16,000 is nonsense. The Bible claims ravens were on the ark, but they are a modern genus of birds, so an ark full of ancient "kinds" would have none.
Also, where are the millions of transitional forms between those 16,000 and today's millions? If the Genesis farce created the sedimentary rock, none can be fossils, unless they all burrowed through miles of rock before dying.
Well, Ken Ham's hypothesis would demolish all the objections like Thermodynamics, Information Theory, or no transitional forms...with the added absurdity that if the Imaginary Flood laid down the earth's rock, all the transitional forms between the 60,000 kinds and today's crawled up to 2 miles into bedrock before dying.
While, we are on the subject, the "mountains of Ararat" are in Armenia. Dag Agri is in Turkey. It was renamed Mount Ararat at some later century, long after the Bible was written. "Arkeologists" always look in the wrong mountain range in the wrong country.
hey there were no carnivorous animals yet they didnt eat meat until afterwards and there was only one contenant at the time befor the flood so no the elk did not need to swim to get to the ark and you only needed 2 out of each family of animals so closely realted animals like dogs coyotes and wolve could come from two parent that over time each one looked more different mingled and you had all the different kind of dogs
"Volumes might be written upon the infinite absurdity of this most incredible wicked and foolish of all the fables contained in the last repository of the impossible called the Bible. To me it is a matter of amazement that it ever was even for a moment believed by any intelligent human being."
@pedrom41 Not as foolish as to think that somehow by chance a inhospitable planet "became" suitible for life and that everything came from single cell organisms to become something better over millions of years. Sorry i just can't believe that rot. The links ........ are just not there.
@ameiko76 My problem is not with the possibility of the existence of a god, gods or goddess, my problem, which is the problem of many, is with all the absurdities comprised in a collection of ancient assorted writings strung together at the request of some emperor who had his own political agenda. If there's a god, and I for one wouldn't have any problem with it, the Bible is a mockery to that god. It's not a reliable source to represent said god.
@pokemonlova99 you really believe this genesis nonsense don't you? Despite there being ZERO scientists world wide who support it. (I will ignore the tiny tiny amount of laughed at "christian scientists") who are sadly trying to keep america in the scientific dark ages. Why on earth would you have "faith" in this tiny band of wilfully dishonest scientifc turds.
@kalsolarUK well Sir, you do bring up a good point and at some times I do admit I have doubts about my religion and also break God's laws but the main reason why I hold on to the Bible is because I would rather take the chance of believeing in something even at the risk of it not exisisting then to just blow it off and end up dieing and going to Hell for all eternaty but before I hit the post button I do want to say Im not argueing with you I am just answering your question in the last sentince.
@pokemonlova99 Very sad that it is fear of a fictional lake of fire rather than love that is holding you to a literal belief. Truth is though, deep down you don't believe it anyway by the sounds of it. You don't have to abandon a belief in god to accept scientific truths about the origins of the universe.
if you're only believing because you'd rather be safe than sorry.... then you can't be a real christian/believer anyway. it took me a long time to realize this, but I'm so glad I finally did.
@semipreciousamber you uhh do realize that I posted all that months ago right? I mean when I was younger I believed belived then as I got older I started to doubt but I realize now that is mainly due to because I had and have reached the age of acountablity and its at that point where God just fully lets go and has me choose if I want to serve him or not and I realise that just sitting on the fence post wont work I have to be all the way in I have to be on one side of the fence not in the middle
@kalsolarUK Wow, i didn´t think the brilliant atheists had to resort to logical fallacies to maker their cases, such as Argumentum ad populum... i guess they´ve got after all.
Can anybody disagree with evolution by natural selection? If not, guess who is keeping America in the scientific dark ages. Christian are far more open minded considered how many of them are willing to drop their beliefs at the sight of an atheist bully.
@kalsolarUK Wow, i didn´t think the brilliant atheists had to resort to logical fallacies to maker their cases, such as Argumentum ad populum... i guess that´s all they´ve got after all.
Can anybody disagree with evolution by natural selection? If not, guess who is keeping America in the scientific dark ages. Christians are far more open minded considered how many of them are willing to drop their beliefs at the sight of an atheist bully.
@EndOfNumbers Oops, did I say magic apples? I meant magic forbidden fruit. Either way...its magical. The were giants and unicorns and fire breathing dragons in those days you know. Sigh.
@kalsolarUK umm not realy their are not such things as dragons and unicorns and giants and yes I know the bible called goliath a gient but they arent talking about the kind of gients you mean
@EndOfNumbers yeah...and you're a creationist. You have my pity. Creationism is steadily on the decline thankfully and maybe even you will wise up one day and start living in the real world instead of your fairlyland of talking serpents and magic apples and talking donkies etc etc etc. Oh and lets not forget your mentally invented lake of fire in your invented story-book hell. How sad.
@kalsolarUK I'm sure you don't care of creationism, but rather you hate the people who follow Christ, which are the christians, and I'm sure you hate the Jews too.
@EndOfNumbers Most Christians don't believe in creationism either. I have many friends and family who are Chritians. If you want to know what I hate, its the retarded thinking of idiots like you. Now, go play somewhere else.
@kalsolarUK I'msure you know yourself you're ugly, and for ugly people like you it's hard to be acknowledged so, you have to resort to insulting people to get your point across. By me calling you ugly it's not an insult, but rather a matter of fact, and it's not an opinion.
@kalsolarUK If you don't understand the Flood account of the Bible you shouldn't comment about it nor should imply that you even understand what's going on. You arguements are childish, and you lack personality. You're a failing human being without any morals expressedin your heart. May God help you.
@EndOfNumbers You'll find that its you and jail bird hovind and bananaman comfort who don't understand the flood account. Have you read the bible from cover to cover the same as I have?? Every single word? As usual, like all bone head creationists I'm guessing not. Correct??? They read selected bits, and believe ridiculous bullcrap in case they get burned in a fictional lake of fire. I'd rather be ugly than retarded anyday.
What I would like to know is just how big that ark would have to be to just physically carry the provisions needed for the herbivorous animals to reach a sustainable population for the carnivorous animals to be able to hunt them.
As well as the food needed to sustain the carnivorous animals while this was going on.
Never mind that they didn't have the technology to keep the food fresh for that long...
@kalsolarUK As much as I agree with you on the rest, and totally agree with you on what is important here (creationism sucks, evolution rocks, there are no gods), earth, as far as we know is only about 4.6 billion years old. The solar system is around 14 billion years old though, I think that's where you got your facts wrong. :-)
Keep up the great work!
Accoberg - You're just plain wrong - 'as many facts point to a young earth as an old.' Ignorant. In the extreme...
@kalsolarUK No worries, I understood that fine, I was just correcting your statement that the earth is 14 billion years old, I'm well aware you have a brain :-)
@hhaugan you must be thinking of another video...I've just rewatched this to check and I don't make any mention of the age of the earth / universe in this video.
@kalsolarUK - I've done similar mistakes, just didn't want anyone try to discredit your otherwise brilliant work! You've had me laughing out loud with your videos :-)
It's rather sad how some people just can't see how ridiculous this story is... Even I realised that back when I was a christian... Thankfully I've since seen the light :-)
When I saw the title I thought you had a valid argument. If you did just a minor amount of research you'd see your statements are full of bad facts. For a moment forget if Ken Ham is right or wrong and consider that, no matter how unlikely in this case, you'll influence others to believe or disbelieve when your just spouting off nonsense.
As many facts point to a young earth as an old. Unless you are getting sensership on your internet it's easy to find out. Facts are facts.
@accoberg You saw my title and thought I had a valid argument? No wonder you're a YEC if you believe stuff that easily. Just imagine if my title had said "Kent Hovind is a shapeshiter from Mars!" (Actually he probably is..he's certainly not human).
@Greyh0und Only around 16,000 animals necessary to preserve the different "kinds". These animals (puls humans) would only take up 46% of the room on the ark which would leave enough room for food to support the animals for several years.
@Greyh0und No one is sure, but it would be either Family or Genus. I read an article by John Woodmorappe who has been studying this topic for more than 20 years. It is difficult (impossible) to identify how much room an unknown number of animals might take up, but even using the largest possible number of animals that could have been on the ark and combining it with the amount of room it takes to permanently house them today, less than half of the room provided by the ark is required.
And then we have to imagine where & how all of the sea mammals will be kept & fed. And what about the animals who need special diets & environments? Noah also has to collect every type of insect, tree, & plant! (I still wanna know where & how he cared for the whales & dolphins). What about the polar bears, penguins, all animals from the polar regions? Did they just walk across the continents? They'd be dead the 1st day! Btw, this "Flood" story has been told in earlier myths.
I suppose the Rose Bowl, which seats 10,000 (or is it 100,000?) is so loud you can't handle it? Were you aware that the Ark is 1 and 1/2 football fields in length alone?
LOL. And obviously the continents were together (Rodinia or Pangaea) in the past, so there's no need for elks to do any swimming.
@dougmoerhoffman I don't have to sit in the Rose Bowl for an entire year feeding, cleaning out and tending to many thousands of aminals whilst being tossed around on the ocean. Also, I don't care how big the bible says the ark was in the same way that I don't care how big the starship enterprise is. Both are fictional.
@kalsolarUK You wouldn't be tossed around. Ever been on an aircraft carrier? Did you feel tossed around? No, wave action won't affect you when you're that big, and the ark was 1/3 the length of the JFK aircraft carrier, whose size you can see compared to the white house in the new 2012 movie, just for kicks.
@dougmoerhoffman According to the fictional bible 8 people tended to many many thousands of animals every day for a year. Your problem is, you're so terrified of being burnt in a fictional lake of fire that you are willing to believe any old crap by saying magic man did it. WHO FED AND CLEANED OUT THESE many 1000s of ANIMALS EVERY DAY FOR A YEAR???? WHOOOOO???? MAGIC MAN???? ANSWER THIS QUESTION OR SHUT UP!!!
@dougmoerhoffman The continents were indeed together at one point....but that was MANY MANY MILLIONS of years ago. Unless you choose to believe a stupid, ignorant tiny minority of "christian science morons" who stupidly and ignorantly say 6000 years. If you believe those people you truely are a baffoon.
@kalsolarUK I reject the flawed radiometric dating analyses. Millions of years are irrelevant. We both agree that the continents were together, and you have no way to accurately measure how long ago that was.
Oh, a personal attack. Good thing I grew out of being influenced by peer pressure in 3rd grade.
@dougmoerhoffman You reject it NOT because it is flawed, you reject it because it doesn't tally up with what the bible says and thats your problem. If the bible said the universe was billions of years old you wouldn't have the remotest problem accepting the findings of science. You would be saying "how can virtually ALL of the respected scientists in ALL fields of science ALL be simultaneously wrong when ALL of their findings tally up? ALL OF THEM! How moronic can you be?
dN/dt = -aN; dN/N = -adt; ln(N) = -at; N = e^(-at). This means that for say halftimes you'd get: (1/2) = e^(-at); ln(1/2) = -at; t = ln(2)/a. "a" is a constant dependant on the substance you're letting decay, N is it's concentration.
The concentration of radioactive material changing at a rate that's dependable on the current concentration of that material. This is an observed fact. The constant a can be measured and is observed to be the same everytime you use the same material. You can read up the math yourself in my previous post. So how would this be flawed?
@dougmoerhoffman Even if there were only 16000 animals, this wasn't an outdoor (or even domed) arena in which sound might dissipate, but a tightly enclosed space with only one window. The person who wrote this tale didn't think it through very well, nor, apparently, have you.
Do you suppose that one window gave enough light for the people to tend all those animals without lamps? Mammals fart methane, in great enough quantity to explode if a lamp were lit. So the ark blew up. The end.
@Largo64 Reading the NIV, it says, "finish the ark to within 18 inches of the top," without mention of a rectangular window. It appears that the blueprint was an 18-inch wide space, running around the entire ark. This would certainly have provided enough ventilation.
If I remember correctly (I may very well be wrong), but it wasn't just "two of every animal" as lots of people believe. It's two PAIRS of every unclean animal, and seven PAIRS of every clean animal. I don't recall it specifying exactly what the difference was between a "clean" or "unclean" animal, but that fact alone has to skyrocket the number many times over.
@HelplessVictim Quote: If I remember correctly (I may very well be wrong), but it wasn't just "two of every animal" as lots of people believe. It's two PAIRS of every unclean animal, and seven PAIRS of every clean animal.
That would actually make more sense which is ironic in that the story as a whole still makes no sense what-so-ever
@HelplessVictim I believe a plain reading will result in 2 unclean animals, with 7 clean....the 7th odd one out being the one that gets sacrificed afterwards...since it doesn't have a mate anyway.
It doesn't really. Even if we went with species, there'd be enough room.
"Even if we went with species, there'd be enough room."
Wait, how would there be enough room? What did the carnivores eat? And what about all the inbreeding afterwards? How would all the marsupials know to move the thousands of miles to what would later be Australia? Too many holes for this story to stay afloat.
wats more believable,noah put all the species of animals on the ark or that life as we know it came from NOTHING,from primordial soup to what u see now?
definately the "soup" option because of the IRON CLAD scientific evidence that evolution occured and continues. How life started initially we don't known exactly yet -but we DO know that evolution is a definate fact from science.
But use your brain - you really believe 8 people fed, cleaned out and generally looked after many many thousands of animals on a boat for a year? Really? Really????? You really need to start thinking like an aduld human being not a child of 4.
@kalsolarUK ...well speaking of using your brain,tell me wat does your brain tell you concerning human population numbers,or human expansion thruout the earth,or the historical records of man?2000 yrs ago our population levels were around 256 mil,the known world was a lot smaller than today,it stands to reason if u go back another 2000 yrs from that point the known world shrinks even more and also the population levels,to the point were we end up somewhere in mesopatamia,odd dont u think
so...you've decided not to answer my question then and instead just pose one of your own. Understandable really - clearly my question was too difficult to answer without making god himself the boats zoo keeper. However..I will answer your question. Statistical data tells us there were about 1 million people alive around 10,000yrs ago. That's 4000 years prior to biblical creation for a start. Of course this is irrelevant anyway as the earth is PROVEN to be BILLIONS of years old.
@kalsolarUK ... "Statistical data tells us there were about 1 million people alive around 10,000yrs ago"......where do the statistics come from and how were they able to come to that figure?
If you seriously want an answer to that, either do some online research or alternatively just go to one of the laugh-a-minute creationist websites and believe whatever crap they tell you. Crap which almost always contradicts the actual FACTS as agreed on by most of the worlds REAL SCIENTISTS and statisticians etc. Take your pick. Oh I forgot...you already have. Sigh.
Is that so? Well, I'm not the one listening to the creationist bullcrap. The work of all the worlds top cosmologists, paleantologists, chemists, physicists, archeologists etc ALL point in one direction... but instead you brainlessly follow the words of Ken Ham, Jailbird Kent Hovind, and Banana Man Ray comfort etc. Yep, for no sensisble reason you follow the words of a band of numbnuts. Marvelous.
And if you really want to turn this into a 20 questions conversation - I have a million questions about Noahs Ark besides those in this video that will make your head explode. Quesions that will leave you with no other answer than to say, "it was done by magic". How moronic and childish is that? You already failed to answer the obvious question of how 8 people looked after every one of the many thousands of animals for a full year at sea. Oh I forgot already....God played Zoo Keeper.
@kalsolarUK ...ive got a million of my own questions concerning the greatest magic show ever,evolution,as for Noah feeding the animals,scripture says they all ate vegetable matter,hay saves the day i say,as for the amount of animals in the ark,have you ever considered only the original of each species was in the ark,not every kind of dog or horse or cat was on the ark,what about the evidence of a global flood written about from ancient cultures?
Evolution has PROOF for its claims. DNA proof, gene proof and fossil proof. How it exactly got started is still not totally clear...but that does nothing to disprove the fact that once it got started evolution happened. An incredibly slow process - but it happened.
Oh..as for your ark comment. EVEN IF you strip it right down to the minimum number of animals needed that still leaves a minimum 16,000 animals (according to Ken Ham) for 8 PEOPLE to look after, feed and clean out for a YEAR. How may I ask? HOW? Magic Zoo Keeper from the clouds? And where did the fresh vegatation come from required daily by many thousands of these animals?? Magic Zoo Keeper again? Feel silly yet? Got any sensible answers? I'd say not ONE.
The question you ask has nothing to do with the utter ridiculousness and shear impossibility of the Noahs Ark story. (A story that was in fact stolen from the Epic of Gilgamesh amonst other flood myths).
The fact that we don't have a full explanation (yet) of how the first cell came to be is no reason to automatically shut your inquiring mind off and say "it must be god". The research is on-going and maybe one day we will have the answer...or maybe we won't.
Of course I could ask you the same question about God. Where did he come from? People have given me theory and hypothesis but no fact. Perhaps you can explain with fact.
For the terminally dumb I refer you the answer I gave previously. NO we do NOT know exactly YET where the first cell came from - but I Emphasise YET. It is believed life possibly came about via a process known as abiogenesis. Science is an ON GOING process - and MAYBE one day we will have the answer and Maybe one day we won't. But filling that gap with God and not pursuing an answer and wishing to remain ignorant is retarded.
Ohhh...and if you believe in the Noahs Ark story you're an idiot of the highest calibre and frankly you don't deserve the time of anyone to answer your dumb ass questions. Read a god damn science book instead of your fear-inducing bible for once. Oh...and unless you get a proper channel page with some actual details on it...you can forget getting any more answers from me for anything anyway. I'm not inclined to talk to anonymous baffoons.
Your brain has strangely told you to ignore the 1000's of worlds EXPERTS in their chosen scientific fields and instead listen to the mindless empty headed doctrine of laughed at "creation scientists". Yeah, cuz that makes real sense. You're not just backing an outsider, you're backing an outsider without legs.
I like Ken Ham. I think his beard does for Ham, what Lincoln's beard did for him. He looks better with it than without it. I was curious...why do you have problems with these secondary issues. The prediction of the flood and the flood itself seem to eclipse the question of how the animals got there and were taken care of. A God that can create and flood the world can surely handle how to take care of livestock.
Yep, if god can produce a flood he can do anything...in fact he's so powerful he could have instantly evaporated all the sinners and not even bothered with a flood at all. But then...thats too simple and logical for a god who knows know logic. Yep, the god of the bible acts like a baffoon.
so are you saying you believe in God but just don't like how He does things? Cuz if you do believe in God, then it's not really an argument with me. If you don't believe in God then why argue these points. Kinda have to be on the same page to have any kind of discussion.
Let me unmuddy the waters for you (believers love to muddy discussions). Even if Yahweh (god of the old testament) were real and did the things he is supposed to have done concering the flood - I'm saying that it makes NO SENSE - NO LOGICAL SENSE AT ALL. Not believing in something doesn't mean you can't have a discussion about it. A crazy person is not on the same page as the psychiatrist - but a crazy person talking to another crazy person ain't gonna get anyone anywhere.
Well, I haven't muddied any waters so please, lets not paint with quite so broad a brush. Half your responses are actual responses and half are just insults slung at someone you think you already know, but don't. Well, first I think you need to make up your mind WHY you do or do not believe in God. If you decide you do, then we can move on from there. If not, then the stuff in the Bible is really an in house debate. Is it not? You make yourself look whiney carrying on about it.
Oh..and the reason I argue these points is to point them out to the sheep-like indoctrinated believers who are too frightened to give even one moments thought to such things in case they end up in a fictional place called hell. A place with cartoon like lakes of fire and demons with horns and all that childish gibberish. Oh....and to believe in the flood requires you to believe in a 6000year old earth....so that clinches it in a nutshell - the earth is 14 Billion years old - not a piddling 6000
Carrying on from before. Christians aren't the only people that believe in a god. You can discuss it all you like, but your the one whose at risk of making yourself look foolish. My point is...IF you already believe in the God of the Bible, then miracles are something you also believe in. You cannot scientifically test the supernatural using natural methods. If it's super natural, we don't possess the means to do it. To think so to me seems illogical.
Now...to un-muddy the waters again... Believing in a god is totally different to believing in a specific god such as the god of the bible. I don't currently believe there is evidence to support the existence of a god - but I'm open to the idea of it. However, I have read the bible from cover to cover (yes..all of it) and my conclusion is that it's a collection of books written by men and that the christian god is no more real then any other god of any other religion.
I disagree with your personal belief that there is no God. I believe there is evidence. See, now we are actually getting somewhere. Instead of rambling on about secondary issues or hurling insults or marginalizing or throwing an encyclopedia of ploys to distract or divert attention from the point. This here is good stuff. I do prefer intellectually honest discussion. I do realize I initiated the convo, but you seem like a smart enough guy to keep it above board.
Oops...I meant to say that the Earth is 4 Billion years old...the universe is 14 Billion (or there abouts) - Yes, really! Despite what the handful of "christian" so-called scientists would have you believe, the earth really is that old (the vastly overwhelming majority of the worlds scientists completey agree the findings on this).
Sheep like is something I agree with. We are all sheep. I'm just smart enough to know it. You still think your "enlightened" because something doesn't make sense to you. One moment's thought? again insults instead of discussion. Many creation believers have been studying for years and sorry, there are thousands that believe in a literal six days, not just a handful. Many hide because of this kind of behavior. Ken Ham has articles and names of scientists on his site alone. Google it.
If you align yourself with the likes of Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort you have my deepest sympathies. The earth is not 6000years old and 99 + % of ACTUAL SCIENTISTS will tell you this with their pesky testable, varified, proven, peer reviewed EVIDENCE. EVEN The damn Pope accepts it. You need some wake up juice. And I you're worried that I may make myself look foolish??? lol. The irony in this is just wonderful. I'll be chuckling for hours.
align myself? I "align" myself with myself. Nice marginalizing. It's a ploy. If I had a dollar for every time people of your mindset said how funny they found me, merely because we disagreed, I could pay off the deficit. The testable evidence...I could get a giggle or two out of that. You can't test for evolution. It's not something there is a test for. I've seen the junk science that goes into it. Apparently the more you say that it's verified, the more verified it becomes, LOL!
The Junk science you refer to is Peer reviewed Junk science from all of the major disciplines. Clearly you must therefore believe that all of these top scientists are using junk cosmology, junk palentology, junk physics, junk biology and junk chemistry etc etc to astonishingly arrive at the same junk findings that evolution happened and an that we live on an extreamely old earth. Incidentally - do not confuse (as most believers do) evolution with abiogenesis - THEY ARE SEPARATE THINGS.
so are you saying that a fact is not a fact unless it's peer reviewed? There have been many theories over the years that originally went against the concensus that were later found out to be absolutely true. Facts are facts whether or not they are "peer reviewed". I think I can grasp the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. I'll try and keep up with all your fangled fancy wordin' and whatnot. *wink*. I don't believe in an old earth. I believe the evidence points the other way.
Only the truth is the truth - not opinion (although opinions can be true - but they have to be proven to be true). To believe in a young earth is to disregard ALL of different sciences that arrive INDEPENDENTLY to the SAME conclusions. Can't you see how staggeringly dumb / ignorant you have to be reject the weight of many decades of evidence gathered and tested and proven by skilled, intelligent, hard working people? I'm trying so hard not to insult you here - but its practically impossible.
again dumb and ignorant. I think I'm neither of these. I wouldn't think that about you merely because you disagreed and were in error. Evolutionists apparently haven't evolved graciousness or generosity. I have read how they collect and put together evidence. If the dates match, it goes in. If they don't they throw them out or shelve them. I'd like to know where they keep coming up with these rock solid older ages from evidence all over the board. The testing methods are so inaccurate.
You would have to believe that all of the worlds top scientists of all disciplines went to college and university and studied for years and years because they hated god, were possessed by the devil and just wanted to make shit up.
No you wouldn't have to believe that to hold a position like mine. Not at all. And that's not what I believe. Alot ot topics here. Perhaps this would be better served in a different forum. I'm finding hard to have a conversation of substance. For someone claiming enlightenment, your not very generous in the conversation.
can you not see how retarded a view like that is? And millions of people have to believe that in order to hang onto the first few chapters of genesis. It's delusion of the highest order. As I said before - there may indeed be a god (or not, who knows?) but hanging onto genesis DESPITE the fact that it is clearly a fairy story created by ill-informed MEN (not god) is just nuts. People who believe it are not all nuts - most are just frightened that they may go to hell if they believe otherwise.
retarded? no, disagreeing with someone on something doesn't make you retarded. I think I'm pretty average in intelligence. Millions believed slavery was ok because black people were sub human. I wonder if that was peer reviewed. hmmm. I think you can see in my posts that I'm not "deluded". You use such strong verbage. Again...nuts....frightened. I think we have lost the art of conversation. Too many using cheap words to discredit those who don't agree with them.
It's not a case of disagreeing - THE EVIDENCE AND PROOF IS IN - ITS NOT up for debate in the same way that the fact that you have blood in your veins is not up for debate. Only in your imagination is there a debate. Its therefore not possible to disagree..what you are doing is nothing less than willful ignorance and self delusion. You can claim to disagree as much as you like in the same way that I can disagree that trees exist. I'd be just making myself look foolish - as trees exist.
I can test whether I have blood in my veins. You cannot test the big bang or abiogenesis. We all have the same "evidence"...I hesitate to use a word like "proof". It's the bias you bring to the table. If it's so iron clad and provable...why not show how the test is repeatable. ya know actual science. I see no imperical evidence for your beliefs. Just a carefully worked and reworked theory that has it's foundation set upon a belief in long ages to the universe.
OK, I give up - you win - all the worlds top scientists of all disciplines all around the world are all wrong - and Ken Ham is correct. The bible is all 100% accurate and the world is a mere 6000 or so years old. I'm finally converted. Case closed.
I'd love it if that were really so. My original point was not conversion. Just a free exchange of ideas. I can see you'd like to end this exchange. I wish you well. Thank you for the discussion and your time. I enjoyed it. Have a wonderful 2010.
So what Ken Ham is saying is that Noah "only" needed 16,000 animals on the ark because EVOLUTION would take care of the diversification of species from there?
And it's not just 40 days and 40 nights. If you read the King James text, the ark was shut up for over a calendar year. That's 12 times the bullshit. Literally and figuratively.
Let's not mention the logistical needs for every animal. It's impossible to fit 16,000 people on a large cruise ship comfortably as well as food, soap, etc. F--king impossible!
Lions and Tigers simply cannot eat plants as their sole source of food, it just doesn't work. There is nowhere near enough water to cover the entire planet (it would take about 4 times the current volume, including ice caps), and if that much existed in the atmosphere then they would've all died from asphyxiation, not to mention the sheer energy involved with that much vapor suddenly condensing into liquid and falling to Earth.
ok, look, God made the animals gather. if He made them gather, He would also have a path for them to follow. He would also have a way for them to stay peaceful once on the boat. plus, before the flood, which is at least in part the topic here, there wouldn't have been such massive bodies of water that elk would have to swim the ocean, you need to keep the entire explanation in context, not just four words at a time.
You seriously think that, even if they had enough food for every animal, which, the elephants would have been able to eat a ship-full of food in just a few days, you'd have a hard time keeping the lions from eating the other animals, along with the bears, and, on top of it all, getting them to eat plants... right...
Of course the idea of a global flood is completely ridiculous and can be 100% disproved. Just go to my channel and watch my second last video named "Creationism". It says all!
Please rate the video also with 5 stars, so creationists can se people understand the message.
why does every "layman" evolutionist video resort to an appeal to ridicule, just throwing insults and jokes around instead of making an honest, logical, and sensible argument?
this is not a good argument for evoltuion, slagging of anyone who disagrees with you. the ark was very big so could fit in 16000 animals and there is no reason to believe (in creationist belief) that noah had much less technology than our days. in regards to q2, clearly u havent dun research into the beliefs of biblical christianity as before the flood the world was connected so they wouldnt have had to swim. catosprohic tectonics caused the continents to seperate during the flood not before
This is not argument for evolution or for anything. Noah's ark is absurd, that's the point. No, the ark could not fit 16,000 animals. 2000 animals per person to look after?! Look at the logistics for the biggest zoo on earth. Just think of all the different species of bird?!
The size of the boat is irrelevant...it's the care and feeding of so many animals. Our local zoo, which is pretty standard, only has 3000 animals. It takes around 150 or so employees and volunteers to maintain this small amount. Multiply by 5.3...about 800 or so people to take care of that many animals. It's just common sense, man.
Also, 4000 (or so) years ago..the continents were roughly the same as we see them today. Not joined. Geology proves this. You made up Catastrophic Tect.
This shit was hilarious, especially the ending. I never even thought of that, what all the carnivious animals ate once they got off the ark LOL fucking grass?
yah the animals did eat plants. have you ever seen a panda bears teeth? and what do panda bears eat?....... 99% bambo!kodiak bears and black bears eat plants to. so why is it so hard to belive all the other animals did the same?
Come on you seem smart enough to answer your own question. If you know anything about Pandas than you know why they eat Bambo. Black bears are omnivores, no it doesnt seem plausable that past lions were vegeterians but then again if you believe some old ass dude snuck a bunch of animals in a ship you'd probably believe anything.
yah they eat bamboo because the need to live. and so did the lions of the past so they eat plants aswell. i brought up pandas becuase they have teeth like a carnivore yet eat plants. so give me real facts why an lion or any other carnivore couldnt eat plants and live.
Well where Lions live there is'nt a bunch of plants, it's actually pretty dry. Grass is'nt very nutritious so you have to eat a whole lot to fuel a lion. They arent zebras they dont have the same metabolism, or digestive tract. They would actually vomit from eating plants (as many cats do purposely) this isnt Lion king Lions arent living off of bugs and shit with timon and Puma. So no a lion cant live off of plants since its hard for them to digest, and makes them vomit.
It takes 2 minutes on Google to find out that though pandas main diet is bamboo, they are omnivours and will eat carrion and small rodents. The y have flattened back teeth to crush bamboo stalks, quite unlike full carnivours which are much more saw-like. If you spend a tiny amount of time researching your comments, instead of just presuming you know things you'd be a wiser person.
@kalsolarUK So you have no explanation for your theory. Good to know. What do you mean by science?
shunjunbea 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
shunjunbea 2 weeks ago
You're funny, but you're wrong, and, all the continents were joined before the flood. If you were to read The Bible.
soundzefe 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@soundzefe Where does the Bible say that?
InternetDarkLord 3 months ago
16,000 is nonsense. The Bible claims ravens were on the ark, but they are a modern genus of birds, so an ark full of ancient "kinds" would have none.
Also, where are the millions of transitional forms between those 16,000 and today's millions? If the Genesis farce created the sedimentary rock, none can be fossils, unless they all burrowed through miles of rock before dying.
InternetDarkLord 7 months ago
Comment removed
shunjunbea 2 weeks ago
@falseprophetbuster1 "here" even. Arse.
ralph17p 7 months ago
@falseprophetbuster1 That's how we fucking talk her in blighty. Swear words aren't swear words. They're fucking punctuation.
ralph17p 7 months ago
@falseprophetbuster1 His swearing adds zest to the narrative. That's why it's funnier with swear.
saamohod 10 months ago
Problems with noah's ark? Easy. Their god helped. End of argument.
kw2798 10 months ago
You English are funny bastards. Well done sir.
movieklump 10 months ago
Christians actually believe this shit.
gavincostin1 1 year ago
Well, Ken Ham's hypothesis would demolish all the objections like Thermodynamics, Information Theory, or no transitional forms...with the added absurdity that if the Imaginary Flood laid down the earth's rock, all the transitional forms between the 60,000 kinds and today's crawled up to 2 miles into bedrock before dying.
InternetDarkLord 1 year ago
While, we are on the subject, the "mountains of Ararat" are in Armenia. Dag Agri is in Turkey. It was renamed Mount Ararat at some later century, long after the Bible was written. "Arkeologists" always look in the wrong mountain range in the wrong country.
InternetDarkLord 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
16.000 animals on one ship? Easy. Piece of cake. The meat industry can probably get that many on a single mack truck :p
Brandt761 1 year ago
Comment removed
Brandt761 1 year ago
What's so weird about his beard? It seems more or less normal.
Brandt761 1 year ago
@Brandt761 His beard is the most normal thing about him.
InternetDarkLord 1 year ago
@InternetDarkLord probably
Brandt761 1 year ago
Now do one about big bang, evolution and billions and billions of years, should be just as funny!
klintrimus 1 year ago
Am I the only one that pictures Doc Emmett Brown when KalsolarUK says "sixteen thousand animals"?
thelordmemnoch 1 year ago
hey there were no carnivorous animals yet they didnt eat meat until afterwards and there was only one contenant at the time befor the flood so no the elk did not need to swim to get to the ark and you only needed 2 out of each family of animals so closely realted animals like dogs coyotes and wolve could come from two parent that over time each one looked more different mingled and you had all the different kind of dogs
GregnotGreg 1 year ago
Noah: The dinosaurs are eating to many animals, let's throw them over board!
Now I understand the extinction!
I'm sure, there's anywhere a PETA- protest sticker on the ark...
Elune137 1 year ago
"Volumes might be written upon the infinite absurdity of this most incredible wicked and foolish of all the fables contained in the last repository of the impossible called the Bible. To me it is a matter of amazement that it ever was even for a moment believed by any intelligent human being."
-Robert G. Ingersoll.
pedrom41 1 year ago
@pedrom41 Not as foolish as to think that somehow by chance a inhospitable planet "became" suitible for life and that everything came from single cell organisms to become something better over millions of years. Sorry i just can't believe that rot. The links ........ are just not there.
ameiko76 1 year ago
@ameiko76 My problem is not with the possibility of the existence of a god, gods or goddess, my problem, which is the problem of many, is with all the absurdities comprised in a collection of ancient assorted writings strung together at the request of some emperor who had his own political agenda. If there's a god, and I for one wouldn't have any problem with it, the Bible is a mockery to that god. It's not a reliable source to represent said god.
pedrom41 1 year ago
because of the flood is what made the contenents drift apart DUH!
pokemonlova99 1 year ago
@pokemonlova99 you really believe this genesis nonsense don't you? Despite there being ZERO scientists world wide who support it. (I will ignore the tiny tiny amount of laughed at "christian scientists") who are sadly trying to keep america in the scientific dark ages. Why on earth would you have "faith" in this tiny band of wilfully dishonest scientifc turds.
kalsolarUK 1 year ago
@kalsolarUK well Sir, you do bring up a good point and at some times I do admit I have doubts about my religion and also break God's laws but the main reason why I hold on to the Bible is because I would rather take the chance of believeing in something even at the risk of it not exisisting then to just blow it off and end up dieing and going to Hell for all eternaty but before I hit the post button I do want to say Im not argueing with you I am just answering your question in the last sentince.
pokemonlova99 1 year ago
@pokemonlova99 Very sad that it is fear of a fictional lake of fire rather than love that is holding you to a literal belief. Truth is though, deep down you don't believe it anyway by the sounds of it. You don't have to abandon a belief in god to accept scientific truths about the origins of the universe.
kalsolarUK 1 year ago 6
@pokemonlova99
if you're only believing because you'd rather be safe than sorry.... then you can't be a real christian/believer anyway. it took me a long time to realize this, but I'm so glad I finally did.
semipreciousamber 1 year ago
@semipreciousamber you uhh do realize that I posted all that months ago right? I mean when I was younger I believed belived then as I got older I started to doubt but I realize now that is mainly due to because I had and have reached the age of acountablity and its at that point where God just fully lets go and has me choose if I want to serve him or not and I realise that just sitting on the fence post wont work I have to be all the way in I have to be on one side of the fence not in the middle
pokemonlova99 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kalsolarUK "you really believe this genesis nonsense don't you?" Yes.
"Despite there being ZERO scientists world wide who support it." Irrelevant.
"Why on earth would you have "faith" in this tiny band of wilfully dishonest scientifc turds. " They are right, not dishonest. You are angry.
Codenamelumiere 11 months ago
@kalsolarUK Wow, i didn´t think the brilliant atheists had to resort to logical fallacies to maker their cases, such as Argumentum ad populum... i guess they´ve got after all.
Can anybody disagree with evolution by natural selection? If not, guess who is keeping America in the scientific dark ages. Christian are far more open minded considered how many of them are willing to drop their beliefs at the sight of an atheist bully.
fmeloexlds 11 months ago
@kalsolarUK Wow, i didn´t think the brilliant atheists had to resort to logical fallacies to maker their cases, such as Argumentum ad populum... i guess that´s all they´ve got after all.
Can anybody disagree with evolution by natural selection? If not, guess who is keeping America in the scientific dark ages. Christians are far more open minded considered how many of them are willing to drop their beliefs at the sight of an atheist bully.
fmeloexlds 11 months ago
@fmeloexlds LMFAO
BoredInfidel 11 months ago
@kalsolarUK Who's actually in the DARK AGE?
marcelobetel 8 months ago
@EndOfNumbers You lose troll. You're blocked..but I'll leave up your comments just for others to laugh at. ;-)
kalsolarUK 1 year ago
@EndOfNumbers Oops, did I say magic apples? I meant magic forbidden fruit. Either way...its magical. The were giants and unicorns and fire breathing dragons in those days you know. Sigh.
kalsolarUK 1 year ago
@kalsolarUK umm not realy their are not such things as dragons and unicorns and giants and yes I know the bible called goliath a gient but they arent talking about the kind of gients you mean
pokemonlova99 1 year ago
@EndOfNumbers yeah...and you're a creationist. You have my pity. Creationism is steadily on the decline thankfully and maybe even you will wise up one day and start living in the real world instead of your fairlyland of talking serpents and magic apples and talking donkies etc etc etc. Oh and lets not forget your mentally invented lake of fire in your invented story-book hell. How sad.
kalsolarUK 1 year ago
@kalsolarUK I'm sure you don't care of creationism, but rather you hate the people who follow Christ, which are the christians, and I'm sure you hate the Jews too.
EndOfNumbers 1 year ago
@EndOfNumbers Most Christians don't believe in creationism either. I have many friends and family who are Chritians. If you want to know what I hate, its the retarded thinking of idiots like you. Now, go play somewhere else.
kalsolarUK 1 year ago
@kalsolarUK I'msure you know yourself you're ugly, and for ugly people like you it's hard to be acknowledged so, you have to resort to insulting people to get your point across. By me calling you ugly it's not an insult, but rather a matter of fact, and it's not an opinion.
EndOfNumbers 1 year ago
@kalsolarUK If you don't understand the Flood account of the Bible you shouldn't comment about it nor should imply that you even understand what's going on. You arguements are childish, and you lack personality. You're a failing human being without any morals expressedin your heart. May God help you.
EndOfNumbers 1 year ago
@EndOfNumbers You'll find that its you and jail bird hovind and bananaman comfort who don't understand the flood account. Have you read the bible from cover to cover the same as I have?? Every single word? As usual, like all bone head creationists I'm guessing not. Correct??? They read selected bits, and believe ridiculous bullcrap in case they get burned in a fictional lake of fire. I'd rather be ugly than retarded anyday.
kalsolarUK 1 year ago
What I would like to know is just how big that ark would have to be to just physically carry the provisions needed for the herbivorous animals to reach a sustainable population for the carnivorous animals to be able to hunt them.
As well as the food needed to sustain the carnivorous animals while this was going on.
Never mind that they didn't have the technology to keep the food fresh for that long...
hhaugan 1 year ago
@kalsolarUK As much as I agree with you on the rest, and totally agree with you on what is important here (creationism sucks, evolution rocks, there are no gods), earth, as far as we know is only about 4.6 billion years old. The solar system is around 14 billion years old though, I think that's where you got your facts wrong. :-)
Keep up the great work!
Accoberg - You're just plain wrong - 'as many facts point to a young earth as an old.' Ignorant. In the extreme...
hhaugan 1 year ago
@hhaugan not sure what made you think I believed in a young earth?? I believe exactly the same facts as you on this matter.
kalsolarUK 1 year ago
@kalsolarUK No worries, I understood that fine, I was just correcting your statement that the earth is 14 billion years old, I'm well aware you have a brain :-)
hhaugan 1 year ago
@hhaugan you must be thinking of another video...I've just rewatched this to check and I don't make any mention of the age of the earth / universe in this video.
kalsolarUK 1 year ago
@kalsolarUK - No, the video is great, it's in the comment above :-)
"you'll find the earth is indeed nearly 14 billion years old"
Just want to avoid quote-mining by the creationists - no biggie. (well, 10 billion years is a biggie, but I can see how the mistake can happen hehe)
hhaugan 1 year ago
@hhaugan Oops, yep I see my error there, must have been a late night! lol.
kalsolarUK 1 year ago
@kalsolarUK - I've done similar mistakes, just didn't want anyone try to discredit your otherwise brilliant work! You've had me laughing out loud with your videos :-)
It's rather sad how some people just can't see how ridiculous this story is... Even I realised that back when I was a christian... Thankfully I've since seen the light :-)
hhaugan 1 year ago
@kalsolarUK By the way, the video is BRILLIANT! :-)
hhaugan 1 year ago
It would be better for you to go back and sell the "slap chop!"
991med 1 year ago
omg, I've never laughed so hard in my life.
Great vid!
spacewolf5462 1 year ago
When I saw the title I thought you had a valid argument. If you did just a minor amount of research you'd see your statements are full of bad facts. For a moment forget if Ken Ham is right or wrong and consider that, no matter how unlikely in this case, you'll influence others to believe or disbelieve when your just spouting off nonsense.
As many facts point to a young earth as an old. Unless you are getting sensership on your internet it's easy to find out. Facts are facts.
accoberg 1 year ago
@accoberg You saw my title and thought I had a valid argument? No wonder you're a YEC if you believe stuff that easily. Just imagine if my title had said "Kent Hovind is a shapeshiter from Mars!" (Actually he probably is..he's certainly not human).
kalsolarUK 1 year ago 4
Don't forget that Noah also had to take food with him... FOR A WHOLE YEAR!!!
He needed food for 60,000 animals + 8 humans for 356 days! He probably needed half the boat, for just the food!
Greyh0und 1 year ago 2
@Greyh0und Only around 16,000 animals necessary to preserve the different "kinds". These animals (puls humans) would only take up 46% of the room on the ark which would leave enough room for food to support the animals for several years.
spe396 1 year ago
@spe396 What do you mean with "kinds". Species? Genus? Family? Order?
See tinyarro. ws/sWikiSpecies for more info :)
And how do you know these 16.000 animals would only take up 46% of the ship? reference please!
Greyh0und 1 year ago
@Greyh0und No one is sure, but it would be either Family or Genus. I read an article by John Woodmorappe who has been studying this topic for more than 20 years. It is difficult (impossible) to identify how much room an unknown number of animals might take up, but even using the largest possible number of animals that could have been on the ark and combining it with the amount of room it takes to permanently house them today, less than half of the room provided by the ark is required.
spe396 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@spe396 What do you mean with "kinds"? Species? Genus? Family? Order?
Please specify which one.
More info: tinyarro .ws/sWikiSpecies
BTW: How do you know these 16.000 animals would only take up 46% of the ship? From what article/video?
Greyh0und 1 year ago
Ken Ham looks would indicate a PROOF of evolution.
Hereticbooks 1 year ago 3
I gotta start sending your videos to my friends.
AwaitsHell 1 year ago
And then we have to imagine where & how all of the sea mammals will be kept & fed. And what about the animals who need special diets & environments? Noah also has to collect every type of insect, tree, & plant! (I still wanna know where & how he cared for the whales & dolphins). What about the polar bears, penguins, all animals from the polar regions? Did they just walk across the continents? They'd be dead the 1st day! Btw, this "Flood" story has been told in earlier myths.
Cootabux 1 year ago
As usual, both hilarious and spot on!
Largo64 1 year ago
I suppose the Rose Bowl, which seats 10,000 (or is it 100,000?) is so loud you can't handle it? Were you aware that the Ark is 1 and 1/2 football fields in length alone?
LOL. And obviously the continents were together (Rodinia or Pangaea) in the past, so there's no need for elks to do any swimming.
dougmoerhoffman 1 year ago
@dougmoerhoffman I don't have to sit in the Rose Bowl for an entire year feeding, cleaning out and tending to many thousands of aminals whilst being tossed around on the ocean. Also, I don't care how big the bible says the ark was in the same way that I don't care how big the starship enterprise is. Both are fictional.
kalsolarUK 1 year ago
@kalsolarUK You wouldn't be tossed around. Ever been on an aircraft carrier? Did you feel tossed around? No, wave action won't affect you when you're that big, and the ark was 1/3 the length of the JFK aircraft carrier, whose size you can see compared to the white house in the new 2012 movie, just for kicks.
dougmoerhoffman 1 year ago
@dougmoerhoffman According to the fictional bible 8 people tended to many many thousands of animals every day for a year. Your problem is, you're so terrified of being burnt in a fictional lake of fire that you are willing to believe any old crap by saying magic man did it. WHO FED AND CLEANED OUT THESE many 1000s of ANIMALS EVERY DAY FOR A YEAR???? WHOOOOO???? MAGIC MAN???? ANSWER THIS QUESTION OR SHUT UP!!!
kalsolarUK 1 year ago
@dougmoerhoffman The continents were indeed together at one point....but that was MANY MANY MILLIONS of years ago. Unless you choose to believe a stupid, ignorant tiny minority of "christian science morons" who stupidly and ignorantly say 6000 years. If you believe those people you truely are a baffoon.
kalsolarUK 1 year ago
@kalsolarUK I reject the flawed radiometric dating analyses. Millions of years are irrelevant. We both agree that the continents were together, and you have no way to accurately measure how long ago that was.
Oh, a personal attack. Good thing I grew out of being influenced by peer pressure in 3rd grade.
dougmoerhoffman 1 year ago
@dougmoerhoffman You reject it NOT because it is flawed, you reject it because it doesn't tally up with what the bible says and thats your problem. If the bible said the universe was billions of years old you wouldn't have the remotest problem accepting the findings of science. You would be saying "how can virtually ALL of the respected scientists in ALL fields of science ALL be simultaneously wrong when ALL of their findings tally up? ALL OF THEM! How moronic can you be?
kalsolarUK 1 year ago 7
@dougmoerhoffman
not to be rude by butting in to your argument with kalsolaruk,
but what and why do you reject c14 dating? Just curious.
rlwiii 1 year ago
How is it flawed?
dN/dt = -aN; dN/N = -adt; ln(N) = -at; N = e^(-at). This means that for say halftimes you'd get: (1/2) = e^(-at); ln(1/2) = -at; t = ln(2)/a. "a" is a constant dependant on the substance you're letting decay, N is it's concentration.
TakesTwoToTango 1 year ago
The concentration of radioactive material changing at a rate that's dependable on the current concentration of that material. This is an observed fact. The constant a can be measured and is observed to be the same everytime you use the same material. You can read up the math yourself in my previous post. So how would this be flawed?
TakesTwoToTango 1 year ago
@dougmoerhoffman Even if there were only 16000 animals, this wasn't an outdoor (or even domed) arena in which sound might dissipate, but a tightly enclosed space with only one window. The person who wrote this tale didn't think it through very well, nor, apparently, have you.
Do you suppose that one window gave enough light for the people to tend all those animals without lamps? Mammals fart methane, in great enough quantity to explode if a lamp were lit. So the ark blew up. The end.
Largo64 1 year ago
@Largo64 Reading the NIV, it says, "finish the ark to within 18 inches of the top," without mention of a rectangular window. It appears that the blueprint was an 18-inch wide space, running around the entire ark. This would certainly have provided enough ventilation.
dougmoerhoffman 1 year ago
Laughed my assed off
saamohod 1 year ago
obviously there is just a massive conspiracy where every (credible) scientist is out to murder god by forcing evolution upon us.
or you know, not.
foxmcloud555 1 year ago
If I remember correctly (I may very well be wrong), but it wasn't just "two of every animal" as lots of people believe. It's two PAIRS of every unclean animal, and seven PAIRS of every clean animal. I don't recall it specifying exactly what the difference was between a "clean" or "unclean" animal, but that fact alone has to skyrocket the number many times over.
HelplessVictim 1 year ago
@HelplessVictim Quote: If I remember correctly (I may very well be wrong), but it wasn't just "two of every animal" as lots of people believe. It's two PAIRS of every unclean animal, and seven PAIRS of every clean animal.
That would actually make more sense which is ironic in that the story as a whole still makes no sense what-so-ever
kalsolarUK 1 year ago
@HelplessVictim I believe a plain reading will result in 2 unclean animals, with 7 clean....the 7th odd one out being the one that gets sacrificed afterwards...since it doesn't have a mate anyway.
It doesn't really. Even if we went with species, there'd be enough room.
dougmoerhoffman 1 year ago
@dougmoerhoffman
"Even if we went with species, there'd be enough room."
Wait, how would there be enough room? What did the carnivores eat? And what about all the inbreeding afterwards? How would all the marsupials know to move the thousands of miles to what would later be Australia? Too many holes for this story to stay afloat.
HelplessVictim 1 year ago 2
Good vid, great reasoning. I'm subbing :)
MarcusKiner 1 year ago
Comment removed
AgapeTS 1 year ago
wats more believable,noah put all the species of animals on the ark or that life as we know it came from NOTHING,from primordial soup to what u see now?
sliew72 1 year ago
definately the "soup" option because of the IRON CLAD scientific evidence that evolution occured and continues. How life started initially we don't known exactly yet -but we DO know that evolution is a definate fact from science.
But use your brain - you really believe 8 people fed, cleaned out and generally looked after many many thousands of animals on a boat for a year? Really? Really????? You really need to start thinking like an aduld human being not a child of 4.
kalsolarUK 1 year ago
@kalsolarUK ...well speaking of using your brain,tell me wat does your brain tell you concerning human population numbers,or human expansion thruout the earth,or the historical records of man?2000 yrs ago our population levels were around 256 mil,the known world was a lot smaller than today,it stands to reason if u go back another 2000 yrs from that point the known world shrinks even more and also the population levels,to the point were we end up somewhere in mesopatamia,odd dont u think
sliew72 1 year ago
so...you've decided not to answer my question then and instead just pose one of your own. Understandable really - clearly my question was too difficult to answer without making god himself the boats zoo keeper. However..I will answer your question. Statistical data tells us there were about 1 million people alive around 10,000yrs ago. That's 4000 years prior to biblical creation for a start. Of course this is irrelevant anyway as the earth is PROVEN to be BILLIONS of years old.
kalsolarUK 1 year ago
@kalsolarUK ... "Statistical data tells us there were about 1 million people alive around 10,000yrs ago"......where do the statistics come from and how were they able to come to that figure?
sliew72 1 year ago
If you seriously want an answer to that, either do some online research or alternatively just go to one of the laugh-a-minute creationist websites and believe whatever crap they tell you. Crap which almost always contradicts the actual FACTS as agreed on by most of the worlds REAL SCIENTISTS and statisticians etc. Take your pick. Oh I forgot...you already have. Sigh.
kalsolarUK 1 year ago
@kalsolarUK ....lol,your a wanker
sliew72 1 year ago
quote "....lol,your a wanker"
Is that so? Well, I'm not the one listening to the creationist bullcrap. The work of all the worlds top cosmologists, paleantologists, chemists, physicists, archeologists etc ALL point in one direction... but instead you brainlessly follow the words of Ken Ham, Jailbird Kent Hovind, and Banana Man Ray comfort etc. Yep, for no sensisble reason you follow the words of a band of numbnuts. Marvelous.
kalsolarUK 1 year ago
And if you really want to turn this into a 20 questions conversation - I have a million questions about Noahs Ark besides those in this video that will make your head explode. Quesions that will leave you with no other answer than to say, "it was done by magic". How moronic and childish is that? You already failed to answer the obvious question of how 8 people looked after every one of the many thousands of animals for a full year at sea. Oh I forgot already....God played Zoo Keeper.
kalsolarUK 1 year ago
@kalsolarUK ...ive got a million of my own questions concerning the greatest magic show ever,evolution,as for Noah feeding the animals,scripture says they all ate vegetable matter,hay saves the day i say,as for the amount of animals in the ark,have you ever considered only the original of each species was in the ark,not every kind of dog or horse or cat was on the ark,what about the evidence of a global flood written about from ancient cultures?
sliew72 1 year ago
Evolution has PROOF for its claims. DNA proof, gene proof and fossil proof. How it exactly got started is still not totally clear...but that does nothing to disprove the fact that once it got started evolution happened. An incredibly slow process - but it happened.
kalsolarUK 1 year ago
Oh..as for your ark comment. EVEN IF you strip it right down to the minimum number of animals needed that still leaves a minimum 16,000 animals (according to Ken Ham) for 8 PEOPLE to look after, feed and clean out for a YEAR. How may I ask? HOW? Magic Zoo Keeper from the clouds? And where did the fresh vegatation come from required daily by many thousands of these animals?? Magic Zoo Keeper again? Feel silly yet? Got any sensible answers? I'd say not ONE.
kalsolarUK 1 year ago
Comment removed
AgapeTS 1 year ago
The question you ask has nothing to do with the utter ridiculousness and shear impossibility of the Noahs Ark story. (A story that was in fact stolen from the Epic of Gilgamesh amonst other flood myths).
The fact that we don't have a full explanation (yet) of how the first cell came to be is no reason to automatically shut your inquiring mind off and say "it must be god". The research is on-going and maybe one day we will have the answer...or maybe we won't.
kalsolarUK 1 year ago
Of course I could ask you the same question about God. Where did he come from? People have given me theory and hypothesis but no fact. Perhaps you can explain with fact.
kalsolarUK 1 year ago
Comment removed
AgapeTS 1 year ago
Quote: "So you don't have an answer?"
For the terminally dumb I refer you the answer I gave previously. NO we do NOT know exactly YET where the first cell came from - but I Emphasise YET. It is believed life possibly came about via a process known as abiogenesis. Science is an ON GOING process - and MAYBE one day we will have the answer and Maybe one day we won't. But filling that gap with God and not pursuing an answer and wishing to remain ignorant is retarded.
kalsolarUK 1 year ago 2
Ohhh...and if you believe in the Noahs Ark story you're an idiot of the highest calibre and frankly you don't deserve the time of anyone to answer your dumb ass questions. Read a god damn science book instead of your fear-inducing bible for once. Oh...and unless you get a proper channel page with some actual details on it...you can forget getting any more answers from me for anything anyway. I'm not inclined to talk to anonymous baffoons.
kalsolarUK 1 year ago
Your brain has strangely told you to ignore the 1000's of worlds EXPERTS in their chosen scientific fields and instead listen to the mindless empty headed doctrine of laughed at "creation scientists". Yeah, cuz that makes real sense. You're not just backing an outsider, you're backing an outsider without legs.
kalsolarUK 1 year ago
@kalsolarUK ......a majority doesnt make it right
sliew72 1 year ago
You are so funny!
alhanacherie 1 year ago
I like Ken Ham. I think his beard does for Ham, what Lincoln's beard did for him. He looks better with it than without it. I was curious...why do you have problems with these secondary issues. The prediction of the flood and the flood itself seem to eclipse the question of how the animals got there and were taken care of. A God that can create and flood the world can surely handle how to take care of livestock.
sheepinarowboat 2 years ago
Yep, if god can produce a flood he can do anything...in fact he's so powerful he could have instantly evaporated all the sinners and not even bothered with a flood at all. But then...thats too simple and logical for a god who knows know logic. Yep, the god of the bible acts like a baffoon.
kalsolarUK 2 years ago
so are you saying you believe in God but just don't like how He does things? Cuz if you do believe in God, then it's not really an argument with me. If you don't believe in God then why argue these points. Kinda have to be on the same page to have any kind of discussion.
sheepinarowboat 2 years ago
Let me unmuddy the waters for you (believers love to muddy discussions). Even if Yahweh (god of the old testament) were real and did the things he is supposed to have done concering the flood - I'm saying that it makes NO SENSE - NO LOGICAL SENSE AT ALL. Not believing in something doesn't mean you can't have a discussion about it. A crazy person is not on the same page as the psychiatrist - but a crazy person talking to another crazy person ain't gonna get anyone anywhere.
kalsolarUK 2 years ago
Well, I haven't muddied any waters so please, lets not paint with quite so broad a brush. Half your responses are actual responses and half are just insults slung at someone you think you already know, but don't. Well, first I think you need to make up your mind WHY you do or do not believe in God. If you decide you do, then we can move on from there. If not, then the stuff in the Bible is really an in house debate. Is it not? You make yourself look whiney carrying on about it.
sheepinarowboat 2 years ago
Oh..and the reason I argue these points is to point them out to the sheep-like indoctrinated believers who are too frightened to give even one moments thought to such things in case they end up in a fictional place called hell. A place with cartoon like lakes of fire and demons with horns and all that childish gibberish. Oh....and to believe in the flood requires you to believe in a 6000year old earth....so that clinches it in a nutshell - the earth is 14 Billion years old - not a piddling 6000
kalsolarUK 2 years ago
Carrying on from before. Christians aren't the only people that believe in a god. You can discuss it all you like, but your the one whose at risk of making yourself look foolish. My point is...IF you already believe in the God of the Bible, then miracles are something you also believe in. You cannot scientifically test the supernatural using natural methods. If it's super natural, we don't possess the means to do it. To think so to me seems illogical.
sheepinarowboat 2 years ago
Now...to un-muddy the waters again... Believing in a god is totally different to believing in a specific god such as the god of the bible. I don't currently believe there is evidence to support the existence of a god - but I'm open to the idea of it. However, I have read the bible from cover to cover (yes..all of it) and my conclusion is that it's a collection of books written by men and that the christian god is no more real then any other god of any other religion.
kalsolarUK 2 years ago
I disagree with your personal belief that there is no God. I believe there is evidence. See, now we are actually getting somewhere. Instead of rambling on about secondary issues or hurling insults or marginalizing or throwing an encyclopedia of ploys to distract or divert attention from the point. This here is good stuff. I do prefer intellectually honest discussion. I do realize I initiated the convo, but you seem like a smart enough guy to keep it above board.
sheepinarowboat 2 years ago
Oops...I meant to say that the Earth is 4 Billion years old...the universe is 14 Billion (or there abouts) - Yes, really! Despite what the handful of "christian" so-called scientists would have you believe, the earth really is that old (the vastly overwhelming majority of the worlds scientists completey agree the findings on this).
kalsolarUK 2 years ago
Sheep like is something I agree with. We are all sheep. I'm just smart enough to know it. You still think your "enlightened" because something doesn't make sense to you. One moment's thought? again insults instead of discussion. Many creation believers have been studying for years and sorry, there are thousands that believe in a literal six days, not just a handful. Many hide because of this kind of behavior. Ken Ham has articles and names of scientists on his site alone. Google it.
sheepinarowboat 2 years ago
If you align yourself with the likes of Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort you have my deepest sympathies. The earth is not 6000years old and 99 + % of ACTUAL SCIENTISTS will tell you this with their pesky testable, varified, proven, peer reviewed EVIDENCE. EVEN The damn Pope accepts it. You need some wake up juice. And I you're worried that I may make myself look foolish??? lol. The irony in this is just wonderful. I'll be chuckling for hours.
kalsolarUK 2 years ago
align myself? I "align" myself with myself. Nice marginalizing. It's a ploy. If I had a dollar for every time people of your mindset said how funny they found me, merely because we disagreed, I could pay off the deficit. The testable evidence...I could get a giggle or two out of that. You can't test for evolution. It's not something there is a test for. I've seen the junk science that goes into it. Apparently the more you say that it's verified, the more verified it becomes, LOL!
sheepinarowboat 2 years ago
The Junk science you refer to is Peer reviewed Junk science from all of the major disciplines. Clearly you must therefore believe that all of these top scientists are using junk cosmology, junk palentology, junk physics, junk biology and junk chemistry etc etc to astonishingly arrive at the same junk findings that evolution happened and an that we live on an extreamely old earth. Incidentally - do not confuse (as most believers do) evolution with abiogenesis - THEY ARE SEPARATE THINGS.
kalsolarUK 2 years ago
so are you saying that a fact is not a fact unless it's peer reviewed? There have been many theories over the years that originally went against the concensus that were later found out to be absolutely true. Facts are facts whether or not they are "peer reviewed". I think I can grasp the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. I'll try and keep up with all your fangled fancy wordin' and whatnot. *wink*. I don't believe in an old earth. I believe the evidence points the other way.
sheepinarowboat 2 years ago
Only the truth is the truth - not opinion (although opinions can be true - but they have to be proven to be true). To believe in a young earth is to disregard ALL of different sciences that arrive INDEPENDENTLY to the SAME conclusions. Can't you see how staggeringly dumb / ignorant you have to be reject the weight of many decades of evidence gathered and tested and proven by skilled, intelligent, hard working people? I'm trying so hard not to insult you here - but its practically impossible.
kalsolarUK 2 years ago
again dumb and ignorant. I think I'm neither of these. I wouldn't think that about you merely because you disagreed and were in error. Evolutionists apparently haven't evolved graciousness or generosity. I have read how they collect and put together evidence. If the dates match, it goes in. If they don't they throw them out or shelve them. I'd like to know where they keep coming up with these rock solid older ages from evidence all over the board. The testing methods are so inaccurate.
sheepinarowboat 2 years ago
You would have to believe that all of the worlds top scientists of all disciplines went to college and university and studied for years and years because they hated god, were possessed by the devil and just wanted to make shit up.
kalsolarUK 2 years ago
No you wouldn't have to believe that to hold a position like mine. Not at all. And that's not what I believe. Alot ot topics here. Perhaps this would be better served in a different forum. I'm finding hard to have a conversation of substance. For someone claiming enlightenment, your not very generous in the conversation.
sheepinarowboat 2 years ago
can you not see how retarded a view like that is? And millions of people have to believe that in order to hang onto the first few chapters of genesis. It's delusion of the highest order. As I said before - there may indeed be a god (or not, who knows?) but hanging onto genesis DESPITE the fact that it is clearly a fairy story created by ill-informed MEN (not god) is just nuts. People who believe it are not all nuts - most are just frightened that they may go to hell if they believe otherwise.
kalsolarUK 2 years ago
retarded? no, disagreeing with someone on something doesn't make you retarded. I think I'm pretty average in intelligence. Millions believed slavery was ok because black people were sub human. I wonder if that was peer reviewed. hmmm. I think you can see in my posts that I'm not "deluded". You use such strong verbage. Again...nuts....frightened. I think we have lost the art of conversation. Too many using cheap words to discredit those who don't agree with them.
sheepinarowboat 2 years ago
It's not a case of disagreeing - THE EVIDENCE AND PROOF IS IN - ITS NOT up for debate in the same way that the fact that you have blood in your veins is not up for debate. Only in your imagination is there a debate. Its therefore not possible to disagree..what you are doing is nothing less than willful ignorance and self delusion. You can claim to disagree as much as you like in the same way that I can disagree that trees exist. I'd be just making myself look foolish - as trees exist.
kalsolarUK 2 years ago
I can test whether I have blood in my veins. You cannot test the big bang or abiogenesis. We all have the same "evidence"...I hesitate to use a word like "proof". It's the bias you bring to the table. If it's so iron clad and provable...why not show how the test is repeatable. ya know actual science. I see no imperical evidence for your beliefs. Just a carefully worked and reworked theory that has it's foundation set upon a belief in long ages to the universe.
sheepinarowboat 2 years ago
OK, I give up - you win - all the worlds top scientists of all disciplines all around the world are all wrong - and Ken Ham is correct. The bible is all 100% accurate and the world is a mere 6000 or so years old. I'm finally converted. Case closed.
kalsolarUK 2 years ago
I'd love it if that were really so. My original point was not conversion. Just a free exchange of ideas. I can see you'd like to end this exchange. I wish you well. Thank you for the discussion and your time. I enjoyed it. Have a wonderful 2010.
sheepinarowboat 2 years ago
So what Ken Ham is saying is that Noah "only" needed 16,000 animals on the ark because EVOLUTION would take care of the diversification of species from there?
ROFLMAO!
warren52nz 2 years ago
And it's not just 40 days and 40 nights. If you read the King James text, the ark was shut up for over a calendar year. That's 12 times the bullshit. Literally and figuratively.
futureprimitive 2 years ago
you're quite right, it just gets more and more ridiculous the more you learn about it.
kalsolarUK 2 years ago
your lucky that you don't live in the US...there are a lot of stupid people here...
RockSmithStudio 2 years ago
Let's not mention the logistical needs for every animal. It's impossible to fit 16,000 people on a large cruise ship comfortably as well as food, soap, etc. F--king impossible!
SRAANG01 2 years ago
Lions and Tigers simply cannot eat plants as their sole source of food, it just doesn't work. There is nowhere near enough water to cover the entire planet (it would take about 4 times the current volume, including ice caps), and if that much existed in the atmosphere then they would've all died from asphyxiation, not to mention the sheer energy involved with that much vapor suddenly condensing into liquid and falling to Earth.
freakyphysicsguy 2 years ago
This guy is not annoying, he's making a
good and ineteresting point for which you
have no logical answer and so you have
decided that he's "annoying". That's all
you can helplessly say. He's showing,
by using logic and common sense, how absurd those stories are. You go to high
school and college and you can see when
a mathematical equation or formula makes no sense or has one small error,
but you're somehow unable or unwilling to do the same thing with that old dusty
book?
pedrom41 2 years ago
Ha ha! Funny stuff!
Orsbore 2 years ago 2
This guy is as annoying as the shamwow guy
shortlinebryan 2 years ago
If you dislike what Ken Ham says, TOUGH! He may at least know SOMETHING a lot of us dumb folks don't know... bro.
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
Mr Ham is as willfully ignorant of scientific fact as all other creationists.
kalsolarUK 2 years ago
ha elk didnt live in the mountians untill the white man started hunting them in large numbers and drove them to hide in the mountains.
mustangguy682002 2 years ago
You would be a good infomercial salesman.
AdamE4042 2 years ago
ok, look, God made the animals gather. if He made them gather, He would also have a path for them to follow. He would also have a way for them to stay peaceful once on the boat. plus, before the flood, which is at least in part the topic here, there wouldn't have been such massive bodies of water that elk would have to swim the ocean, you need to keep the entire explanation in context, not just four words at a time.
multibrainism 2 years ago
there was no Noah...its a fairy story...I'm just taking the piss out of it.
kalsolarUK 2 years ago
already answered.
saiyankenny 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Not impressive. Don't quit your day job if you have one.
shayneby 2 years ago
he explains each aspect of what you talked about. if you only listen to him explain it all out. and yes, the animals did eat plants.
saiyankenny 2 years ago
So were lions and tigers vegetarian?
ptango101 2 years ago
You seriously think that, even if they had enough food for every animal, which, the elephants would have been able to eat a ship-full of food in just a few days, you'd have a hard time keeping the lions from eating the other animals, along with the bears, and, on top of it all, getting them to eat plants... right...
TheAlexANGST 2 years ago
Of course the idea of a global flood is completely ridiculous and can be 100% disproved. Just go to my channel and watch my second last video named "Creationism". It says all!
Please rate the video also with 5 stars, so creationists can se people understand the message.
Laestadianinfo 2 years ago
why does every "layman" evolutionist video resort to an appeal to ridicule, just throwing insults and jokes around instead of making an honest, logical, and sensible argument?
joelvannattajr 2 years ago
this is not a good argument for evoltuion, slagging of anyone who disagrees with you. the ark was very big so could fit in 16000 animals and there is no reason to believe (in creationist belief) that noah had much less technology than our days. in regards to q2, clearly u havent dun research into the beliefs of biblical christianity as before the flood the world was connected so they wouldnt have had to swim. catosprohic tectonics caused the continents to seperate during the flood not before
merryredollie 2 years ago
This is not argument for evolution or for anything. Noah's ark is absurd, that's the point. No, the ark could not fit 16,000 animals. 2000 animals per person to look after?! Look at the logistics for the biggest zoo on earth. Just think of all the different species of bird?!
hugesinker 2 years ago
The size of the boat is irrelevant...it's the care and feeding of so many animals. Our local zoo, which is pretty standard, only has 3000 animals. It takes around 150 or so employees and volunteers to maintain this small amount. Multiply by 5.3...about 800 or so people to take care of that many animals. It's just common sense, man.
Also, 4000 (or so) years ago..the continents were roughly the same as we see them today. Not joined. Geology proves this. You made up Catastrophic Tect.
Masher88 2 years ago
Now we know what happened to the crocaduck
Tony2438 2 years ago 2
crocaduck soup for lunch anyone.and dont forget unicorn steaks for dinner.
no1saphead 2 years ago
This shit was hilarious, especially the ending. I never even thought of that, what all the carnivious animals ate once they got off the ark LOL fucking grass?
Tghett05 2 years ago
um... the world... would have been covered.... in water..... killing.... the.... LOL fucking grass....
toughdog6789 2 years ago 2
oops, read ur comment wrong, sorry
toughdog6789 2 years ago
opps nothing but berries.
Tghett05 2 years ago
yah the animals did eat plants. have you ever seen a panda bears teeth? and what do panda bears eat?....... 99% bambo!kodiak bears and black bears eat plants to. so why is it so hard to belive all the other animals did the same?
mustangguy682002 2 years ago
Come on you seem smart enough to answer your own question. If you know anything about Pandas than you know why they eat Bambo. Black bears are omnivores, no it doesnt seem plausable that past lions were vegeterians but then again if you believe some old ass dude snuck a bunch of animals in a ship you'd probably believe anything.
Tghett05 2 years ago 2
yah they eat bamboo because the need to live. and so did the lions of the past so they eat plants aswell. i brought up pandas becuase they have teeth like a carnivore yet eat plants. so give me real facts why an lion or any other carnivore couldnt eat plants and live.
mustangguy682002 2 years ago
Well where Lions live there is'nt a bunch of plants, it's actually pretty dry. Grass is'nt very nutritious so you have to eat a whole lot to fuel a lion. They arent zebras they dont have the same metabolism, or digestive tract. They would actually vomit from eating plants (as many cats do purposely) this isnt Lion king Lions arent living off of bugs and shit with timon and Puma. So no a lion cant live off of plants since its hard for them to digest, and makes them vomit.
Tghett05 2 years ago
It takes 2 minutes on Google to find out that though pandas main diet is bamboo, they are omnivours and will eat carrion and small rodents. The y have flattened back teeth to crush bamboo stalks, quite unlike full carnivours which are much more saw-like. If you spend a tiny amount of time researching your comments, instead of just presuming you know things you'd be a wiser person.
wordavee 2 years ago
This was rather amusing.
Swenglish 2 years ago
i seem to recall the bible sayin that he should only bring the animals that breathed through nostrils. well, the blue whale does.
nvm 16000 animals, how did he fit 2 blue whales in hi