Noah's Ark (part 2 of 2)

Watch PART 1 first: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_BzWU...
Twitter: https://twitter.com/nonstampNSC
This one has been more than a year in the making.
The first take recording went for 28 minutes. Trust me: everything you think I ought to have included in this, I probably did at some stage. I had a very, very hard time cutting this down, and in the end, had to split it up anyway, because youtube viewers simply don't click on much above about 4 minutes, let alone 16, which is about what this has ended up as.
***I'm getting requests to hear the first take: it's gone. Chucked it out weeks ago. Listening back to it, it was flabby and slow. What you're hearing here is most of those ideas, whipped into shape, turned into one-liners rather than passages, and a few long lists of animals had to be dropped. I really wish I could have included the list of 40 or so Australian animals, but it was just too much of a halt on proceedings.

The SCRIPT of this video is at:
http://www.nonstampcollector.com/noah

Research on animal behaviors and numbers of species was not carried out in accordance with the strictest of academic standards, I freely admit. I went all over the net following leads on interesting animal facts FAR too much to ever keep records of where I'd been, and where I got each "fact" from. There's probably a few minor numerical and mathematical errors in here, but I am not making any claim to inerrancy so I hope you'll forgive me.
Noah's long rant at the end came mainly from various articles on Wikipedia.

Made entirely with Paintbrush, Audacity, and iMovie (since I'm always being asked).

_____________
It took a year to make this video. And if, during that year, my hard drive had crashed, I wouldn't have given a shit because I'm 100%backed-up online.
You should be, too.
I'm proud to now be an affiliate of the online back-up service I've been using for more than two years:
http://www.backblaze.com/partner/af3049
A fool says in his heart "My hard drive will never crash."
_____________


A few mistakes:

I said the references to unicorns are made in Numbers 22 and 24. It is actually 23 and 24. In fact, it's Numbers 23:22, I got my numbers muddled. (and 24:8).

I called it "AnswersInGensis.com" when it's actually .org. However, .com will redirect you to the .org url, so let's just assume that back in 4000BC, they didn't have .org urls.

Hyenas aren't dogs, rabbits and ferrets aren't rodents. Who knew? Well, I certainly found out when the Pharyngula crowd started commenting!

In the script, I have Noah say that Answers in Genesis is claiming that bringing only 16,000 pairs of animals will be enough. Actually, the AiG claim is somewhat ambiguous, as it could be taken to mean only 16,000 animals, not pairs of animals. I've decided to go the generous route, in citing them as claiming 16,000 pairs, rather than 8,000 pairs. If an AiG-inclined person would like to dispute my interpretation of this, and insist that AiG is claiming that 8,000 pairs were enough, they're welcome to do so.


FOOTNOTE #1
One of the references to do with the impossible amounts of water that would be required for such a world-wide flood:
http://www.epicidiot.com/evo_cre/noah...

FOOTNOTE #2
http://www.creationtips.com/floodmoun...

FOOTNOTE #3
As much as 12 U.S. tons (11 m. tons) of animal waste may have been produced daily. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/artic...)

FOOTNOTE #4
"In the book Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, author John Woodmorappe suggests that, at most, 16,000 animals were all that were needed to preserve the created kinds that God brought into the Ark. (p3)
Creationist estimates for the minimum number of animals that would have been necessary to come on board the Ark have ranged from 16,000 to 35,000."(p.4)
from 'Was there really a Noah's Ark and Flood?', by Ken Ham

I also referenced
Nienhuis, James I. — 1954 Old Earth? Why Not! 2003
(Google it)

• Category

  Nonprofits & Activism

[TheProchaser]

I've read the Bible. It's filled with fallible words written within an ancient book, that consists of the embellished history of desert dwellers and the plagiarized stories and ideals from cultures and religions that predate it.

[scoterf]

oh ffs there is scientific evidence for evolution, there is none for god, therefore you are the only 1 that uses blind faith.

[Pyramides Head]

Well, "Thou shall not kill" is not really an exclusivly christian concept. The bible is not necessary to teach us that.

But you are right. It is fairly easy to understand... if the exact same book wouldn't have people killed all over the place in the name of their god!

And if you think that our understanding of evolution is only based on similarities between certain animals, you might want to look into that subject a bit more closely.

[poidial]

I love the way NonStampCollector goes into excruciating detail at some points to give an insight into the unfathomable absurdity of the task.

[Xnerdz1]

We knew we "shall not kill" well before the fairy-tales of the bible where written dude.

"As for evolution though, what it teaches doesn't compare to what's in the Bible."

Agreed. Evolution is factual, the stories of the bible are myths.

[truthseeker010101]

Yes, Christianity contains a dogma called creationism, in which the earth was made in six human days, and is less then 14,000 years old, Noah is said to have landed 7000 years ago from the deluge, and Abraham had sex with his daughters, and people killed there children, sodomy happened a lot, gay sex was going on, and slavery was being used, you know, same old, same old.

[bitcoin2pay]

"...the meaning of words change over time, this science is called etymology."

I wonder what the word 'equivocation' will mean after a few generations of modern creatards have popularised their bullshitology.

[bitcoin2pay]

Ooops I accidently subscribed before I saw the bit at the end of part 1. If it's OK I'll go learn about how rainbows work after I finish watching this?