Rating is available when the video has been rented.
This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.
Published on Jul 23, 2011
Watch PART 1 first: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_BzWU... This one has been more than a year in the making. (Read on...) ——————————————— website and blog: http://www.nonstampcollector.com twitter: http://www.twitter.com/nonstampNSC NOW ON PATREON: http://www.patreon.com/nonstampcollector ——————————————--- 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.
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).
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 #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)