Could Noah's Ark hold all the animals?

[mjmooney]

Bible doesn't mention hormones.

Oh, they probably don't exist, then.

[mjmooney]

We were forced to sing that song as well, I even remember some of the words:

"In came the animals, two by two, the hippopotamus and the kangaroo."

…And the Acanthocnemidae, and the Acanthopteroctetidae, and the Acartophthalmidae, and the Acroceridae, and the Agathiphagidae, and the Agromyzidae, and the Alexiidae, and the Alucitidae, and the Alydidae, and the Amphizoa, and the Andesiana, and the Anisembiidae, and the Anisolabididae, and the Anisopodidae, and the Anobiidae, and the Anomoeotidae, and the Anomoses, and the Anthelidae, and the Anthomyiidae, and the Anthomyzidae, and the Apachyidae, and the Apatelodidae, and the Apiocera, and the Apsilocephalidae, and the Apystomyiidae, and the Arctiidae, and the Arctopsychidae, and the Arixeniidae, and the Arrhenophanidae, and the Asilidae, and the Asteiidae, and the Atelestidae, and the Athericidae, and the Aulacigastridae, and the Austropetaliidae, and the Axymyiidae, and the Batrachedridae, and the Bedelliidae, and the Bibionidae, and the Biphyllidae, and the Black fly, and the Blastobasidae, and the Blephariceridae, and the Boganiidae, and the Bolitophilidae, and the Bombycidae, and the Bombyliidae, and the Bostrichidae, and the Botfly, and the Bothrideridae, and the Brachodidae, and the Brachypsectridae, and the Brahmaeidae, and the Braulidae, and the Bucculatricidae, and the Byturidae, and the Callidulidae, and the Calliphoridae, and the Camillidae, and the Campichoetidae, and the Canacidae, and the Cantharidae, and the Canthyloscelidae, and the Carabidae, and the Carnidae, and the Cavognathidae, and the Cecidomyiidae, and the Celyphidae, and the Cerambycidae, and the Ceratopogonidae, and the Cerophytidae, and the Cerylonidae, and the Chaetosomatidae, and the Chalcodryidae, and the Chamaemyiidae, and the Chaoboridae, and the Chironomidae, and the Chloropidae, and the Chyromyidae, and the Cimeliidae, and the Cleridae, and the Click beetle, and the Clusiidae, and the Cneoglossidae, and the Coelopidae, and the Colymbothetidae, and the Conchaspididae, and the Conopidae, and the Coptoclavidae, and the Corethrellidae, and the Crane fly, and the Crowsoniellidae, and the Ctenostylidae, and the Culicidae, and the Cupedidae, and the Curculionidae, and the Curtonotidae, and the Cylindrotomidae, and the Cypselosomatidae, and the Decliniidae, and the Dermestidae, and the Derodontidae, and the Diadocidiidae, and the Diastatidae, and the Diopsidae, and the Dipseudopsidae, and the Discolomatidae, and the Disteniidae, and the Ditomyiidae, and the Dixidae, and the Dolichopodidae, and the Drosophilidae, and the Dryomyzidae, and the Dytiscidae, and the Ecnomidae, and the Elateridae, and the Empididae, and the Ephydridae, and the Erotylidae, and the Eurychoromyia, and the Evocoidae, and the Fanniidae, and the Firefly, and the Flesh-fly, and the Forficulidae, and the Glossosomatidae, and the Glyphipterigidae, and the Ground beetle, and the Gyrinidae, and the Haliplidae, and the Hedylidae, and the Heleomyzidae, and the Helicopsychidae, and the Helosciomyzidae, and the Helotidae, and the Hemimeridae, and the Hilarimorphidae, and the Hippoboscidae, and the Hobartiidae, and the Horse-fly, and the Hoverfly, and the Hybotidae, and the Hydrometridae, and the Hydropsychidae, and the Hydroptilidae, and the Hydroscaphidae, and the Ironomyiidae, and the Jurodidae, and the Kateretidae, and the Laemophloeidae, and the Lamingtoniidae, and the Lampyridae, and the Laphria (fly), and the Lauxaniidae, and the Leaf beetle, and the Lepiceridae, and the Leptoceridae, and the Limnephilidae, and the Limoniidae, and the Lonchaeidae, and the Lonchopteridae, and the Longhorn beetle, and the Lycaenidae, and the Lycidae, and the Many-plumed moth, and the Megalopodidae, and the Megamerinidae, and the Melandryidae, and the Meruidae, and the Micromalthidae, and the Micropezidae, and the Milichiidae, and the Mormotomyiidae, and the Mosquito, and the Muscidae, and the Mycetophagidae, and the Mycetophilidae, and the Mydas fly, and the Mydidae, and the Mythicomyiidae, and the Nemestrinidae, and the Neriidae, and the Noteridae, and the Nycteribiidae, and the Nymphalidae, and the Nymphomyiidae, and the Odiniidae, and the Oestridae, and the Omalisidae, and the Ommatidae, and the Opetiidae, and the Opomyzidae, and the Orsodacnidae, and the Oxypeltidae, and the Pallopteridae, and the Pantophthalmidae, and the Parahygrobiidae, and the Pediciidae, and the Pelecorhynchidae, and the Perimylopidae, and the Perissommatidae, and the Phalacridae, and the Phengodidae, and the Philopotamidae, and the Phloeostichidae, and the Phloiophilidae, and the Phoridae, and the Phycosecidae, and the Pieridae, and the Piesmatidae, and the Pipunculidae, and the Plastoceridae, and the Platycleis, and the Platystomatidae, and the Polycentropodidae, and the Prionoceridae, and the Propalticidae, and the Protocucujidae, and the Protodiplatyidae, and the Pseudopomyzidae, and the Psilidae, and the Psychodidae, and the Psychomyiidae, and the Pterogeniidae, and the Ptychopteridae, and the Pyrgotidae, and the Rhagionidae, and the Rhagophthalmidae, and the Rhinophoridae, and the Rhinorhipidae, and the Rhyacophilidae, and the Rhyparochromidae, and the Rhysodidae, and the Richardiidae, and the Riodinidae, and the Raspberry Weevil, and the Salpingidae, and the Sarcophagidae, and the Scathophagidae, and the Scatopsidae, and the Scenopinidae, and the Schizopodidae, and the Sciaridae, and the Sciomyzidae, and the Scraptiidae, and the Sepsidae, and the Silvanidae, and the Simuliidae, and the Smicripidae, and the Snail-case caddisfly, and the Soldier beetle, and the Sphaeriusidae, and the Sphaeroceridae, and the Sphindidae, and the Stalk-eyed fly, and the Stenopsychidae, and the Stenotrachelidae, and the Stratiomyidae, and the Streblidae, and the Strongylophthalmyiidae, and the Swallowtail butterfly, and the Symmocidae, and the Syringogastridae, and the Syrphidae, and the Tabanidae, and the Tachinidae, and the Tanyderidae, and the Tanypezidae, and the Tephritidae, and the Teratembiidae, and the Tethinidae, and the Tettigonia, and the Thaumaleidae, and the Therevidae, and the Tineodidae, and the Tipulidae, and the Torridincolidae, and the Trachelostenidae, and the Trachypachidae, and the Trichoceridae, and the Trictenotomidae, and the Trogossitidae, and the Ulidiidae, and the Ulodidae, and the Vermileonidae, and the Vesperidae, and the Whirligig beetle, and the Xiphocentronidae, and the Xylomyidae, and the Xylophagidae.

BTW, that's just a list of some of the (known) insect families - not species.

[mjmooney]

Dawkins is full of sh1t...

OK, that seems pretty conclusive.

Let's weigh up your competing expertise:

Richard Dawkin studied zoology at Balliol College, Oxford, where he was tutored by Nobel Prize–winning ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen, graduating in 1962. He continued as a research student under Tinbergen's supervision, receiving his M.A. and D.Phil. degrees by 1966, and remained a research assistant for another year. Tinbergen was a pioneer in the study of animal behaviour, particularly in the areas of instinct, learning and choice. Dawkins' research in this period concerned models of animal decision-making.

From 1967 to 1969, he was an assistant professor of zoology at the University of California, Berkeley. During this period, the students and faculty at UC Berkeley were largely opposed to the ongoing Vietnam War, and Dawkins became heavily involved in the anti-war demonstrations and activities. He returned to the University of Oxford in 1970 taking a position as a lecturer, and in 1990, as a reader in zoology. In 1995 he was appointed Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, a position that had been endowed by Charles Simonyi with the express intention that the holder "be expected to make important contributions to the public understanding of some scientific field", and that its first holder should be Richard Dawkins.

Since 1970 he has been a fellow of New College.

Dawkins was awarded a Doctor of Science by the University of Oxford in 1989. He holds honorary doctorates in science from the University of Huddersfield, University of Westminster, Durham University, the University of Hull, the University of Antwerp, and the University of Oslo, and honorary doctorates from the University of Aberdeen, Open University, the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, and the University of Valencia. He also holds honorary doctorates of letters from the University of St Andrews and the Australian National University (HonLittD, 1996), and was elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1997 and the Royal Society in 2001. He is one of the patrons of the Oxford University Scientific Society.

In 1987 Dawkins received a Royal Society of Literature award and a Los Angeles Times Literary Prize for his book, The Blind Watchmaker. In the same year, he received a Sci. Tech Prize for Best Television Documentary Science Programme of the Year, for the BBC Horizon episode The Blind Watchmaker.

His other awards have included the Zoological Society of London Silver Medal (1989), Finlay innovation award (1990), the Michael Faraday Award (1990), the Nakayama Prize (1994), the American Humanist Association's Humanist of the Year Award (1996), the fifth International Cosmos Prize (1997), the Kistler Prize (2001), the Medal of the Presidency of the Italian Republic (2001), the Bicentennial Kelvin Medal of The Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow (2002) and the Nierenberg Prize for Science in the Public Interest (2009).

Dawkins topped Prospect magazine's 2004 list of the top 100 public British intellectuals, as decided by the readers, receiving twice as many votes as the runner-up. He has been short-listed as a candidate in their 2008 follow-up poll. In 2005 the Hamburg-based Alfred Toepfer Foundation awarded him its Shakespeare Prize in recognition of his "concise and accessible presentation of scientific knowledge". He won the Lewis Thomas Prize for Writing about Science for 2006 and the Galaxy British Book Awards Author of the Year Award for 2007. In the same year, he was listed by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2007, and he was ranked 20th in The Daily Telegraph's 2007 list of 100 greatest living geniuses. Wikipedia.

You, on the other hand, have read the Bible.

I've been resisting saying this all the way through this thread. I've even pointed out that some of the criticisms of you were unacceptably "post on poster" and should be removed.

So, in the light of that, I fully expect Simon to red print out my next sentence, but there is just no getting around it:

Please don't feed the troll

[JulieB]

Carries the fathers blood?? Julie, where in the blue hell did you hear that nonsense? I thought you said you were good with biology?

Well I agree that statement could have been worded better but it was very late and I was tired. What I should have said is that the babys carry the father's DNA and embryo's blood type is completely individual to that embryo because the foetus is kept seperate. Which exactly backs up the rest of that scripture.

Babys do not need to have the same blood type as there father or ther mother.There blood type is what ever type they were given... if a babys blood type is the same as there father or mother it is just a coincidence.

Each of us has a blood type that is partially inherited from each parent. Blood type can rule out a man as a father but can not rule him in

The nah nah nah I found something in your post to critisise is really tiresome...

you said that a woman's hip size determines if a womam has an easy birth - well actually research suggest it's more to do with foot size and the size of the pelvis rather than hip size.

However I don't feel the need to say... "You obviously haven't got a clue about the subject"...

It's sufficient to post something that counteracts a statement. Other posters can then make their own minds up.

[tonyh29]

well actually research suggest it's more to do with foot size and the size of the pelvis rather than hip size.

maybe back in the stone age but that view was disproven 30 years ago , it's been proven to be nothing moer than an “old-wives tale”

[JulieB]

If mankind is the pinacle of an evolutionary tree,

I'll pause you right there. Your supposition is invalid. Mankind is most definitely not the pinnacle of anything to do with evolution. This single "if" shows you have no knowledge of the theory of evolution.

Evolution isn't targeted. The environment causes random changes. Some are good and some are bad. Both good and bad mutations may survive and even speciate. The fact that there is so much wrong with the human body would lead someone to believe that it was thrown together by chance rather than designed.

But perhaps we are made from clay, or was that another translation error?

This single "if" shows you have no knowledge of the theory of evolution.

Well I'm glad to hear that mentioned... Evolution is indeed a theory. I have been lambasted in the past for not saying it is a fact!

What I meant is that Humans are supposedly top of the evolutionary tree up to this point... we will be evolving further no doubt if THE THEORY turns out to be correct.

Of course Anthrapologists are not quite sure of how long Home Sapiens have actually been around -

From Askipedia....

f you want to get specific, the first Homo Sapien walked the Earth around 200,000 years ago, but no one is really quite sure about that. The reason being that it is difficult to find fossils.

Lucy is claimed to be the first human

Lucy and found in Ethiopia) has been back dated to between 3 and 3.6 million years ago. Lucy was not a Homo Sapien, but we do know that she was a hominid, she walked upright. Chances are our species are direct desendants of Lucy’s species.

So what evolutionary adaptations did homo sapiens show with regard to how hominids gave birth and the pain factor and difficulty of giving birth?

Of course it will be argued that the brain is bigger in Homo Sapiens. However surely there would have had to be other evolutionary adaptations for a bigger brain to be carried by a hominid for them to become Homo Sapiens. Therefore what adaptations to the reproductive system and womb, birth canal etc were shown between eg hominid Lucy and the first Homo Sapiens with a bigger brain?

Just looking at reconstruction of Australopithecus afarensis which was a Hominid supposedly dating back 3.6 million years ago the size of the head looks to be in proportion to the rest of the anatomy. Therefore would this Hominid have had difficulty giving birth?

Surely in 3.6 million years from Hominid down to Homo Sapiens 100,000 years ago - Evolution must have shown an adaptation of the birthing system for a hominid to have given birth to a creature with a bigger brain. Otherwise how would it have been possible?

Evolution by it's nature would have surely tended to filter out difficult births rather than easier births?

Again perhaps this is a question yet to be answered by Evolutionists.

[JulieB]

well actually research suggest it's more to do with foot size and the size of the pelvis rather than hip size.

maybe back in the stone age but that view was disproven 30 years ago , it's been proven to be nothing moer than an “old-wives tale”

What is an old wives tale?.... Saying that women with bigger hips give birth more easliy...

I didn't post that ... Anthony did.

[Kiwivillan]

I just watched Thor and it dawned on me that there us no mention of Asgard in the Bible. No self-respecting historical book would leave this out. Proof positive that the Bible is nonsense.

I rest my case.

[Chindie]

Its been,explained at length before that the scientific term 'theory' means that it is in effect true, as it has been hypothisised and then tested by evidence both supporting and contradicting it to discover its veracity. Its been discovered to, thus far, be correct, and no evidence has stood up that brings it into doubt.

'Theory', therefore, does not represent a weakening of the argument for evolution. It strenghtens it.

[Chindie]

If Lucy was not homo sapien, she was not human. 'Hominid' is the word used to describe the varioud species that have existed that were vaguely human-like, that is walking upright and having some ape-esque ancestry.

You could honestly do with reading up on some of this stuff without the scripture glasses on. It'd help with the confusion.

[steaknchips]

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.

It would rot!

It cannot possibly remain "insitu" . Each strata layer "is meant" to denote many, many years of time(according to evolutionists). Yet these polystrate fossils that are all over the world, stretch through "many" layers of strata.

[kidlewis]

Not if the tree fossil was encased in ash or equivalent sediment which falls from the sky.

Also it would depend on the type of tree and the climate conditions around it

[JulieB]

If Lucy was not homo sapien, she was not human. 'Hominid' is the word used to describe the varioud species that have existed that were vaguely human-like, that is walking upright and having some ape-esque ancestry.

You could honestly do with reading up on some of this stuff without the scripture glasses on. It'd help with the confusion.

I didn't say Lucy was Homo-Sapiens at all but others claim she is the first human.

From Askipedia

How long have humans been on the Earth?

The oldest human fossil found (named Lucy and found in Ethiopia) has been back dated to between 3 and 3.6 million years ago. Lucy was not a Homo Sapien, but we do know that she was a hominid, she walked upright. Chances are our species are direct desendants of Lucy’s species.

The question I was asking was about a Lucy Hominid evolving into Homo Sapiens with a bigger brain.

Chances are our species are direct desendants of Lucy’s species

Why say chances are? I thought this was done and dusted that Homo Sapiens had indeed evolved from Lucy type Hominids

[Kiwivillan]

Why no Asgard in the Bible?

[tonyh29]

well actually research suggest it's more to do with foot size and the size of the pelvis rather than hip size.

maybe back in the stone age but that view was disproven 30 years ago , it's been proven to be nothing more than an “old-wives tale”

What is an old wives tale?.... Saying that women with bigger hips give birth more easliy...

I didn't post that ... Anthony did.

No the old wives tale is in relation to your claim about the size of feet .. has been proven to be of zero relevance

[JulieB]

No the old wives tale is in relation to your claim about the size of feet .. has been proven to be of zero relevance

I thought it was the other way around. A very recent article about this subject I found last night.

Quote:

MYTH: GIVING BIRTH IS EASIER FOR WOMEN WITH BIG HIPS

Fact: It is not hip size which determines the space a baby must navigate through the birth canal, but rather the pelvis width and shape. The size of the pelvis correlates with the size of the feet.

This explains why women with small feet are more likely to find it difficult to give birth naturally and may need to have a Caesarian.

Research in the Netherlands has revealed pregnancy rates were higher among pear-shaped (large-hipped) women than apple-shaped women (whose hips are not their widest measurement).

[The_Rev]

I am going to take my tinfoil hat off for thirty seconds, but why is the amount of pain that a woman goes though during childbirth a point of debate on this topic? From an evolutionary point of view, something the average woman does two or three times in her life is not as important as the things we as a species need for everyday use (upright posture, broad shoulders, large brain etc) so people who do not experience much pain during childbirth will not out compete those who experience lots of pain and knock them out of the gene pool. Humans are a social species and women are almost always protected from harm during and immediately after childbirth by other people in society so needing to be back on their feet five minutes after delivering isnt a life or death issue. It is the same reason why we can afford to have babies who are utterly helpless for such a long period of time.

[Eames]

No the old wives tale is in relation to your claim about the size of feet .. has been proven to be of zero relevance

I thought it was the other way around. A very recent article about this subject I found last night.

Quote:

MYTH: GIVING BIRTH IS EASIER FOR WOMEN WITH BIG HIPS

Fact: It is not hip size which determines the space a baby must navigate through the birth canal, but rather the pelvis width and shape. The size of the pelvis correlates with the size of the feet.

This explains why women with small feet are more likely to find it difficult to give birth naturally and may need to have a Caesarian.

Research in the Netherlands has revealed pregnancy rates were higher among pear-shaped (large-hipped) women than apple-shaped women (whose hips are not their widest measurement).

But surely, a standard distribution curve of the female population would show that women with smaller feet would also have a smaller pelvis because, shock horror, they are smaller. (foot size being an accepted indicator of height - again though, subject to the same standard distribution curve.)

[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.

It would rot!

It cannot possibly remain "insitu" . Each strata layer "is meant" to denote many, many years of time(according to evolutionists). Yet these polystrate fossils that are all over the world, stretch through "many" layers of strata.

Who told you that crap? Simply not true and ryes I'm qualified to say that

And what the flying **** have "evolutionists" got to do with sedimentology?

[JulieB]

Humans are a social species and women are almost always protected from harm during and immediately after childbirth by other people in society so needing to be back on their feet five minutes after delivering isnt a life or death issue. It is the same reason why we can afford to have babies who are utterly helpless for such a long period of time.

Agreed.

However Apes have no need for attended births.

It was being argued that women were quite capable of giving birth solely last night.

I was making the point if Human's descended from Apes then at what point did births need to be attended regarding

Hominids, Homo Erectus or Homo Sapiens?