Ark Park on opening day

Did you notice any racial mixture in Noah's family? Was Ham, or Ham's wife, dark?

If all the animals were docile at the time of boarding, as per all Ham/biblical accounts, then what need was there for cages? Or was Ham/Noah overly concerned about "kind" interbreeding? And I truly like Ham's most imaginative poop eliminator mechanism. I'm sure Noah incorporated such a device, he was such a bright fellow.

Phelps: “I suspect there is moisture getting under some of the laminated veneer on the side of the Ark. .... It has rained a lot here recently.”

I bet anything that one scene is straight out of Cecil B. Mille films like Cleopatra, Sodom and Gomorrah, and The Ten Commandments.

Owosso Harpist said: I bet anything that one scene is straight out of Cecil B. Mille films like Cleopatra, Sodom and Gomorrah, and The Ten Commandments.

Since the bow fin and stern projection would point the Ark into the waves, and since the Ark has no self-propulsion, it would be pushed by the wind and waves so that it would actually float in the same general direction as the wind and waves. That is, rather than being pushed through the waves by a motor or oars, the Ark would be carried along with the waves: This means that the leading edge of the Ark is actually the side with the large, rigid sail, which is why we have called this end the bow. The trailing end of the Ark would have the stern projection in the water to help catch the water and keep the Ark turned into the waves.

“SOLID WASTE REMOVAL “After mucking large animal stalls and scraping droppings from the small animal collection troughs, solid waste could have been placed into wheelbarrows and moved to a vertical conveyor system. Powered by an animal on a treadmill, this drive would dump the waste into a vertical shaft that opened to the sea.”

Matt Young said: Someone who actually knows might want to comment on this, which was just posted. They claim that, though the "Ark" has no means of propulsion, it will automatically turn into the waves.

Since the bow fin and stern projection would point the Ark into the waves, and since the Ark has no self-propulsion, it would be pushed by the wind and waves so that it would actually float in the same general direction as the wind and waves. That is, rather than being pushed through the waves by a motor or oars, the Ark would be carried along with the waves: This means that the leading edge of the Ark is actually the side with the large, rigid sail, which is why we have called this end the bow. The trailing end of the Ark would have the stern projection in the water to help catch the water and keep the Ark turned into the waves.

The wind and the waves do not always travel in the same direction, so exactly what is supposed to turn the "Ark" into the waves? Would it not have been just as good if it were a rectangular barge?

Matt Young said: Someone who actually knows might want to comment on this, which was just posted. They claim that, though the "Ark" has no means of propulsion, it will automatically turn into the waves.

Since the bow fin and stern projection would point the Ark into the waves, and since the Ark has no self-propulsion, it would be pushed by the wind and waves so that it would actually float in the same general direction as the wind and waves. That is, rather than being pushed through the waves by a motor or oars, the Ark would be carried along with the waves: This means that the leading edge of the Ark is actually the side with the large, rigid sail, which is why we have called this end the bow. The trailing end of the Ark would have the stern projection in the water to help catch the water and keep the Ark turned into the waves.

The wind and the waves do not always travel in the same direction, so exactly what is supposed to turn the "Ark" into the waves? Would it not have been just as good if it were a rectangular barge?

Boner's Ark?

The shape of Ham's ark is quite creative. I don't think the bible makes any reference to shape, and certainly no sail for wind power.
But this raises another question. Didn't the ark supposedly begin to float from point A, remained on the water for about one year, then landed at some other point B? If the earth were totally covered with water w/o any land in sight whatsoever, why did the ark remain in the local geographical location of A and B? Why didn't the ark drift polarwise, or east or west some great distance, carried by the wind/wave currents?

DavidK said: The shape of Ham's ark is quite creative. I don't think the bible makes any reference to shape, and certainly no sail for wind power. But this raises another question. Didn't the ark supposedly begin to float from point A, remained on the water for about one year, then landed at some other point B? If the earth were totally covered with water w/o any land in sight whatsoever, why did the ark remain in the local geographical location of A and B? Why didn't the ark drift polarwise, or east or west some great distance, carried by the wind/wave currents?

“SOLID WASTE REMOVAL “After mucking large animal stalls and scraping droppings from the small animal collection troughs, solid waste could have been placed into wheelbarrows and moved to a vertical conveyor system. Powered by an animal on a treadmill, this drive would dump the waste into a vertical shaft that opened to the sea.”

Channel 5 in Cincinnati revealed that over 4000 people had entered the facility by mid-day, and “Ark” employees estimated that the total attendance for the day would be approximately 6000.

I still say you could put all the "evidence" for the Genesis creation fairy tale and the rest of the Genesis crapola in an outhouse the size of phone booth and still have room for the crapper....just a shelf with the Bible open to Genesis next to the roll of TP.

But how was the food? Any well known fast food operations in this monstrosity?

Ships without propulsion will turn sideways...parallel to the waves.

The first, and probably most well known, use of the sea anchor is to aid vessels in heavy weather. A boat that is not kept bow- or stern-on to heavy seas can easily be rolled by the action of breaking waves. By attaching the sea anchor to a bridle running from bow to stern, the boat can be held at any angle relative to the wind. This is useful in sailboats in conditions too windy to use the sails to maintain a heading, and in motor vessels that are unable to make sufficient headway to maintain steerage.

Yes, a simple square barge would have been much stronger and safer. If this monstrosity was parallel to the waves--especially if it was also perpendicular to the wind-- it would roll catastrophically and turn turtle in short order. If it was parallel to the wind (what the big wind-vane end is supposed to accomplish), and perpendicular to the seas, then it would flex itself to pieces in even shorter order, being suspended between seas at bow and stern with the middle unsupported, alternating repeatedly with being supported in the middle with the ends hanging. And no possible solid keel running the full length.

Charley Horse said: Ships without propulsion will turn sideways...parallel to the waves.

Any ship that size and shape would immediately fall on its side without tons of ballast. All early sailing ships usually used rocks for ballast. Loading that much rock would be a Herculean
task. Oops is that a Roman mythtake.

TomS said:

DavidK said: The shape of Ham's ark is quite creative. I don't think the bible makes any reference to shape, and certainly no sail for wind power. But this raises another question. Didn't the ark supposedly begin to float from point A, remained on the water for about one year, then landed at some other point B? If the earth were totally covered with water w/o any land in sight whatsoever, why did the ark remain in the local geographical location of A and B? Why didn't the ark drift polarwise, or east or west some great distance, carried by the wind/wave currents?

The Bible doesn't say where the starting point was.

It looks cool. thanks for the pics. I was originally opposed to the creation museum but was wrong. it has brought such attention to YEC. it shows how people think. The Ark is also a great visual to make important points. All of us have ancestors on it.
A few points.
its an ark and i think the word means no more then the latter ark of the covenent. So it might of been square. I don't think it had a sterm or bow or any boatlike feature.
I think it would of stayed stationary by eddys in the water. this is needed because yEC should be arguing it was hugh great water flows in the water that laid the great sediment layers all over the planet. Indeed the mechanism to move everything. This was the separating continents. so the ark must be in a eddy of protection. Likewise the creatures of the sea need to be there too.
i note they have a picture in the back of noah with a beard.
Its likely men did not have facial hair as human hair was a reaction to being wet. Some think there was no rain before the flood. Anyways the people likely were not in the climate as much as after the flood.
Anytime one has seen a dinosaur skeleton one has seen a creature that died while people were on that floating thing. Its true.

“SOLID WASTE REMOVAL “After mucking large animal stalls and scraping droppings from the small animal collection troughs, solid waste could have been placed into wheelbarrows and moved to a vertical conveyor system. Powered by an animal on a treadmill, this drive would dump the waste into a vertical shaft that opened to the sea.”

Robert Byers said: It looks cool. thanks for the pics. I was originally opposed to the creation museum but was wrong. it has brought such attention to YEC. it shows how people think. The Ark is also a great visual to make important points. All of us have ancestors on it.

Robert Byers said: It looks cool...

You got to admit Robert is good at what he is doing. A pity his wisdom is wasted here, he'd be a valuable contributor to Uncommon Descent. Looks like they need some qualified help nowadays.

Matt Young said: Someone who actually knows might want to comment on this, which was just posted. They claim that, though the "Ark" has no means of propulsion, it will automatically turn into the waves.

Since the bow fin and stern projection would point the Ark into the waves, and since the Ark has no self-propulsion, it would be pushed by the wind and waves so that it would actually float in the same general direction as the wind and waves. That is, rather than being pushed through the waves by a motor or oars, the Ark would be carried along with the waves: This means that the leading edge of the Ark is actually the side with the large, rigid sail, which is why we have called this end the bow. The trailing end of the Ark would have the stern projection in the water to help catch the water and keep the Ark turned into the waves.

The wind and the waves do not always travel in the same direction, so exactly what is supposed to turn the "Ark" into the waves? Would it not have been just as good if it were a rectangular barge?

Mike Elzinga said:

Matt Young said: Someone who actually knows might want to comment on this, which was just posted. They claim that, though the "Ark" has no means of propulsion, it will automatically turn into the waves.

Since the bow fin and stern projection would point the Ark into the waves, and since the Ark has no self-propulsion, it would be pushed by the wind and waves so that it would actually float in the same general direction as the wind and waves. That is, rather than being pushed through the waves by a motor or oars, the Ark would be carried along with the waves: This means that the leading edge of the Ark is actually the side with the large, rigid sail, which is why we have called this end the bow. The trailing end of the Ark would have the stern projection in the water to help catch the water and keep the Ark turned into the waves.

The wind and the waves do not always travel in the same direction, so exactly what is supposed to turn the "Ark" into the waves? Would it not have been just as good if it were a rectangular barge?

These characters can't even get rudimentary technology right. This "ark replica" is essentially a rectangular box. Neither the "bow fin" nor the "stern projection" are large enough to put a sufficient torque on this box to turn it in any direction. Furthermore, why would anyone want this wooden box steer into the waves? That would suspend the box over a wave, allowing both ends to dangle; and then a bit later the box would be suspended between waves. There is no way that such a box would survive one or more bends before it would break in half. Its strength-to-weight ratio is so low that the box can't even support its own weight, let along be constantly bent and twisted. This box has an insufficient keel and no ballast; what would keep it from rolling over and over when hit broadside by a wave? To see how a box would behave in the waves, one can do a very simple experiment with a few items that float and have a large length-to-girth ratio. Such a shape will not steer into the wave but will instead orient itself broadside to the waves. And why do the genius "engineers" on Ken Ham's team of "experts" think the waves in the purported flood would be too small to batter this box to pieces? Not one of them has ever spent many, many hours on any kind of boat in a typhoon or in any kind of heavy weather on the oceans or on the Great Lakes. Any flood that is supposed to have formed the Grand Canyon, dug out the ocean basins, and built up the continents would destroy even a modern aircraft carrier or an ore boat. If we look at just the "canopy scenario" alone, that is 40 kg of TNT going off every second over every square meter of the Earth's surface for 40 days and nights; with the atmospheric temperature climbing to over 12,000 degrees Fahrenheit in less than a week. The atmospheric pressure would approach 900 atmospheres. Ken Ham has certainly found a market for his gullible marks in this country.

Owosso Harpist said:

“SOLID WASTE REMOVAL “After mucking large animal stalls and scraping droppings from the small animal collection troughs, solid waste could have been placed into wheelbarrows and moved to a vertical conveyor system. Powered by an animal on a treadmill, this drive would dump the waste into a vertical shaft that opened to the sea.”

Is there a ship out there that actually has such an option to deposit waste into the sea? Is it something Ham entirely made up to explain how did Noah get rid of all that animal waste without dealing with disease spreading throughout the ark?

Ron Okimoto said: What they should do is designate 1/8th of their ark to sheep and their food and put a couple thousand sheep in it and let the visitors walk through the place every day with only one caretaker (1/8th of the humans on the ark) trying to haul out the poop and feed and water the animals every day. The humane society likely would never let them house the animals in such crowded conditions for a year.

From the few pictures, is appears the Ark Park is exactly what I said it would be: a second AIG creation museum. For those who have been there, is that true? Besides the building, is there anything "new"?

The Ark Park may be the beginning of the end for Ham. How many creation museums saying the same thing do you think he can convince people to see? Although he will get quite a few first time patrons, how many will want to see the same thing over and over again? Since creation scientist are not cranking out huge quantities of ground breaking material, there is not much you can do to freshen up the same old story. He wants to expand the park to include more of the same type of diorama-like areas. Expanding is going to cost a fortune. Plus the added "attractions" will be the same material repackaged. On top of that, the Ark Park has got to have a fairly large amount of maintenance to keep it going.

I see plenty of red ink in Ham's future.

eric said:

Channel 5 in Cincinnati revealed that over 4000 people had entered the facility by mid-day, and “Ark” employees estimated that the total attendance for the day would be approximately 6000.

A very brief googling on amusement parks shows that's way below what they probably should be getting. King's Dominion, in NoVa, got >2 million in 2012, and it's probably not a first tier park. Ark Park is on track to get maybe a quarter of that attendance this summer. Way back when Ham was trying to convince Kentucky to give him tax rebates, he also claimed his park would get 1-2 million. Seems unlikely they'll make that, if their opening day is a mere 6,000. Kentucky, what were you thinking?

Ron Okimoto said: For mericans that is about 80,000 pounds of poop every day.

alicejohn said: I see plenty of red ink in Ham's future.

Paul Burnett said:

Ron Okimoto said: For mericans that is about 80,000 pounds of poop every day.

To oversimplify, 80,000 pounds of poop going out every day means 80,000 pounds of food going in every day. For a year's voyage, that's 29,200,000 pounds of food to store on the ark, implying a rather large storage space, which doesn't seem to appear in Ham's design.

Henry Skinner said:

alicejohn said: I see plenty of red ink in Ham's future.

Time for a sweepstake on when Ark Park will go bankrupt. My guess is 1 July 2017.

Henry Skinner said:

alicejohn said: I see plenty of red ink in Ham's future.

Time for a sweepstake on when Ark Park will go bankrupt. My guess is 1 July 2017.

Is tar with material jammed hammered into plank joins, good enough?

We have somebody mentioning big dowel like nails. That would take some drilling!

Remember building techniques for Christians and Bible believers, pose no real problem. A 'word' or swing of the "witch wand/magic wand/staff" would suffice.

TomS said:

Henry Skinner said:

alicejohn said: I see plenty of red ink in Ham's future.

Time for a sweepstake on when Ark Park will go bankrupt. My guess is 1 July 2017.

How about when it has to undergo repairs due to water? Roof repair, plumbing work, ....

SUPERFICIAL Biological DIFFERENCES People GROUPS Our superficial differences are merely the result of different combinations of features that humans have had since creation. The variety among different people groups could have occurred in a few generations in the small populations that split off from Babel. If Noah and his wife had middle brown skin, their children could have exhibited the whole range of skin tones from light to dark. Skin tone is governed by more than one gene. For simplicity, let's assume there are only two genes involved. Using a Punnett square, we can estimate the skin tones produced by a couple who both have middle brown skin and the genetic variability for light through dark skin.

Robert Byers said: It looks cool. I was originally opposed .. but was wrong. it has brought such attention to YEC. it shows how people think.

Henry Skinner said: Time for a sweepstake on when Ark Park will go bankrupt. My guess is 1 July 2017.

Henry Skinner said: Time for a sweepstake on when Ark Park will go bankrupt. My guess is 1 July 2017.

Paul Burnett said: ...that's 29,200,000 pounds of food to store on the ark...

Paul Burnett said:

Ron Okimoto said: For mericans that is about 80,000 pounds of poop every day.

To oversimplify, 80,000 pounds of poop going out every day means 80,000 pounds of food going in every day. For a year's voyage, that's 29,200,000 pounds of food to store on the ark, implying a rather large storage space, which doesn't seem to appear in Ham's design.

"In a misguided attempt to blend biblical teaching with the popular idea that the earth is millions of years old, some Christians have invented imaginative ways to reinterpret the Bible's creation account. However, every concept they have developed, such as the gap theory, progressive creationism, the framework hypothesis, and the day-age theory, is littered with problems."

Matt Young said: I think I have posted enough pictures, but Mr. Phelps has just sent me a poster on skin color. It reads

SUPERFICIAL Biological DIFFERENCES People GROUPS Our superficial differences are merely the result of different combinations of features that humans have had since creation. The variety among different people groups could have occurred in a few generations in the small populations that split off from Babel. If Noah and his wife had middle brown skin, their children could have exhibited the whole range of skin tones from light to dark. Skin tone is governed by more than one gene. For simplicity, let's assume there are only two genes involved. Using a Punnett square, we can estimate the skin tones produced by a couple who both have middle brown skin and the genetic variability for light through dark skin.

The Punnett square looks very scientific indeed and runs from AABB, dark brown, through aabb, light brown. The 22 faces portrayed are almost all European; one or two may be Asian, and if you stretch your imagination, one may be African, one may be Australian. The range of skin tones is, roughly, from Stockholm to Naples.

Robert Byers said: i don't agree with AIG here. First its not superficial. what is superficial in skin colour? Its very real in its biology and so has a mechanism behind it.

I don't agree the varities were from creation week and simply small groups somehow acquired the variety. how would that happen?

It shows YEC , like everyone, does have problems explaining human groups looks differences.

I say its from innate mechanisms that are triggered.

YEC is uncomfortable with mechanisms not already understood.

So its easy to say the spectrum was existing and tapped into. It must be more then[sic] that for people and animals. YEC must also do it without selection.

verne_julius1 said:

Henry Skinner said:

alicejohn said: I see plenty of red ink in Ham's future.

Time for a sweepstake on when Ark Park will go bankrupt. My guess is 1 July 2017.

Oh yeah! Going broke? I think that they will always get money even for one attendant to show people around! Unless the property taxes are over whelming! But, really the ARK shows a big misunderstanding of what it means for such a big wooden ship to be feasible, even these days. I think we are forgetting about huge Oars, a Rudder, and more "Se(a)men".

Robert Byers said: i note they have a picture in the back of noah with a beard. Its likely men did not have facial hair as human hair was a reaction to being wet. Some think there was no rain before the flood.

verne_julius1 said: Going broke? I think that they will always get money even for one attendant to show people around! Unless the property taxes are over whelming!

I have to admit that this is more pernicious than I realized, because they go to great effort to cloak their lunacy is something that could look like science. The point isn't to convince anyone, but just to use "plausibility" to put believing minds back to sleep every time they are tempted to notice that the story of Noah is completely ridiculous.

I have to admit that this is more pernicious than I realized, because of the effort taken to cloak YEC lunacy in something that could look like science if you weren't inclined to look too hard. The point isn't to convince anyone who wasn't brought up in this cult, but just to use "plausibility" to put believing minds back to sleep every time they are tempted to notice that the story of Noah is completely ridiculous.

PaulBC said: [snip] ...but just to use "plausibility" to put believing minds back to sleep every time they are tempted to notice that the story of Noah is completely ridiculous.

I like the diorama showing "sinfulness of the antediluvian period". It looks like an outtake from Star Trek (original series) but not particularly sinful. When I do a reverse Google image search it says "Best guess for this image: restaurant". Similar lighting, but no food being served. This is why God had to kill everyone?

PaulBC said: I like the diorama showing "sinfulness of the antediluvian period". It looks like an outtake from Star Trek (original series) but not particularly sinful. When I do a reverse Google image search it says "Best guess for this image: restaurant". Similar lighting, but no food being served. This is why God had to kill everyone?

PaulBC said: I like the diorama showing "sinfulness of the antediluvian period". It looks like an outtake from Star Trek (original series) but not particularly sinful. When I do a reverse Google image search it says "Best guess for this image: restaurant". Similar lighting, but no food being served. This is why God had to kill everyone?

Very interesting seeing the "Fossils and the Bible" board at the Ark Park. I say "interesting" because it directly contradicts the material AiG puts on their website.

Note how the "Fossils and the Bible" display shows the ark floating on water that's covering mountains. But wait....on AiG's website they say "today's mountains had not yet formed" as a way to explain marine fossils on mountaintops.

https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fossil-record/high-dry-sea-creatures/

Huh.

Apparently, there are no evangelical YEC Christian engineers!

Ham's Hole-in-a-Boat is a novel idea to be sure. The watertight design and pressure calculations would be interesting.

As for the Poop Lifter, according to Wiki that technology wasn't invented until a few centuries BC. The treadmill came along in 1818.

And who's that working 24/7 shoveling shit into little buckets? At 10 buckets per wheelbarrow (250 BC) the shit shoveler would soon be up to his eyeballs, literally, in Dung City.

However, "A" for effort, Hambo!

Check out Tracy Moody's videos and pics of the Opening Day!

Prepare to be underwhelmed!

Spoiler alert! Old Hambo gives Moody the cold shoulder rather than a warm embrace. I guess some sinners are more worth saving than others.

Robert Byers said: i note they have a picture in the back of noah with a beard. Its likely men did not have facial hair as human hair was a reaction to being wet. Some think there was no rain before the flood.

PaulBC said: I like the diorama showing "sinfulness of the antediluvian period". It looks like an outtake from Star Trek (original series) but not particularly sinful. When I do a reverse Google image search it says "Best guess for this image: restaurant". Similar lighting, but no food being served. This is why God had to kill everyone?

Doc Bill said: Check out Tracy Moody's videos and pics of the Opening Day!

stevaroni said:

Robert Byers said: i note they have a picture in the back of noah with a beard. Its likely men did not have facial hair as human hair was a reaction to being wet. Some think there was no rain before the flood.

Fascinating. Humans had no hair because there was no rain. Did animals have fur before the flood? More interestingly, with no rain did any rivers run before the flood? Did, for example, tree frogs lay leathery egs in dry orchids before the floods? Were there tree frogs and orchids or is that new? Was there snow, and if not how did the animals who are dependent on it live before the flood? I'm pretty familiar with the Bible, and I don't ever recalling a chapter in the Ark story that said "And lo, rain fell from the heavens, and the huddled masses, who until recently had been helping Noah build his boat, turned their faces to the skies and sayeth "Whoa! What the fuck is this stuff?". "Some think there was no rain before the flood"? Do creationists ever spend the tiniest iota of thought about the consequences fo the things they postulate?

stevaroni said:

PaulBC said: I like the diorama showing "sinfulness of the antediluvian period". It looks like an outtake from Star Trek (original series) but not particularly sinful. When I do a reverse Google image search it says "Best guess for this image: restaurant". Similar lighting, but no food being served. This is why God had to kill everyone?

They were eating bacon-wrapped shrimp. Had to go.

Robert Byers said: Its not certain but many read in the genesis account that it did not rain...

phhht said:

Robert Byers said: Its not certain but many read in the genesis account that it did not rain...

Bwahahaha! What loony delusional fantasy! You just make shit up, Robert Byers. You just hallucinate your personal reality, without the slightest evidence, without the slightest reason to believe what you say. You don't even have any biblical evidence for your ridiculous claims. You're a religious nut job, Robert Byers.

Robert Byers said: Its not certain but many read in the genesis account that it did not rain.

We are now covered in a fine hair everywhere, save palms etc, but it does no good. Its just a reaction to a trigger of the body noting it was getting wet.

Actually, I just googled some pictures and it turns out that leopard seals do have hair, but it doesn't seem to do them any good at keeping them dry.

So I'll spot you a leopard seal and raise you a butt-naked narwhal and humpback whale (though they do have the odd barnacle. Probably Noah had barnacles, too, after a year on the Ark).

When reading the inanities Byers is blessing this site with, I feel like I have no mouth and I must scream. Is there a mad cow whispering in his ear?

Robert Byers said: Its not certain but many read in the genesis account that it did not rain. Originally just a mist came up. However its not certain this stayed the same after the fall.. creatures would have fur/hair and not. however with people there might not of been need for hair on the body if no rain. We are now covered in a fine hair everywhere, save palms etc, but it does no good. Its just a reaction to a trigger of the body noting it was getting wet. back in the day and stayed in that gear ever since. Thats why upon puberty we get hair under our armpits. the body , long ago, triggered for more hair there because it was trying to dry the area up. there was excess fluid as our need for deodorant proves. It was just a sensitive trigger and doesn't do any dood. i doubt Noah had a beard. by the way I do think human hair is great evidence for innate triggers in creatures bodies. its trivial response proving its a incompetent trigger. Yet just a trigger that stays in gear ever since.

stevaroni said:

Robert Byers said: Its not certain but many read in the genesis account that it did not rain.

Um, where, exactly, Robert? The story of Noah starts in Genesis 6. That's only one hundred and thirty eight sentences into the Bible. And fully a fifth of those is a seemingly endless list of begetting in the wilderness. This is not exactly a daunting pile of literature, Robert. I skimmed it in maybe 5 minutes just to check. There is nothing in there about rain, one way or the other. There is exactly as much evidence that there was no rain as there is evidence that there was no color green or no sand or no smoke. Any assumption that there was no rain before the bible (especially in light of the fact that there is mention of flowing rivers that apparently ran for two thousand years or so of begetting) is some kind of weird creationist talking point fabricated out of whole cloth*. Also, why is this a theological issue anyhow? God likes hair. Have you never seen a picture of the orthodox Jews in Israel? God digs the Fabio look. He commands his subjects to grow hair in several places in the Bible.

We are now covered in a fine hair everywhere, save palms etc, but it does no good. Its just a reaction to a trigger of the body noting it was getting wet.

You realize dolphins and whales and leopard seals and manatee all get really wet and see no particular need for hair, right, Robert? Conversely, kangaroos in the outback and foxes in the deserts live about as far from water as you can get, yet grow plentiful hair. Also, my cat, which not only has lots and lots of hair but is more than happy to share his spare supply it with me. Yet given the choice hasn't been in the same room with an open container of water for a decade. You know, just in case. * _{Just one kind of cloth, though. Using more than one kind would be an abomination.}

stevaroni said: More interestingly, with no rain did any rivers run before the flood?

Was there snow, and if not how did the animals who are dependent on it live before the flood?

stevaroni said: You realize dolphins and whales and leopard seals and manatee all get really wet and see no particular need for hair, right, Robert?

Yet given the choice hasn't been in the same room with an open container of water for a decade. You know, just in case.

Doc Bill said: Apparently, there are no evangelical YEC Christian engineers! Ham's Hole-in-a-Boat is a novel idea to be sure. The watertight design and pressure calculations would be interesting.

Ken Phelps said: I despair for the intellect of our species.

Ken Phelps said: Asking ourselves why it was drawn in a manner that is unnecessarily complex and dysfunctional is probably not an endeavor worth undertaking, since those adjectives pretty much describe all of Ham's thinking. It's a fair bet that the illustrator half-heard and misunderstood someone's explanation of the concept and just winged it. And really, considering the critical thinking skills of the target audience, does reality even need to enter into this equation?

My favorite one is the poster captioned, what a local flood would look like. Half the mountain is covered by water, but a mysterious force field keeps the other half dry! Really! Is this really what anyone anywhere has seriously proposed, ever? What? Where do they get this stuff? And they made it into a poster for everyone to see!

Maybe they were thinking that this is what a "local" flood would look like if there really was a world wide flood. So I guess they are intellectually incapable of even considering the possibility that they could be wrong about something. Which means that they will never be able to comprehend reality apart from their religious delusions. Which means that they are just plain nuts. Go figure.

How could anyone possibly look at that poster and not conclude that it was either dishonest or delusional or both? How could anyone not demand their money back after looking at crap like this?

DS said: Half the mountain is covered by water, but a mysterious force field keeps the other half dry!

What good is half a flood?

Robert Byers said: however with people there might not of been need for hair on the body if no rain. We are now covered in a fine hair everywhere, save palms etc, but it does no good. Its just a reaction to a trigger of the body noting it was getting wet. back in the day and stayed in that gear ever since. Thats why upon puberty we get hair under our armpits. the body , long ago, triggered for more hair there because it was trying to dry the area up. there was excess fluid as our need for deodorant proves. It was just a sensitive trigger and doesn't do any dood. i doubt Noah had a beard. by the way I do think human hair is great evidence for innate triggers in creatures bodies. its trivial response proving its a incompetent trigger. Yet just a trigger that stays in gear ever since.

Robert Byers said: Its not certain but many read in the genesis account that it did not rain.

PaulBC said:

DS said: Half the mountain is covered by water, but a mysterious force field keeps the other half dry!

Ham obviously thinks there is some distinction between which scenarios are plausible and which ones aren't, but "Goddidit" is such a great theory that it explains the wall of water as well as anything else. I'm struggling to see his point here.

stevaroni said:

“SOLID WASTE REMOVAL “After mucking large animal stalls and scraping droppings from the small animal collection troughs, solid waste could have been placed into wheelbarrows and moved to a vertical conveyor system. Powered by an animal on a treadmill, this drive would dump the waste into a vertical shaft that opened to the sea.”

Um.. once you got the 'waste' high enough to drop it in the 'vertical shaft that opened to the sea' wouldn't it have been high enough that you could simply dump it over the rail, and therefore not have all the problems inherent in purposely building a giant hole into the middle of your boat?

Matt Young said: Someone who actually knows might want to comment on this, which was just posted. They claim that, though the "Ark" has no means of propulsion, it will automatically turn into the waves.

Since the bow fin and stern projection would point the Ark into the waves, and since the Ark has no self-propulsion, it would be pushed by the wind and waves so that it would actually float in the same general direction as the wind and waves. That is, rather than being pushed through the waves by a motor or oars, the Ark would be carried along with the waves: This means that the leading edge of the Ark is actually the side with the large, rigid sail, which is why we have called this end the bow. The trailing end of the Ark would have the stern projection in the water to help catch the water and keep the Ark turned into the waves.

The wind and the waves do not always travel in the same direction, so exactly what is supposed to turn the "Ark" into the waves? Would it not have been just as good if it were a rectangular barge?

eric said: Ham's point is obviously to strawman any alternative, make it appear absurd. Though it is hard to believe that anyone over the age of 4 would take his strawman as a accurate depiction of what science proposes.

PaulBC said:

eric said: Ham's point is obviously to strawman any alternative, make it appear absurd. Though it is hard to believe that anyone over the age of 4 would take his strawman as a accurate depiction of what science proposes.

Well, yes. And I think it's not well-expressed here, but the idea is that a local flood could not cover the highest mountain peaks because liquids spread out. Hence, if you assume mountains were covered, it had to be global. But that aside, I think it's a lot more absurd to suggest that God had to destroy the entire human population because women were dancing in metallic bikinis by candlelight. If God wanted to limit the size of the flood with a giant vertical wall of water, I guess he could do that. It is really not any more ridiculous than any other part of this tall tale.

Worked in zoos many years, including pachyderms and large hooved stock. Basic enclosure hygiene would have been more than a challenge for the few keepers on the ark. It's a lot easier to move manure than urine. Urine would have soaked the decks. Accumulation of urine would produce ammonia. Modern zoos use industrial grade water hoses to wash the urine out of the enclosures and HVAC to manage the atmosphere. Ammonia from unaddressed urine would have quickly rendered the atmosphere inside the ark unbreathable.

Actually, Irving Finkel suggests that it was round, based on a 4000 year-old tablet in the British Museum. That would make more sense, given that it wouldn’t have to “turn” into the waves. The other point is that Ham makes the ark out to be 510 feet long. Based on the biblical measurements, this means that he used the Sumerian cubit length of 20.42 feet, rather than the standard Mesopotamian cubit of 18 inches, which means he went outside the Bible for the length measurement. I thought that was a no-no.

Matt Young said:

Actually, Irving Finkel suggests that it was round, based on a 4000 year-old tablet in the British Museum. That would make more sense, given that it wouldn’t have to “turn” into the waves. The other point is that Ham makes the ark out to be 510 feet long. Based on the biblical measurements, this means that he used the Sumerian cubit length of 20.42 feet, rather than the standard Mesopotamian cubit of 18 inches, which means he went outside the Bible for the length measurement. I thought that was a no-no.

Yes, we discussed that here. The Sumerian cubit was 20.42 inches, no?

Matt Young said: Someone who actually knows might want to comment on this, which was just posted. They claim that, though the "Ark" has no means of propulsion, it will automatically turn into the waves.

Since the bow fin and stern projection would point the Ark into the waves, and since the Ark has no self-propulsion, it would be pushed by the wind and waves so that it would actually float in the same general direction as the wind and waves. That is, rather than being pushed through the waves by a motor or oars, the Ark would be carried along with the waves: This means that the leading edge of the Ark is actually the side with the large, rigid sail, which is why we have called this end the bow. The trailing end of the Ark would have the stern projection in the water to help catch the water and keep the Ark turned into the waves.

The wind and the waves do not always travel in the same direction, so exactly what is supposed to turn the "Ark" into the waves? Would it not have been just as good if it were a rectangular barge?

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said: Its not certain but many read in the genesis account that it did not rain.

Fossile raindrop impressions: https://www.google.com/search?q=fossil+raindrop&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwik-Z630O7NAhVT3mMKHQ_ACxAQsAQIKA&biw=1920&bih=965 (Cheer up, there's very little text to read. Just look at the pictures and bear in mind that those are *rocks*.)

stevaroni said:

Robert Byers said: Its not certain but many read in the genesis account that it did not rain.

Um, where, exactly, Robert? The story of Noah starts in Genesis 6. That's only one hundred and thirty eight sentences into the Bible. And fully a fifth of those is a seemingly endless list of begetting in the wilderness. This is not exactly a daunting pile of literature, Robert. I skimmed it in maybe 5 minutes just to check. There is nothing in there about rain, one way or the other. There is exactly as much evidence that there was no rain as there is evidence that there was no color green or no sand or no smoke. Any assumption that there was no rain before the bible (especially in light of the fact that there is mention of flowing rivers that apparently ran for two thousand years or so of begetting) is some kind of weird creationist talking point fabricated out of whole cloth*. Also, why is this a theological issue anyhow? God likes hair. Have you never seen a picture of the orthodox Jews in Israel? God digs the Fabio look. He commands his subjects to grow hair in several places in the Bible.

We are now covered in a fine hair everywhere, save palms etc, but it does no good. Its just a reaction to a trigger of the body noting it was getting wet.

You realize dolphins and whales and leopard seals and manatee all get really wet and see no particular need for hair, right, Robert? Conversely, kangaroos in the outback and foxes in the deserts live about as far from water as you can get, yet grow plentiful hair. Also, my cat, which not only has lots and lots of hair but is more than happy to share his spare supply it with me. Yet given the choice hasn't been in the same room with an open container of water for a decade. You know, just in case. * _{Just one kind of cloth, though. Using more than one kind would be an abomination.} Another poster quoted verse. Its only a option there was no rain till the flood. Its unsure. Creatures do have hair for keeping dry and sometimes keeping warm directly. Creatures in the water indeed must be streamlind for swimmimng and must not have hair in the way. They have other ways to keep warm and being wet is not important to them as they are water creatures. otherwise hair is to keep creatures dry as getting wet is very dangerous to warmth evin in humid hot jungles. Human hair simply is also for the same purpose. We get it , after puberty, where the body, long ago, realized it was very wet. So it grew hair to dry the area up. It didn't/doesn't work and to me demonstrates its a triggering mechanism without quality control. A clue to real biological change from programmed genetic systems. Speculation but I think I'm right. By the way. Evolutionism must account for how selection got rid of our ape stage hairyness but kep it under the armpits. I once read they opined early man needed hair to move our quicker for walking movement. Nope. its never been selected for while the rest vanished. its just a reaction to extra swaeaty/wet areas. Yet a clue.

Robert Byers said: Another poster quoted verse. Its only a option there was no rain till the flood. Its unsure. Creatures do have hair for keeping dry and sometimes keeping warm directly. Creatures in the water indeed must be streamlind for swimmimng and must not have hair in the way. They have other ways to keep warm and being wet is not important to them as they are water creatures. otherwise hair is to keep creatures dry as getting wet is very dangerous to warmth evin in humid hot jungles. Human hair simply is also for the same purpose. We get it , after puberty, where the body, long ago, realized it was very wet. So it grew hair to dry the area up. It didn't/doesn't work and to me demonstrates its a triggering mechanism without quality control. A clue to real biological change from programmed genetic systems. Speculation but I think I'm right. By the way. Evolutionism must account for how selection got rid of our ape stage hairyness but kep it under the armpits. I once read they opined early man needed hair to move our quicker for walking movement. Nope. its never been selected for while the rest vanished. its just a reaction to extra swaeaty/wet areas. Yet a clue.

Closer to two-thirds, I think.

Humans are less hairy - not hairless - because our ancestors were selected to cope with a more scattered forest, then savannah, as the climate changed in east Africa. Sweating was selected for. Evaporative cooling is more effective on bare skin, rather than diffused through a pelt. The difference between human head, body and pubic lice - which have themselves undergone speciation - demonstrates that this hair attenuation is very ancient.

The evaporative cooling effect of sweating allowed long endurance without overheating, which is the one really useful human physical adaptation for hunting until the development of ranged weapon and trap technologies.

Why have hair on head, armpit and genitals, then? Well, head hair protects the scalp from the sun. Body hair would protect the rest of the skin, but the ability to sweat efficiently was more important. Armpits and groins, as everyone knows, secrete scent containing pheromones, and hair retains them. It's actually more of a question why most westerners consider armpit and even groin hair to be unattractive, while head hair remains so, generally. But that's the evolution answer to why we are less hairy than most mammals. Same as for whales - a pelt was not selected by their environment.

And the creationist explanation? The same as always. God did it.

Robert Byers said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said: Its not certain but many read in the genesis account that it did not rain.

Fossile raindrop impressions: https://www.google.com/search?q=fossil+raindrop&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwik-Z630O7NAhVT3mMKHQ_ACxAQsAQIKA&biw=1920&bih=965 (Cheer up, there's very little text to read. Just look at the pictures and bear in mind that those are *rocks*.)

All such fossil imprints would be from the begining of the flood. However yEC has also welcomed these fossilized drops but this was rejected as wrong. Geologists said they were not raindrops but something else. which does make more sense. Drop or not its all welcome.

Dave Luckett said: It's actually more of a question why most westerners consider armpit and even groin hair to be unattractive, while head hair remains so, generally.

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said: Its not certain but many read in the genesis account that it did not rain.

Fossile raindrop impressions: https://www.google.com/search?q=fossil+raindrop&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwik-Z630O7NAhVT3mMKHQ_ACxAQsAQIKA&biw=1920&bih=965 (Cheer up, there's very little text to read. Just look at the pictures and bear in mind that those are *rocks*.)

All such fossil imprints would be from the begining of the flood. However yEC has also welcomed these fossilized drops but this was rejected as wrong. Geologists said they were not raindrops but something else. which does make more sense. Drop or not its all welcome.

I'd like you to think about this very carefully (though I doubt you will). Those are actual *rocks*. You know, solid. When the raindrops fell on the sufaces, they were soft...sand or mud. Now if those surfaces were formed at the beginning of "the Flood", they would have been under water--rapidly moving water--very soon after the initial drop impressions formed--and those impressions would have been destroyed. So...in order to preserve those impressions, the surfaces would have have to be--*very* gently--covered with newer sediment very soon after the scattered drops fell and made the impressions. After that, enough additional sediment would have had to be deposited--without disturbing the layers already present--to protect the bedding. *Then* you have to wait long enough for the sediment to be compressed enough to become solid rock. All of that takes a great deal of time. It isn't going to happen in a year, and especially not a year of violent storms that would be associated with a flood. In short, those fossile raindrop impressions not only disprove your contention that there was no rainfall in the remote past, but *also* are direct evidence against your claims that they were formed close in time to any flood, let alone the kind of flood you believe in. Your only recourse--as a YEC--is to assert that those rocks were *created* that way--and such an assertion would be tacit admission that your god has *lied* to you by creating something that looks like something you say that it isn't. *Evidence*, Mr. Byers, evidence. Given a choice between what is physically real, can be examined and tested by anyone, and a book that has come down through human hands from a time before we knew much about the physical universe, the intelligent move is to go with reality.

Dave Luckett said: Humans are less hairy - not hairless - because our ancestors were selected to cope with a more scattered forest, then savannah, as the climate changed in east Africa. Sweating was selected for. Evaporative cooling is more effective on bare skin, rather than diffused through a pelt. The difference between human head, body and pubic lice - which have themselves undergone speciation - demonstrates that this hair attenuation is very ancient. The evaporative cooling effect of sweating allowed long endurance without overheating, which is the one really useful human physical adaptation for hunting until the development of ranged weapon and trap technologies. Why have hair on head, armpit and genitals, then? Well, head hair protects the scalp from the sun. Body hair would protect the rest of the skin, but the ability to sweat efficiently was more important. Armpits and groins, as everyone knows, secrete scent containing pheromones, and hair retains them. It's actually more of a question why most westerners consider armpit and even groin hair to be unattractive, while head hair remains so, generally. But that's the evolution answer to why we are less hairy than most mammals. Same as for whales - a pelt was not selected by their environment. And the creationist explanation? The same as always. God did it.

Byers demands: name one OTHER creature that did lose its previous hairyness and become hairless like us?

Byers gives us his ignorant opinion: Pheromones being smelled out is not likely or ever been demonstrated. Do primates do this today? Smelling armpits? Selection keeping hair THERE for scents is speculation but no proven. Indeed creatures are quite clean and would not be living with stuck scents in the hair.

Robert Byers said: All sediment loads were deposied in flows indeed. Indeed one after another. So layering is easily explained and what is trapped beneath.

Robert Byers said:

W. H. Heydt said: In short, those fossile raindrop impressions not only disprove your contention that there was no rainfall in the remote past, but *also* are direct evidence against your claims that they were formed close in time to any flood,

I said it was a error to think these were raindrops.

Robert Byers said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said: Its not certain but many read in the genesis account that it did not rain.

Fossile raindrop impressions: https://www.google.com/search?q=fossil+raindrop&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwik-Z630O7NAhVT3mMKHQ_ACxAQsAQIKA&biw=1920&bih=965 (Cheer up, there's very little text to read. Just look at the pictures and bear in mind that those are *rocks*.)

All such fossil imprints would be from the begining of the flood. However yEC has also welcomed these fossilized drops but this was rejected as wrong. Geologists said they were not raindrops but something else. which does make more sense. Drop or not its all welcome.

I'd like you to think about this very carefully (though I doubt you will). Those are actual *rocks*. You know, solid. When the raindrops fell on the sufaces, they were soft...sand or mud. Now if those surfaces were formed at the beginning of "the Flood", they would have been under water--rapidly moving water--very soon after the initial drop impressions formed--and those impressions would have been destroyed. So...in order to preserve those impressions, the surfaces would have have to be--*very* gently--covered with newer sediment very soon after the scattered drops fell and made the impressions. After that, enough additional sediment would have had to be deposited--without disturbing the layers already present--to protect the bedding. *Then* you have to wait long enough for the sediment to be compressed enough to become solid rock. All of that takes a great deal of time. It isn't going to happen in a year, and especially not a year of violent storms that would be associated with a flood. In short, those fossile raindrop impressions not only disprove your contention that there was no rainfall in the remote past, but *also* are direct evidence against your claims that they were formed close in time to any flood, let alone the kind of flood you believe in. Your only recourse--as a YEC--is to assert that those rocks were *created* that way--and such an assertion would be tacit admission that your god has *lied* to you by creating something that looks like something you say that it isn't. *Evidence*, Mr. Byers, evidence. Given a choice between what is physically real, can be examined and tested by anyone, and a book that has come down through human hands from a time before we knew much about the physical universe, the intelligent move is to go with reality.

I said it was a error to think these were raindrops. Instead they were from some other mechanism in the sediment. I agree that raindrops being fossilized is very unlikely. I understand it was regular geologists who first said it. others later corrected it. yEC, some, picked up on it. It was a trivial point. All sediment loads were deposied in flows indeed. Indeed one after another. So layering is easily explained and what is trapped beneath.

Byers will go on making late night dumps of ignorance for as long as he is allowed to do so. Others will point out that he is completely and totally wrong and will correct him repeatedly. It won't have any effect at all. booby will ignore all evidence and all logic, continue to spout ridiculous nonsense that he makes up, all the while claiming that he is open minded and welcomes the evidence. He has a magic book of fairy tales that he must believe in, no matter how stupid or contradictory it is. But all he has is a faulty line of reasoning and no biological evidence. HIs idiocy is atomic and unproven. your right, he's a dime a dozen, it is a error to think otherwise. He should be dehaired of his hairyness so no one will have to smell his armpits. Most of all, he should be treated with the same contempt that he shows for all honesty and decency.

DS said: Byers will go on making late night dumps of ignorance for as long as he is allowed to do so. Others will point out that he is completely and totally wrong and will correct him repeatedly. It won't have any effect at all. booby will ignore all evidence and all logic, continue to spout ridiculous nonsense that he makes up, all the while claiming that he is open minded and welcomes the evidence. He has a magic book of fairy tales that he must believe in, no matter how stupid or contradictory it is. But all he has is a faulty line of reasoning and no biological evidence. HIs idiocy is atomic and unproven. your right, he's a dime a dozen, it is a error to think otherwise. He should be dehaired of his hairyness so no one will have to smell his armpits. Most of all, he should be treated with the same contempt that he shows for all honesty and decency.

TomS said: The Bible shows no interest in evolutionary topics. There is noting about fixity of species...nothing about selection...

The only way that one can mount a Biblical attack on evolutionary biology is by cling to the young Earth: that there was not enough time for evolution to work. And that means Omphalos Hypothesis.

But on the other hand, no one really takes the Biblical description of the Earth literally. The closest that anyone comes to that nowadays is geocentrism. But even geocentrists must reject the cosmology of the Ancient Near East in the Bible: the firmament over the flat Earth.

eric said:

TomS said: The Bible shows no interest in evolutionary topics. There is noting about fixity of species...nothing about selection...

That's not quite true; Genesis 30:37-39 describes Jacob performing artificial breeding. Its quite ridiculously wrong about how things work, but it does describe a breeding process.

Robert Byers said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said: Its not certain but many read in the genesis account that it did not rain.

Fossile raindrop impressions: https://www.google.com/search?q=fossil+raindrop&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwik-Z630O7NAhVT3mMKHQ_ACxAQsAQIKA&biw=1920&bih=965 (Cheer up, there's very little text to read. Just look at the pictures and bear in mind that those are *rocks*.)

All such fossil imprints would be from the begining of the flood. However yEC has also welcomed these fossilized drops but this was rejected as wrong. Geologists said they were not raindrops but something else. which does make more sense. Drop or not its all welcome.

I'd like you to think about this very carefully (though I doubt you will). Those are actual *rocks*. You know, solid. When the raindrops fell on the sufaces, they were soft...sand or mud. Now if those surfaces were formed at the beginning of "the Flood", they would have been under water--rapidly moving water--very soon after the initial drop impressions formed--and those impressions would have been destroyed. So...in order to preserve those impressions, the surfaces would have have to be--*very* gently--covered with newer sediment very soon after the scattered drops fell and made the impressions. After that, enough additional sediment would have had to be deposited--without disturbing the layers already present--to protect the bedding. *Then* you have to wait long enough for the sediment to be compressed enough to become solid rock. All of that takes a great deal of time. It isn't going to happen in a year, and especially not a year of violent storms that would be associated with a flood. In short, those fossile raindrop impressions not only disprove your contention that there was no rainfall in the remote past, but *also* are direct evidence against your claims that they were formed close in time to any flood, let alone the kind of flood you believe in. Your only recourse--as a YEC--is to assert that those rocks were *created* that way--and such an assertion would be tacit admission that your god has *lied* to you by creating something that looks like something you say that it isn't. *Evidence*, Mr. Byers, evidence. Given a choice between what is physically real, can be examined and tested by anyone, and a book that has come down through human hands from a time before we knew much about the physical universe, the intelligent move is to go with reality.

I said it was a error to think these were raindrops. Instead they were from some other mechanism in the sediment. I agree that raindrops being fossilized is very unlikely. I understand it was regular geologists who first said it. others later corrected it. yEC, some, picked up on it. It was a trivial point. All sediment loads were deposied in flows indeed. Indeed one after another. So layering is easily explained and what is trapped beneath.

eric said: Well, that seems to be the way Byers is going. Rain drop patterns in rock just look like rain drop patterns, but really aren't. If he says the same thing about animal track prints, then that's pretty much omphalos; God created the world in such a way that it looks old.

W. H. Heydt said:

eric said: Well, that seems to be the way Byers is going. Rain drop patterns in rock just look like rain drop patterns, but really aren't. If he says the same thing about animal track prints, then that's pretty much omphalos; God created the world in such a way that it looks old.

And that last bit is a really major problem for YECs. If the Earth was created recently (less than 10KYA) to look far, far older, then their god *lied* by creating things that look like something that they aren't. I have yet to see a YEC resolve that problem. Either the Bible is wrong, or God lied in the act of creation, pick one and then justify the choice.

W. H. Heydt said: Either the Bible is wrong, or God lied in the act of creation, pick one and then justify the choice.

One of the early antievolutionists, P. H. Gosse, published a book entitled Omphalos ("the Navel"). The gist of this amazing book is that Adam, though he had no mother, was created with a navel, and that fossils were placed by the Creator where we find them now - a deliberate act on His part, to give the appearance of great antiquity and geologic upheaveals. It is easy to see the fatal flaw in all such notions. They are blasphemies, accusing God of absurd deceitfulness. This is as revolting as it is uncalled for. Source: Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.

W. H. Heydt said: Either the Bible is wrong, or God lied in the act of creation...

gnome de net said:

W. H. Heydt said: Either the Bible is wrong, or God lied in the act of creation...

...or it's just another of His many tests of faith.

Re "I wonder what else he doesn’t know."

How to obtain better spokespeople?

Just Bob said:

gnome de net said:

W. H. Heydt said: Either the Bible is wrong, or God lied in the act of creation...

...or it's just another of His many tests of faith.

I've never understood the reasoning behind that "test of faith" stuff: Doesn't an omniscient god know exactly how much faith I have, down to the tiniest faithicule? Why would he have to test it? I have to test things to find out stuff I don't know. I have to look at my cell phone to see how many minutes I have left. I look at the temp gauge to see if the barbie is hot yet. I had to give my students a quiz to see whether they had read the assignment. Because, you know, I'm not omniscient. And neither is your imaginary friend Jehovah if he has to test you. I wonder what else he doesn't know.

Dave Luckett said:

Byers demands: name one OTHER creature that did lose its previous hairyness and become hairless like us?

Certainly. Whales. Elephants. Hippos. And I said "less hairy", and specifically said "not hairless".

Byers gives us his ignorant opinion: Pheromones being smelled out is not likely or ever been demonstrated. Do primates do this today? Smelling armpits? Selection keeping hair THERE for scents is speculation but no proven. Indeed creatures are quite clean and would not be living with stuck scents in the hair.

It is not unlikely, has been demonstrated, is being done by primates today, is a form of sexual selection, and is found in many mammals, including primates, including us. Google primate scent marking. Many scholarly articles. Byers is, as always, wrong.

Dave Luckett said:

Byers demands: name one OTHER creature that did lose its previous hairyness and become hairless like us?

Certainly. Whales. Elephants. Hippos. And I said "less hairy", and specifically said "not hairless".

Byers gives us his ignorant opinion: Pheromones being smelled out is not likely or ever been demonstrated. Do primates do this today? Smelling armpits? Selection keeping hair THERE for scents is speculation but no proven. Indeed creatures are quite clean and would not be living with stuck scents in the hair.

It is not unlikely, has been demonstrated, is being done by primates today, is a form of sexual selection, and is found in many mammals, including primates, including us. Google primate scent marking. Many scholarly articles. Byers is, as always, wrong.

prongs said:

Robert Byers said: All sediment loads were deposied in flows indeed. Indeed one after another. So layering is easily explained and what is trapped beneath.

Poop, Robert Byers, dinosaur poop. How does soft, pliable poop get fossilized in the Big Flood? If "layering is easily explained and what is trapped beneath", how does soft poop not get squished beyond recognition by all the turbulence and the weight of all those sediments above it? Fossil poop proves there was no Worldwide Flood. How fitting.

Robert Byers said:

prongs said:

Robert Byers said: All sediment loads were deposied in flows indeed. Indeed one after another. So layering is easily explained and what is trapped beneath.

Poop, Robert Byers, dinosaur poop. How does soft, pliable poop get fossilized in the Big Flood? If "layering is easily explained and what is trapped beneath", how does soft poop not get squished beyond recognition by all the turbulence and the weight of all those sediments above it? Fossil poop proves there was no Worldwide Flood. How fitting.

The poop must be fossilized for everybody. It would be trapped in any sediment load and other loads on that and then the whole squeezed instantly, or soon, into stone.

Byers, as always, attempts to counter fact with ignorant opinion. It never works.

Animals with large body masses have less need of hairy pelts for insulation, in warm climates. But they did have hair in cold climates, witness the woolly mammoth. Lions and leopards are basically ambush hunters. Cheetahs are sprinters - extremely fast for four hundred meters or so, but run out of puff. Their hunting styles imply long periods of lying still, waiting for prey to get close enough. Insulation is still important for them. But humans and dogs run their prey down, humans over even longer distances. Overheating is a real issue for them, with their greater body mass. Dogs have an adapted lung space that allows them to pant without osmotic gas exchange, losing heat without hyperventilation, and for them a pelt is still an advantage, because of their relatively small body mass.

By the time humans were moving far enough north to need more insulation, technology supplied the means. That is, we had control of fire, and clothing. Even so, Europeans are (generally) more hairy than Africans, another demonstration of natural selection, as is European melanin deficiency. The evolutionary explanation for human hair covering and skin colour is natural selection. The creationist explanation, as always, is "God did it".

Human sexual selection operates at least partly subliminally. That is, it operates at least partly on an unconscious level. Scents play an important part in it, and become more important on arousal. Why do you think perfume is applied to pulse spots? Byers isn't aware of the mechanism. There's a lot that Byers isn't aware of, but as always, Byers thinks (if you can call it thought) that if he doesn't know about it, it doesn't exist. This is the very essence of Dunning-Kruger, true, but notice the corollary: for it to work, Byers not only has to be unaware of his ignorance, he has to believe that he isn't ignorant of anything. That is, he has to believe that he knows everything.

I have often noticed that FL, for example, alters scripture to suit himself and assumes other Godlike attributes at will. And here's Byers assuming his own omniscience. Best that they never meet. They'd probably annihilate each other.

prongs said:

Robert Byers said:

prongs said:

Robert Byers said: All sediment loads were deposied in flows indeed. Indeed one after another. So layering is easily explained and what is trapped beneath.

Poop, Robert Byers, dinosaur poop. How does soft, pliable poop get fossilized in the Big Flood? If "layering is easily explained and what is trapped beneath", how does soft poop not get squished beyond recognition by all the turbulence and the weight of all those sediments above it? Fossil poop proves there was no Worldwide Flood. How fitting.

The poop must be fossilized for everybody. It would be trapped in any sediment load and other loads on that and then the whole squeezed instantly, or soon, into stone.

In other words, "It's magic." Thank you, Robert.

Black Africans do indeed not have hair as much, and I understand bigger pores, because of reaction to hot/humidity areas

... OR is hair simply to keep us dry and in those areas of more sweat the body has more hair!!

Black Africans do indeed not have hair as much, and I understand bigger pores, because of reaction to hot/humidity areas

... OR is hair simply to keep us dry and in those areas of more sweat the body has more hair!!

Robert Byers said: The poop must be fossilized for everybody.

eric said:

Robert Byers said: The poop must be fossilized for everybody.

So why don't we find coprolites of modern animals in the same strata as those of dinosaurs? Did the flood also sort poop by animal type? I would love to hear the creationist physics and engineering behind that claim.

Actually, we do know what is found in fossilized dinosaur dung:

http://mentalfloss.com/article/48810/11-things-fossil-dung-scientists-found-fossilized-poop

So no, No human remains. No remains of anything except that predicted by evolutionary theory. Byers is wrong again, as usual. And of course Floyd is wrong about no carnivory before the magic fall. Go figure.

DS said: Actually, we do know what is found in fossilized dinosaur dung: http://mentalfloss.com/article/48810/11-things-fossil-dung-scientists-found-fossilized-poop So no, No human remains. No remains of anything except that predicted by evolutionary theory. Byers is wrong again, as usual. And of course Floyd is wrong about no carnivory before the magic fall. Go figure.

Robert Byers said:

prongs said:

Robert Byers said: All sediment loads were deposied in flows indeed. Indeed one after another. So layering is easily explained and what is trapped beneath.

Poop, Robert Byers, dinosaur poop. How does soft, pliable poop get fossilized in the Big Flood? If "layering is easily explained and what is trapped beneath", how does soft poop not get squished beyond recognition by all the turbulence and the weight of all those sediments above it? Fossil poop proves there was no Worldwide Flood. How fitting.

The poop must be fossilized for everybody. It would be trapped in any sediment load and other loads on that and then the whole squeezed instantly, or soon, into stone.

DS said: Actually, we do know what is found in fossilized dinosaur dung: http://mentalfloss.com/article/48810/11-things-fossil-dung-scientists-found-fossilized-poop So no, No human remains. No remains of anything except that predicted by evolutionary theory. Byers is wrong again, as usual. And of course Floyd is wrong about no carnivory before the magic fall. Go figure.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Some dinosaur coprolites contained things like "genetics is atomic and unproven" and "a marsupial wolf is just our wolf with a pouch." Glen Davidson

Robert Byers said: The poop must be fossilized for everybody.

Ken Phelps said:

Robert Byers said: The poop must be fossilized for everybody.

Worst egalitarian slogan ever.

Dave Luckett said: Byers, as always, attempts to counter fact with ignorant opinion. It never works. Animals with large body masses have less need of hairy pelts for insulation, in warm climates. But they did have hair in cold climates, witness the woolly mammoth. Lions and leopards are basically ambush hunters. Cheetahs are sprinters - extremely fast for four hundred meters or so, but run out of puff. Their hunting styles imply long periods of lying still, waiting for prey to get close enough. Insulation is still important for them. But humans and dogs run their prey down, humans over even longer distances. Overheating is a real issue for them, with their greater body mass. Dogs have an adapted lung space that allows them to pant without osmotic gas exchange, losing heat without hyperventilation, and for them a pelt is still an advantage, because of their relatively small body mass. By the time humans were moving far enough north to need more insulation, technology supplied the means. That is, we had control of fire, and clothing. Even so, Europeans are (generally) more hairy than Africans, another demonstration of natural selection, as is European melanin deficiency. The evolutionary explanation for human hair covering and skin colour is natural selection. The creationist explanation, as always, is "God did it". Human sexual selection operates at least partly subliminally. That is, it operates at least partly on an unconscious level. Scents play an important part in it, and become more important on arousal. Why do you think perfume is applied to pulse spots? Byers isn't aware of the mechanism. There's a lot that Byers isn't aware of, but as always, Byers thinks (if you can call it thought) that if he doesn't know about it, it doesn't exist. This is the very essence of Dunning-Kruger, true, but notice the corollary: for it to work, Byers not only has to be unaware of his ignorance, he has to believe that he isn't ignorant of anything. That is, he has to believe that he knows everything. I have often noticed that FL, for example, alters scripture to suit himself and assumes other Godlike attributes at will. And here's Byers assuming his own omniscience. Best that they never meet. They'd probably annihilate each other.

Robert Byers said: There are many points that can be made...

Daniel said: My god, this is just incredible. Only a very special mind could post 2 contradictory statements in the same paragraph and not realize it

Black Africans do indeed not have hair as much, and I understand bigger pores, because of reaction to hot/humidity areas

... OR is hair simply to keep us dry and in those areas of more sweat the body has more hair!!

But Robert, you just said that Africans have less hair because they get hot more, and thus obviously sweat more... yet in the same paragraph you say that hair is used to keep us dry. Which one is it? We have very few hair because we use sweat to cool down, Robert. Hair interferes with the evaporation of sweat, thus making it less efficient. Like Dave says, dogs also run a lot and are very hairy... they have managed to keep their hair because they do not sweat to cool down, but rather pant. But I gotta say, your "scientific" musings about things that are already known, and for quite some time, are hilarious. Keep posting them! And then the bit about poop squeezing instantly to stone... priceless!

Robert Byers said: I do see...

Robert has really screwed the pooch this time. We know why humans have different skin color in different regions of the world. APparently booby is ignorant of all of this vast literature. I could of course provide references about the various selection pressures involved, but it woulds be useless. booby would just go on making up shit and spouting nonsense as if his ignorant opinion mattered to anyone but himself. This is your mind on creationism, oblivious to all evidence, logic and reason. Keep musing booby, you are giving everyone a good belly laugh. Time to ban the boob once again.

I just couldn't resist. For anyone who is actually interested, (not booby), here is a good reference on the evolution of human skin color:

Jablonski and Chaplin (2000) THe Evolution of Human Skin Coloration. Journal of Human Evolution 39(1)57-106.

It's a long article, but the main point is that human skin color is an adaptation to the conflicting needs of UV protection and vitamin D production. This is important because it causes a lot of problems for people who migrate north and south from their ancestral regions. It doesn't have anything to do with wetter climates or keeping dry. So, once again, booby doesn't know shit.

Ken Phelps said:

Robert Byers said: The poop must be fossilized for everybody.

Worst egalitarian slogan ever.

Ken Phelps said:

Robert Byers said: The poop must be fossilized for everybody.

Worst egalitarian slogan ever.

Robert Byers said: The poop must be ... and then the whole squeezed instantly, or soon, into stone.

Ham's Ark is an illustrious monument to the impossibility of Noah's Flood.

Ham's Ark contains how many tons of steel? (Noah had no steel.)

Ham's Ark does not float, and could not float if you put it in the water.

Ham's Ark required how many construction workers to complete? (Noah had not that many.)

Ham's Ark requires HVAC to ensure every visitor has fresh air to breathe. Ham's Ark, as constructed without it, would suffocate every person and every animal inside.

Ham's Ark has electricity to provide interior lighting. Noah had no electricity for lights. Oil lamps would have consumed what little oxygen there was.

Ham's Ark is depicted with construction cranes, not invented for another 2,000 years by the Romans. No ones seems to bother about that.

Mencken said no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. Ham certainly hasn't.

Ham's Ark is designed in such a way (narrow and VERY long, as the Bible specifies) that, even if it were built to be an actual wooden boat rather than a building, it would very quickly break apart in anything but a dead calm.

prongs said: Mencken said no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. Ham certainly hasn't.

prongs said: Ham's Ark is an illustrious monument to the impossibility of Noah's Flood. Ham's Ark contains how many tons of steel? (Noah had no steel.) Ham's Ark does not float, and could not float if you put it in the water. Ham's Ark required how many construction workers to complete? (Noah had not that many.) Ham's Ark requires HVAC to ensure every visitor has fresh air to breathe. Ham's Ark, as constructed without it, would suffocate every person and every animal inside. Ham's Ark has electricity to provide interior lighting. Noah had no electricity for lights. Oil lamps would have consumed what little oxygen there was. Ham's Ark is depicted with construction cranes, not invented for another 2,000 years by the Romans. No ones seems to bother about that. Mencken said no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. Ham certainly hasn't.

Just Bob said: Ham's Ark is designed in such a way (narrow and VERY long, as the Bible specifies) that, even if it were built to be an actual wooden boat rather than a building, it would very quickly break apart in anything but a dead calm.

stevaroni said:

Just Bob said: Ham's Ark is designed in such a way (narrow and VERY long, as the Bible specifies) that, even if it were built to be an actual wooden boat rather than a building, it would very quickly break apart in anything but a dead calm.

A couple of years ago we had a fairly extensive discussion about this with either Floyd or Robert. Working with the thickness of wood specified by Floyd/Robert several of us went through the math and calculated the actual stresses encountered by a hollow beam the size of the ark in waves that had crests at approximately the 1/4 and 3/4 points. IIRC it turns out that even the strongest woods would reach their compressive limits in seas of a mere five feet high or so. This is, of course, not a surprise to anyone who stayed awake in physics. Despite the heroic image of a clipper ship boldly plowing through the seas, in the real world you just can't grow that into the size of a liberty ship and still have it work and anyone who can open a physics book and run a few equations can understand this. Creationists can deny biology as much as the y want, but it's tough to argue that everyday physics doesn't work as it appears to do.

Keelyn,

Glad you survived the West-Virginia-wide flood.

Keelyn said: Ham should have built his ridiculous monstrosity right here in Greenbrier or Jackson counties, West Virginia. He would have found out very quickly just how seaworthy his “ark” is – or isn’t.

TomS said:

Keelyn said: Ham should have built his ridiculous monstrosity right here in Greenbrier or Jackson counties, West Virginia. He would have found out very quickly just how seaworthy his “ark” is – or isn’t.

But whoever thought of this Thing knew better than to try something as foolish as that.

I thought for people like Ham that the Bible was supposed to answer all our questions. Doesn't this mean that questions like "how many animals were on the ark?" or "how did they build a boat that big?" aren't questions that god-fearing people should be asking?

stevaroni said:...the size of a liberty ship...

stevaroni said:

Just Bob said: Ham's Ark is designed in such a way (narrow and VERY long, as the Bible specifies) that, even if it were built to be an actual wooden boat rather than a building, it would very quickly break apart in anything but a dead calm.

A couple of years ago we had a fairly extensive discussion about this with either Floyd or Robert. Working with the thickness of wood specified by Floyd/Robert several of us went through the math and calculated the actual stresses encountered by a hollow beam the size of the ark in waves that had crests at approximately the 1/4 and 3/4 points. IIRC it turns out that even the strongest woods would reach their compressive limits in seas of a mere five feet high or so. This is, of course, not a surprise to anyone who stayed awake in physics. Despite the heroic image of a clipper ship boldly plowing through the seas, in the real world you just can't grow that into the size of a liberty ship and still have it work and anyone who can open a physics book and run a few equations can understand this. Creationists can deny biology as much as the y want, but it's tough to argue that everyday physics doesn't work as it appears to do.

While on the subject of large ship opening days, the Mary Rose has been unveiled today on the anniversary of the day she sank on the 19th July 1545.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-36802829?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook

Marilyn said: While on the subject of large ship opening days, the Mary Rose has been unveiled today on the anniversary of the day she sank on the 19th July 1545. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-36802829?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook

Marilyn said: While on the subject of large ship opening days, the Mary Rose has been unveiled today on the anniversary of the day she sank on the 19th July 1545. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-36802829?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook

Sorry about the duplicate. It looks like it let me post my first comment after telling me my session had timed out. I'll look out for that in the future.

PaulBC said: Sorry about the duplicate. It looks like it let me post my first comment after telling me my session had timed out. I'll look out for that in the future.

prongs said: Ham, and other creationist deceivers, love to quote a South Korean naval architectural school that 'ran the numbers' and concluded Noah's Ark was indeed seaworthy. (Woodmorappe did the same with fitting the animals and food on the Ark.) Any real sailor (like Mike Elzinga, I believe) knows that's poppycock. Equations be damned. Calculations, like statistics, can be manipulated to deceive the gullible. And that's Ham's stock and trade.

PaulBC said:

Marilyn said: While on the subject of large ship opening days, the Mary Rose has been unveiled today on the anniversary of the day she sank on the 19th July 1545. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-36802829?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook

I thought we were on the subject of large non-floating wooden structures.

So, every calender's days are numbered, but not always the same way? Huh.

W. H. Heydt said: (And I have to point out that the date of sinking was almost certainly given in the Julian calendar, while the museum opening is dated in the Gregorian calendar, so it's not an exact number of years between the two events.)

prongs said:

W. H. Heydt said: (And I have to point out that the date of sinking was almost certainly given in the Julian calendar, while the museum opening is dated in the Gregorian calendar, so it's not an exact number of years between the two events.)

Russia was the last nation of significant population to adopt the Gregorian Calendar of 1582. The October revolution (Julian) occurred in November, 1917 (Gregorian). How's that for clinging onto tradition?

DS said: I just couldn't resist. For anyone who is actually interested, (not booby), here is a good reference on the evolution of human skin color: Jablonski and Chaplin (2000) THe Evolution of Human Skin Coloration. Journal of Human Evolution 39(1)57-106. It's a long article, but the main point is that human skin color is an adaptation to the conflicting needs of UV protection and vitamin D production. This is important because it causes a lot of problems for people who migrate north and south from their ancestral regions. It doesn't have anything to do with wetter climates or keeping dry. So, once again, booby doesn't know shit.