Could Noah's Ark hold all the animals?

[TheDon]

Ive answered the carbon dating and radiometric dating method earlier in this thread..

Yes you've said you don't believe in them because they give incorrect results.

So I'm saying we can obviously rule out any evidence for the flood based on them because according to you carbon dating is wrong. After dismissing carbon dating you can't then put forward an explanation for something that uses carbon dating as evidence.

You really are quite stupid, if you can't understand simple points like that then it's no wonder you're confused by science to the point you have to reject it and insert superstition instead.

Hold on a minute....Im the one giving all the evidence here..Where's your(or science) evidence the flood didnt take place?

I'l also give you evidence of the flood but on doing so, instead of looking to attack all the time, just have an open mind.

Here is evidence of the flood and it disproves the evolution side off things regarding strata layers denoting millions of years per layer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil

Jesus Christ.

You're giving evidence THAT YOU'VE ALREADY REFUTED.

You don't see how that's an issue?

You said carbon dating is bullcrap.

You're then giving evidence BASED ON CARBON DATING.

You fail to see the issue here?

[steaknchips]

Ive answered the carbon dating and radiometric dating method earlier in this thread..

Yes you've said you don't believe in them because they give incorrect results.

So I'm saying we can obviously rule out any evidence for the flood based on them because according to you carbon dating is wrong. After dismissing carbon dating you can't then put forward an explanation for something that uses carbon dating as evidence.

You really are quite stupid, if you can't understand simple points like that then it's no wonder you're confused by science to the point you have to reject it and insert superstition instead.

Hold on a minute....Im the one giving all the evidence here..Where's your(or science) evidence the flood didnt take place?

I'l also give you evidence of the flood but on doing so, instead of looking to attack all the time, just have an open mind.

Here is evidence of the flood and it disproves the evolution side off things regarding strata layers denoting millions of years per layer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil

Jesus Christ.

You're giving evidence THAT YOU'VE ALREADY REFUTED.

You don't see how that's an issue?

You said carbon dating is bullcrap.

You're then giving evidence BASED ON CARBON DATING.

You fail to see the issue here?

No im not...Im giving you evidence of a, a flood and b, a fossil that stretched "through" strata layers? Of which evolutionists tell us denoted different times in our history..

How can a fossil stretch through different time zones?

[DiegoD]

Threads like this make me long for an asteroid just to clean us the **** out.

One was close on Wednesday, unfortunately the next one that gets close is meant to be in 20ish years

[JulieB]

I've got a genuine question to ask...

One thing that's always puzzled me about Evolution is why childbirth so flipping painful for a female human being?

If mankind is the pinacle of an evolutionary tree, and our brains are bigger than most mammals or Apes, why haven't we evolved a birth canal that can cope without too much pain. If that was not possible then why don't we give birth to much smaller babies like eg a kangaroo and have evolved a pouch or something under our breasts for the baby to be

nurtured until it could cope in the outside world.

Or why haven't we evolved a mechanism where our brains block out the pain perhaps?

Ask any woman... in most cases giving birth feels like you're going to die. I've done it three times and it's absolute agony.

I've watched all sorts of farm animals being born and I've looked up the birth process of Apes as well and animals don't appear normally to have too much of a problem. Obviously complications can occur in birth with any animal - I'm just talking about normal births.

Recently I watched a Rhino being born on Nat Geo and the animal although trotting round her cage pensively didn't actually lie down until a few minutes before the baby was born.

Human females literally scream with pain...but not animals it would appear.

[bickster]

Polystrate fossil isn't a correct geological term, it's a term made up by creationists. The correct term is iirc upright fossils and they are an indication of rapid (geological time frame here) sedimentation.

You really don't want to understand what you are talking about. some research into the subject might make you look less foolish. Such fossils are connected with a rapidly (again geologically speaking) subsiding coastal area which is all probably is associated within volcanic activity

[Chindie]

Basic answer is we've evolved other areas faster. Our children are born with unusually large heads (an offshoot of the evolution of the brain), whereas the pelvis and birth canal as a whole haven't yet evolved (if they will at all) to make birth easier. (IIRC the birth canal/pelvis in particular have made birth more difficult as the result of evolving to stand upright - basically we evolved 1 feature to our benefit that ended up making something else more difficult).

There is an argument that suggests that if we weren't so good at keeping mothers and babies alive, the pelvis and birth canal would evolve faster as the mothers who had difficult births would become unable to reproduce, either through death or damage to the reproductive system. The ones more able to cope would survive to have children to follow in their footsteps.

This is an argument against design in itself. A species shouldn't struggle with reproduction like we do.

[bickster]

How can a fossil stretch through different time zones?

Quite simply, the sediment around it build up around it, If it is something like a tree trunk (which it obviously is) then it will remain in situ until covered over, the true date of the fossil will be found by dating the rock immediately below the core of the trunk.

[TheDon]

I've got a genuine question to ask...

One thing that's always puzzled me about creationism is why childbirth so flipping painful for a female human being?

If mankind is the pinacle of intelligent design, and our creator is a perfect being, why haven't we been given a birth canal that can cope without too much pain. If that was not possible then why don't we give birth to much smaller babies like eg a kangaroo and have evolved a pouch or something under our breasts for the baby to be

nurtured until it could cope in the outside world.

Or why haven't we been given a mechanism where our brains block out the pain perhaps?

Ask any woman... in most cases giving birth feels like you're going to die. I've done it three times and it's absolute agony.

I've watched all sorts of farm animals being born and I've looked up the birth process of Apes as well and animals don't appear normally to have too much of a problem. Obviously complications can occur in birth with any animal - I'm just talking about normal births.

Recently I watched a Rhino being born on Nat Geo and the animal although trotting round her cage pensively didn't actually lie down until a few minutes before the baby was born.

Human females literally scream with pain...but not animals it would appear.

[TheDon]

No im not...Im giving you evidence of a, a flood and b, a fossil that stretched "through" strata layers? Of which evolutionists tell us denoted different times in our history..

How can a fossil stretch through different time zones?

No, you gave evidence that the flood happened backed by carbon dating.

You went onto your fossil crap after I pointed out you can't use evidence you yourself have said isn't reliable.

[regular_john]

I've got a genuine question to ask...

One thing that's always puzzled me about Evolution is why childbirth so flipping painful for a female human being?

If mankind is the pinacle of an evolutionary tree, and our brains are bigger than most mammals or Apes, why haven't we evolved a birth canal that can cope without too much pain. If that was not possible then why don't we give birth to much smaller babies like eg a kangaroo and have evolved a pouch or something under our breasts for the baby to be

nurtured until it could cope in the outside world.

Or why haven't we evolved a mechanism where our brains block out the pain perhaps?

Ask any woman... in most cases giving birth feels like you're going to die. I've done it three times and it's absolute agony.

I've watched all sorts of farm animals being born and I've looked up the birth process of Apes as well and animals don't appear normally to have too much of a problem. Obviously complications can occur in birth with any animal - I'm just talking about normal births.

Recently I watched a Rhino being born on Nat Geo and the animal although trotting round her cage pensively didn't actually lie down until a few minutes before the baby was born.

Human females literally scream with pain...but not animals it would appear.

If you have to ask this question, you clearly don't understand evolution.

Evolution isn't simply a process of better-better-better, it's a process of compromise, often parts of organisms see improvement over time to the detriment of other parts, depending on which particular aspect is being driven by natural selection the fastest.

Now, in the case of childbirth you have a two pronged problem:

1. As humans evolved to become more and more upright, the pelvis narrowed and became thicker to accommodate the increased 'top heavy' load, which reduced the amount of space a baby has to pass through the pelvis.

2. The trait that separated early humans from other animals was intelligence and ability to problem solve, make fire, make shelter, hunt etc. As natural selection favoured humans with higher intelligence, average brain size (and therefore average skull size) increased over time.

Now, what happens when you have a reduced birthing space and an increased skull diameter? A flipping painful birth! In women that have naturally wider hips, this is much less of a problem.

Clearly, the advantage of being more vertical, being able to survey your surroundings, spot prey and look out for predators, outweighed the drawback of a painful birth. Interestingly, this process of standing more upright (and hence being top heavy) is also the cause of deterioration of the lower back, hips and knees in old age - we aren't perfectly evolved for walking upright yet, our joints can't tolerate the pressure.

To emphasise - evolution is a process of compromise, which is why it accounts for both the good and bad that we find in the 'design' of humans and other animals.

Either that or God did it to punish the rib-woman from eating the knowledge-fruit from the magic tree.

edit: The first line wasn't meant to be derogatory or insulting, merely a statement of fact. It's ok to not understand something, just don't pretend otherwise.

[JulieB]

Basic answer is we've evolved other areas faster. Our children are born with unusually large heads (an offshoot of the evolution of the brain), whereas the pelvis and birth canal as a whole haven't yet evolved (if they will at all) to make birth easier. (IIRC the birth canal/pelvis in particular have made birth more difficult as the result of evolving to stand upright - basically we evolved 1 feature to our benefit that ended up making something else more difficult).

There is an argument that suggests that if we weren't so good at keeping mothers and babies alive, the pelvis and birth canal would evolve faster as the mothers who had difficult births would become unable to reproduce, either through death or damage to the reproductive system. The ones more able to cope would survive to have children to follow in their footsteps.

This is an argument against design in itself. A species shouldn't struggle with reproduction like we do.

Well at least you've given me an answer Chindie. I've aked all my Atheist friends and colleagues about this and not one was able to give me an explanation at all. Admittedly they were all men though so it's probably not something that a man would appreciate just how traumatic human birth is for a woman.

[Chindie]

We aren't 'the pinacle of the evolutionary tree' either... there is no such thing.

[JulieB]

Now, what happens when you have a reduced birthing space and an increased skull diameter? A flipping painful birth! In women that have naturally wider hips, this is much less of a problem.

No I can't accept this point

6lb babies are just as painful to give birth to as much bigger babies. Women with big hips go through just as much agony as smaller women.

Apes would surely have a more painful birth than most animals even if not as much as humans also as they are our supposed closest relatives.. but they don't seem to at all.

IIRC In preganancy a woman realeases hormones which enables bones to move and ligaments to stretch, but I'd ask why so much pain?

[Chindie]

Well at least you've given me an answer Chindie. I've aked all my Atheist friends and colleagues about this and not one was able to give me an explanation at all. Admittedly they were all men though so it's probably not something that a man would appreciate just how traumatic human birth is for a woman.

It's not a particularly difficult question to answer if you know some of our evolutionary past coupled to some of how evolution works at a basic level. It's both a rebuttal to design and an explanation over how evolution is far from perfect in itself.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

it's already been answered. human brains developed faster than anything else during our initial jump from tree-dwelling apes to humans.

anyway, if god loved you so bloody much why would he make such a flawed system? must be all that sin again.

[TheDon]

Now, what happens when you have a reduced birthing space and an increased skull diameter? A flipping painful birth! In women that have naturally wider hips, this is much less of a problem.

No I can't accept this point

You can't accept that yet you can accept that God, an all powerful creator with infinite intelligence and ability, would make it painful?

Sorry but you really don't understand evolution, you've got it mixed up with intelligent design.

One of them leads to perfection, the other gives you a mix of good and bad depending on how lucky you get.

[regular_john]

Now, what happens when you have a reduced birthing space and an increased skull diameter? A flipping painful birth! In women that have naturally wider hips, this is much less of a problem.

No I can't accept this point

6lb babies are just as painful to give birth to as much bigger babies. Women with big hips go through just as much agony as smaller women.

Apes would surely have a more painful birth than most animals even if not as much as humans also as they are our supposed closest relatives.. but they don't seem to at all.

IIRC In preganancy a woman realeases hormones which mean that enables bones to move and ligaments to stretch, but I'd ask why so much pain?

Pain in childbirth depends on many things - number of children already delivered (in 99% of cases the first is the worst, it gets progressively easier), size of the hips (in the vast majority of cases women with wider hips have an easier time in childbirth) and the size of the baby (smaller babies are almost always easier to deliver).

There are of course cases that violate these rules, i.e. cases of women with extremely wide hips having a horrendous time birthing 6lb babies, but for the most part they are hard and fast rules. There are even plenty of examples of women having such a painless birth that they barely notice they've delivered.

It's also worth keeping in mind that a major cause of pain in human childbirth is the path that the baby takes on the way out. Because human heads are so large and pelvises so narrow, a human baby has to turn through 90 degrees twice on its way out, a trait that is not shared by much of the animal kingdom.

[Chindie]

No I can't accept this point

6lb babies are just as painful to give birth to as much bigger babies. Women with big hips go through just as much agony as smaller women.

Apes would surely have a more painful birth than most animals even if not as much as humans also as they are our supposed closest relatives.. but they don't seem to at all.

IIRC In preganancy a woman realeases hormones which mean that enables bones to move and ligaments to stretch, but I'd ask why so much pain?

The weight isn't really important, regardless of the babys size you are still forced something very large through a very small gap. The widening of the pelvis during childbirth does happen, as does the widening of muscles in the birth canal, and is fairly obviously painful as they don't usually do that - you're pushing those points of the body to the limits of they will ever be required to do, of course it is painful. It's in theory no different to straining a muscle very badly or severely overextending a very sore joint.

The problem is lessened in apes as their pelvises are very different, orientated completely differently as they don't stand upright habitually, allowing for a wider passage. We also can't say for sure what the level of pain they have is. Apes aren't terribly vocal animals in anything other than conflict, really. Who knows what goes through their mind during birth.

There is also the problem that pain is supremely subjective. All women will suffer pain during childbirth, but because everyone experiences pain differently and because of the mitigating factors (a larger pelvis, birth canal, smaller child, whatever) the pain one woman might find unbearable another might not find quite so painful.

[JulieB]

Well at least you've given me an answer Chindie. I've aked all my Atheist friends and colleagues about this and not one was able to give me an explanation at all. Admittedly they were all men though so it's probably not something that a man would appreciate just how traumatic human birth is for a woman.

It's not a particularly difficult question to answer if you know some of our evolutionary past coupled to some of how evolution works at a basic level. It's both a rebuttal to design and an explanation over how evolution is far from perfect in itself.

Especially giving birth for the first time a woman will never go through a more strenuous activity in her life... that's what I was told anyhow at ante-natal classes. Therefore it's hard to imagine a woman ever giving birth on her own...you need someone to assist in cutting the cord and coping with the baby in the first few hours even in a normal birth.

Again it's always struck me that Apes and all other female animals give birth on their own, with no assistance. Again why would the need for a human female to be attended to during and after a birth all of a sudden just come about.

Why don't Apes show any sign of this behaviour or have this problem and how would the first homo sapiens female give birth on her own?

IIRC recent discoveries have shown in Africa that actually supposed Homo Erectus remains have been found with Homo Sapien remains, so when did birth become so painful according to evolution and when did the requirement for other females to attend births? Did Homo Erectus have difficult births?

[Chindie]

It's entirely possible for a woman to give birth alone - enough women have done it as many a baby dumped outside A&E will attest. It's just easier and more comfortable to be helped.

I think your thoughts on attendants being a requirement for birth are a red herring.

I don't know the exact physiology of the Erectus (giggle) pelvis so I cannot say if that is the point that birth became painful (I would daresay birth has always been painful though), but I would trust that the level of pain experienced by our ancestors was directly proportional to the evolution of the pelvis towards habitual upright-ness and also size of the brain, those being the major players in what made birth become increasingly difficult.