British Empire]] provided a vehicle for the spread of Celtic people to far flung regions of the world. The diaspora of Goidelic Celts was particularly large, due in large amount to the high proportion of Scots and Irish in the armies of the British Empire and also the catastrophic effects of the potato famines and the highland clearances on Goidelic regions of Britain. The majority of [[Australia|Australians]] and [[New Zealand|New Zealanders]] have Celtic roots. <ref>http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/bb8db737e2af84b8ca2571780015701e/636F496B2B943F12CA2573D200109DA9?opendocument</ref> Canada is another place that received a particularly large amount of Celtic immigration, mostly from Scotland, and at one time Scottish Gaelic was the third most prevalent language after English and French. Today Gaelic in [[Canada]] is much less important with only a few thousand speakers remaining, most of whom live on Cape Breton Island in Nova Scotia. Irish immigration to the [[USA]] also had an important impact on its history, and though migration of non Celtic peoples to the USA has always been much higher than in the antipodes, leading to a large dilution of Celtic blood, the cultural impact of the Irish on contemporary American culture and religion has been disproportionately large.

==Current Issues==

Important issues affecting Celts today include the preservation and expansion of their languages which are threatened by the global spread of English and also by greater autonomy in the Celtic nations. Whilst the [[United Kingdom]] and the Republic of Ireland are now becoming more and more aware of these issues, the situation is rather different in France where regional autonomy and indigenous languages are a politically sensitive subject.

==Pronunciation==

The name "Celt" and the adjective "Celtic" is correctly pronounced as if it began with ''K'' as there is no soft ''C'' sound in any Celtic language.

The Boston Celtics basketball team is named after the Celts, a loose reference to Boston's Irish association; the team name is always pronounced with a soft ''c,'' as if it were spelled "seltics"; the same applies the the [[Glasgow]] football team Celtic F.C.

==See also==
*[[Celtic languages]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:People]]
[[Category:culture]]
[[Category:Medieval History]]
[[Category: Ancient History]]

User:Jamesmackenzie

2009-10-24T16:02:02Z

Jamesmackenzie:

==My favourite bible passage==

And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley,

<blockquote><div style="text-decoration:blink"><big><big>'''because they had chariots of iron.'''</big></big></div></blockquote>

==About me==

I'm a 21 year old tri-national (NZL/AUS/GBR) student at the University of Plymouth. I have attended both private and state schools in Britain, state school in New Zealand and been home schooled in Australia.

==My beliefs==

I recognise that the world is approximately 4.5x109 years old, and that life very likely began with self replicating molecules about 3.5x109 years ago. I am a firm proponent of the theory of modern evolutionary synthesis.

==My politics==

My politics are a fusion of British/Antipodean Conservatism with Scientism and International Neo-Realism.

==What I'm working on==

[[Scottish Gaelic]]

[[Celt]]

[[Celtic languages]]

Queen (band)

2009-10-14T19:57:13Z

Jamesmackenzie:

'''Queen''' is a [[British]] rock band composed of lead singer Freddie Mercury, guitarist Brian May, drummer Roger Taylor, and bassist John Deacon. They were active from 1970 until Mercury's death in 1991. Many of Queen's performances and songs are consistently ranked among the most successful and influential bands of all time.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4420308.stm</ref> Their hit songs include "Bohemian Rhapsody", "Killer Queen", "Another One Bites the Dust", "We are the Champions", "You're my Best Friend", "Somebody to Love", and "March of the Black Queen".

==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Bands]]
[[Category:Homosexuals]]

Crop circles

2009-10-11T21:37:14Z

Jamesmackenzie:

[[Image:MilkHillMegaJuliaB.jpg|right|350px|thumb|Milk Hill, Wiltshire in 2001. The crop cirlce measured more than 800 feet across and covered about five hectares. <ref>http://www.weirdwiltshire.co.uk/milkhill.html</ref>]]

'''Crop circles''' are geometric patterns which are created in fields, usually [[wheat]], [[grass]] or [[oat]]s fields.

{{cquote| It's only flattened corn...}}
::::::::: Doug Bower, 1991.

Some people believe crop circles have mysterious origins despite a lack of any supporting evidence, the astonishing circular [[symmetry]] of many crop circles have been cited by supporters of extra terrestrial influence in their creation. However it has been shown many times that circular symmetry and impressively straight lines can be achieved by using very simple items available to anyone. <ref>Ridley, Matt (August 2002). "Crop Circle Confession". Scientific American. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=00038B16-ED5F-1D29-97CA809EC588EEDF. Retrieved 2007-08-16.</ref> Crop circle enthusiasts are known as ''cereologists'' or ''croppies''. <ref> [http://www.skepdic.com/cropcirc.html crop "circle"] </ref> Cereologists maintain that they rigorously and scientifically study crop circles, however they are often without serious credentials and many have been proven wrong when they have claimed that certain crop circles are undeniably not the work of humans. <ref>Macnish, John (1993) "Cropcircle Apocalypse", Circlevision, ISBN 09522580 3X</ref> Doug Bower and Dave Chorley were the first to start making Crop circles in 1976. The original intention was to prank people and the secret was kept until 1991 when the pair admitted to the hoax in a British newspaper. <ref>Today, September 9, 1991</ref> Since gaining international publicity crop circles have been found around the world. Crop circles were central to the plot of the film signs, in which the crop circles were presented as being the work of aliens. Signs boosted the exposure of crop circles worldwide, but also fed the misconception of non human origins. To this day crop circles are at their most common and most sophisticated in England where the practice of making them began. Whilst crop circles cause a lot of damage to farmer's crops they also generate a good deal of tourist revenue, especially in areas such as [[Wiltshire]] which has a particularly large number of them every year.

== External links ==
*[http://www.circlemakers.org/circlemakers.html Circlemakers]
*[http://thecropcirclewebsite.50megs.com/page86.htm Reporting a Formation]

== References ==
<references/>

[[category:geometry]]
[[Category:Mythology]]

Crop circles

2009-10-11T21:32:01Z

Jamesmackenzie:

[[Image:MilkHillMegaJuliaB.jpg|right|350px]]

'''Crop circles''' are geometric patterns which are created in fields, usually [[wheat]], [[grass]] or [[oat]]s fields.

{{cquote| It's only flattened corn...}}
::::::::: Doug Bower, 1991.

Some people believe crop circles have mysterious origins despite a lack of any supporting evidence, the astonishing circular [[symmetry]] of many crop circles have been cited by supporters of extra terrestrial influence in their creation. However it has been shown many times that circular symmetry and impressively straight lines can be achieved by using very simple items available to anyone. <ref>Ridley, Matt (August 2002). "Crop Circle Confession". Scientific American. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=00038B16-ED5F-1D29-97CA809EC588EEDF. Retrieved 2007-08-16.</ref> Crop circle enthusiasts are known as ''cereologists'' or ''croppies''. <ref> [http://www.skepdic.com/cropcirc.html crop "circle"] </ref> Cereologists maintain that they rigorously and scientifically study crop circles, however they are often without serious credentials and many have been proven wrong when they have claimed that certain crop circles are undeniably not the work of humans. <ref>Macnish, John (1993) "Cropcircle Apocalypse", Circlevision, ISBN 09522580 3X</ref> Doug Bower and Dave Chorley were the first to start making Crop circles in 1976. The original intention was to prank people and the secret was kept until 1991 when the pair admitted to the hoax in a British newspaper. <ref>Today, September 9, 1991</ref> Since gaining international publicity crop circles have been found around the world. Crop circles were central to the plot of the film signs, in which the crop circles were presented as being the work of aliens. Signs boosted the exposure of crop circles worldwide, but also fed the misconception of non human origins. To this day crop circles are at their most common and most sophisticated in England where the practice of making them began. Whilst crop circles cause a lot of damage to farmer's crops they also generate a good deal of tourist revenue, especially in areas such as [[Wiltshire]] which has a particularly large number of them every year.

== External links ==
*[http://www.circlemakers.org/circlemakers.html Circlemakers]
*[http://thecropcirclewebsite.50megs.com/page86.htm Reporting a Formation]

== References ==
<references/>

[[category:geometry]]
[[Category:Mythology]]