I don't mean to sound offensive, but whoever started this argment about Noah's ark did not do much research.
25 comments
Oh, is this an oldie that just got resurrected? Pity -- it deserved a thorough mocking, and even an award or two, back when it was still fresh.
Cousin Ted, I think he must be referring to an aircraft carrier (which one I wouldn't know, since I thought they were all about the same size, and none ever intimidated the enemy into avoiding it completely as far as I know), believing it to have been built according to Noah's Ark's specifications.
I know http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Yamato
I'm sorry, I got lost between the second and the third paragraph. How the fuck does this relate?
Question, have you invented a new language?
I don't mean to sound offensive, but whoever wrote that post did not do much research into the world of spelling.
It's not close-minded to acknowledge that the world is changing all the time. And there is proof of the Evolutionary Theory, but there is no proof whatsoever of a deity creating the whole world some 4000 years after the oldest human remains.
Ah, yes, the good ol' USS Fictitious , crewed almost entirely by senators' sons I hear. Who can forget that noble battle when 'the Fick' - as it was affectionately known - sank two German pocket battleships, the Darwin and the Obama . A feat made all the more remarkable by the fact that "gun laying" consisted solely of praying for God to guide the shells to their targets.
Sadly, the Fick never made it to the end of the war, sinking after being torpedoed by the German submarine 'U-Wish' on the 31st. April, 1945. It went down with all hands, though most of the asses managed to make it to the lifeboats.
Otherwise you would realize that durng orld ar II, the United States build a ship according to the measurement of Noah's ark and it was one bad baby. No one wanted to meswith that joker.
LOL, that is just precious. Also, I love the way he used the word "joker"... that's like something straight out of the 50's.
What backroad fundie church back in '46 did that story come from?
I won't even attempt to research that crap as if it had even the slightest truth to it it would be so huge that movies would have been made about it to this day.
To any fundies here, the ark can't be built as it's own weight would break the wood. Don't take my word for it, if it was possible there'd be over fifty built in America by now.
Otherwise you would realize that durng(sic) orld(sic) ar(sic) II, the United States build(sic) a ship according to the measurement(sic) of Noah's ark and it was one bad baby. No one wanted to meswith(sic) that joker.
Now a(sic) far as species go, I don;t(sic) know how many species they say there are today. Maybe they do say 6 million or 30 million. I can tell you that the apportionment of the number of species has been determined by Evolutionary THEORY and is thus not a provable fact. There way of defining species does not have to be ds way of definig spec
Otherwise you would realize that durng orld ar II, the United States build a ship according to the measurement of Noah's ark and it was one bad baby. No one wanted to meswith that joker.
Now a far as species go, I don;t know how many species they say there are today. Maybe they do say 6 million or 30 million. I can tell you that the apportionment of the number of species has been determined by Evolutionary THEORY and is thus not a provable fact. There(sic) way of defining species does not have to be ds(sic) way of definig(sic) species. I can tell you this as well, because of evolutionary THEORY the nuber(sic) of species has increased. Why because we have for it to do so. Of course not, but rather it fits well into the model of evolution.
findit(Sic) aazing(Sic) hw(Sic) ou(Sic) accus(Sic) Christians of gong(Sic) close-mided(Sic) and on a set worldview whn(Sic) youyourself(Sic) do exactly the same.
This guy (sic)ens me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_wooden_ships
Longest - and most recent - ship with a mostly wooden construction: [i]Rochambeau[/i]
Length: 352 ft 4 in
'The ship saw no action and was decommissioned after the end of the war. Rochambeau was stricken from the Navy List in 1872 and scrapped in 1874 '
1874.
Question (which you should especially ask maritime engineers & shipwrights today , CofTheForeverTribe): Considering that - to hold at least two of all existing animals today, a so-called 'Ark' would have to be far bigger than the current largest ocean-going vessel, the [i]Jahre Viking[/i], which is made of [i]metal[/i] - why hasn't a ship constructed only of wood, made at least as long as the Rochambeau , been made to date?
You know the answer, Cof. Because - if the Rochambeau in the late 19th Century - the apex of wooden shipbuilding technology - was so leaky that it had to constantly pump out the water that came into it's hull with metal supports , thus rendering it utterly unseaworthy (thus it was ultimately scrapped; the last of it's kind - certainly length - ever made), then you know that any wooden vessel remotely bigger would be the world's first ship-cum-submarine , thus rendering your precious Bible - and therefore your 'faith' - as nothing less than utter bullshit, nay, lies. Left as destroyed as your 'Ark'.
Y'know, there's a very good reason why the Church of England openly admit that much of the Bible is purely fable & metaphor: as in not to be taken literally .
You'd do well to realise that too. And therefore realise why no seaworthy 'Ark' has been built to date. Or ever will.
Just to focus on the biology instead of the engineering for a change:
Species are defined in relation to the capacity to breed and produce virile offspring. This is not a product of evolutionary theory; rather, the simplicity of the definition has been undermined slightly by phenomena such as ring species, which we have come to understand as a result of evolutionary theory.
If Noah (or god, whatever) used a broader definition, then animals incapable of reproducing would be classified as the same species. This would be problematic for one trying to preserve the species, as one would need several of each "capable-of-reproducing-subspecies" (i.e. what we call species). This just puts you back in the position of needing millions of "kinds" of animal.
In short, a broader definition of "species" doesn't resolve the issue... unless you want to claim that each species has, in the last 4000 years or so, diversified to the point that one species of that time has become several distinct species today, with different appearance, physiology and reproductive compatibility.
What was it you claim is impossible again...?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
