Could Noah's Ark hold all the animals?

[JulieB]

What struck me as interesting regarding Polystrate fossils is that they in some cases the trees grew again after the sediments had settled and what's more they are very often found with marine or brackish water fossils in near vicinity.

From Wikipedia:

Formation by regeneration

Geologists have also found that some of the larger upright fossil trees found within Carboniferous coal-bearing strata show evidence of regeneration after being partially buried by sediments. In these cases, the trees were clearly alive when they were partially buried by sediments. The accumulated sediment was insufficient to kill the trees immediately because of their size. As a result, some of them developed a new set of roots from their trunks just below the new ground surface. Until they either died or were overwhelmed by the accumulating sediments, these trees would likely continue to regenerate by adding height and new roots with each increment of sediment, eventually leaving several meters of former "trunk" buried underground as sediments accumulated

............. upright fossil trees found in Carboniferous coal-bearing strata being associated with marine or brackish water fossils.

Surely more so than an ash fall this points to sediments being layed down by flood waters causing Polystrate fossils to appear through various layers of sediment, however long geologists and creationists argue about how old they are.

[The_Rev]

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?

Births dont need to be attended. I would imagine there are hundreds of unattended births every day in this world we live in. I was lucky enough to be at the birth of my son just a couple of months ago and I was there because I wanted to be and because my partner asked me to be there. Again, we are a social species and unique to this world we have the ability to speak to each other. Women can ask to be assisted during childbirth (though society has reached a point where it is assumed they will be, but they can still ask) but even if they do find themselves alone during birth and too tired to move immediately after then the baby has two instincts, it will crawl up to the breast and begin to suckle. I saw that with my own eyes this summer.

[BG_Villa_Fan]

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

Things are done and dusted only in religion. Not in science. Things change, even genious discoveries are build upon or disproven many years later. Just a couple of months ago CERN announced they might have discovered a particle that moves at a speed greater than the speed of light. If they can prove this it would ruin a lot of Einstein's theories, or at the least build upon them. There's nothing set in stone in science - it evolves.

As for pain during child birth. Evolution and pain have nothing in common whatsoever. Evolution does not care about pain, it doesn't give a shit about it as long as the species survive.

For what it's worth a lot of the animals are much better off than humans when it comes to birth, both as an easier way to do it and as their offspring being more or less self-sufficient in hours, days or weeks, unlike human babies, who need to be taken full care of for years. It only proves that human is not the be all and end all of evolution. No problem with that. There are countless of examples that show that different types fo animals have evolved certain aspects much better than human - eyesight, being able to survive for months without eating, etc.

No one says that man should be the best evolved in all possible aspects compared to animals, neither does it mean that there is a certain time period over which a man should or should not evolve in a certian manner, i.e. it might take 10 million years for man to stop feeling pain when giving birth, or a few thousand years or it might never happen. Means nothing from an evolutionary point of view - if the pain is too bad and prevents people from mating and giving birth, then the species will disappear from the face of the earth. Evolution doesn't give a **** about it.

[Sie]

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.

And you will continue to be lambasted about it because you post stuff like this and reveal quite clearly you have no understanding of it whatsoever. Like literally haven't got the slightest idea of how it works to a point where it's sounds like your incapable of grasping it.

A theory in science has very specific meaning. It's not another word for a "guess" or something perhaps rational in premise but unsupported by any evidence - that is a hypothesis. No, a theory is something to which a body of evidence points towards. It is the logical extension of the known facts. It is supported entirely by evidence. Eg. Einstein's general theory of relativity - the theory derived from all the evidence contained within observable reality. It is what ties it all together and allows us to understand what is going on in the universe. It is the explanation of the evidence. It is not Einstein saying "oh, I just think it works like this, no evidence needed!".

With that in mind, evolution is not a theory, it is a fact. Cold, hard and observable fact. Change over time happens, deal with it. The method in which evolution occurs aka natural selection is theory. Again, not a "best guess" but what the evidence strongly points towards. Unfortunately, to talk of the "theory of evolution" in such a broad sense (inclusive of natural selection) is to dangerously assume the person you're talking to is aware of this distinction. Most people are. Some such as yourself are not.

You remain locked onto this idea that natural selection (what you're actually talking about in your posts, not evolution) is about "nature picking the best stuff" as if some collective conscience of a species is saying...

"oh, that worked well, we'll keep that. And I do like that, we'll keep that too. This thing here though, don't like that, we'll get rid of that. There. we're perfect. EVERYONE, STOP EVOLVING!"

...doesn't work like that. Mutations occur and will always occur. They will never stop happening. They are the very reason for the diversity of life that exists in the world we see today. They are the reason for species, sub-species, even the different human races (which I assume is an awkward subject for someone that believes Adam and Eve were the first humans and were white - where do oriental or black people come from if that was the case?). Over thousands and thousands of years, mutations get passed on via successful procreation and remain in the gene pool. The way in which these genes are able to survive is entirely down to the environment in which they are present (I am defining environment here to mean not just geological surroundings but everything from predators, prey, population, resources, social behaviours etc etc). There is no chance or choice involved. Survived all that? Awesome, have another go on the procreation station. Died? Tough shit, get out.

We are even able to impose our own will on this kind of process. I submit the different breeds of domesticated dog are a result of this. Yellow, curved bananas we eat are the result of this. The amount of fat people in America are a result of this.

So seriously Julie, do some proper academic reading on the subject because it's pretty damn clear the reading you've been doing so far has been provided from a source with a very dubious unscientific agenda.

And we are far from the top of the evolutionary tree. I am proof of that.

[JulieB]

For what it's worth a lot of the animals are much better off than humans when it comes to birth

That was the whole point of my original post!

Why do we not find ANY other animal that suffers or has more difficulty during childbirth?

Human births are NOTHING like the births that Apes go through and yet they are supposed to be our nearest relatives.

Surely they would show some signs of having a more difficult birth than other animals.

Surely evolution (or natural selection to keep Sie happy!) would tend to filter out difficult life threatening births with babies with bigger brains than easier births?

Anyhows I need to work....

[kidlewis]

Because our advance brains nerves and receptors means we feel things a lot more than other creatures?

[The_Rev]

Surely evolution would tend to filter out difficult life threatening births with babies with bigger brains than easier births?

No. Why would it?

Evolution is quite literally survival of the fittest. It means people or beings with a specific thing, such as sharper eyesight or better hearing or a bigger brain will survive in the wild longer than those things in the same species which dont. If they survive longer then they have a better chance of having children and their mutated genes will be passed on and the species will go that way over time. You have to appreciate it has only been a couple of hundred years since our average lifespan was above 30 or 40 years, so back in the days of yore having advantages was probably a bigger deal than it is now.

The big thing that separates us from the apes is our ability to think, we dont need to be faster or stronger than the food we eat because we are smarter than it. Who needs sharp claws and pointy teeth when you have a gun?

[BG_Villa_Fan]

For what it's worth a lot of the animals are much better off than humans when it comes to birth

That was the whole point of my original post!

Why do we not find ANY other animal that suffers or has more difficulty during childbirth?

TBH, you can't know the death rate or pain rate when giving birth of ALL species to claim that human's is the worst.

But why single out giving birth? Most animals have a better eyesight and can survive much longer without food/water, they can survive eating food that man could not, or drink dirty water directly from a pond, which humans can't. So what?

We're quite weak compared to most animals when it comes to abilites and instincts, our main advantage is the brain, this is why we survive as a species.

[mjmooney]

Why do we not find ANY other animal that suffers or has more difficulty during childbirth?

Human births are NOTHING like the births that Apes go through and yet they are supposed to be our nearest relatives.

Surely they would show some signs of having a more difficult birth than other animals.

Aaaarrrrggghhh!!!!!

Our nearest relatives, yes, but the differences in brain capacity are HUGE. Hence we have developed in such a way that we can override physical disadvantages by using innovative technology and techniques (e.g. assisted births). Hence we can still reproduce despite the narrow birth canal. And the narrow birth canal "tendency" does not get weeded out as it would in the wild.

IT'S NOTHING TO DO WITH SIN!!!!!

[JulieB]

nd you will continue to be lambasted about it because you post stuff like this and reveal quite clearly you have no understanding of it whatsoever. Like literally haven't got the slightest idea of how it works to a point where it's sounds like your incapable of grasping it.

You see this is what is wrong.

There are lots of times where VT Atheists post up stuff that actually is easily refutable, which indeed reveals a lack of research etc on the Bible or regarding a subject that I have been debating.

However I don't feel the need to degradate the original poster by adding to the post with statements like "This shows how little knowledge you have etc etc etc..

It's sufficient to post the counter argument and then leave it at that.

Still I'm sure it will continue in my case - However the words WATER DUCK BACK comes to mind!!

[PieFacE]

There are even plenty of examples of women having such a painless birth that they barely notice they've delivered.

I have a friend who fell asleep, woke up and the baby had pretty much popped out without her realising.... so your point is true! But hey, maybe God made it easy for her....

[JulieB]

Our nearest relatives, yes, but the differences in brain capacity are HUGE. Hence we have developed in such a way that we can override physical disadvantages by using innovative technology and techniques (e.g. assisted births). Hence we can still reproduce despite the narrow birth canal. And the narrow birth canal "tendency" does not get weeded out as it would in the wild.

But in the 3.6million years from Hominid Lucy down to Homo Sapiens 100,000 years ago. ONLY natural selection would have been taking place?

Because according to Anthrapologists "no innovative technology and techniques (e.g. assisted births)" fcould have possibly taken place.

Therefore how would the first hominid have given birth to the mutated hominid with a bigger brain, which then eventually became Homo Sapiens?

[Stevo985]

Why do we not find ANY other animal that suffers or has more difficulty during childbirth?

Human births are NOTHING like the births that Apes go through and yet they are supposed to be our nearest relatives.

Surely they would show some signs of having a more difficult birth than other animals.

Aaaarrrrggghhh!!!!!

Our nearest relatives, yes, but the differences in brain capacity are HUGE. Hence we have developed in such a way that we can override physical disadvantages by using innovative technology and techniques (e.g. assisted births). Hence we can still reproduce despite the narrow birth canal. And the narrow birth canal "tendency" does not get weeded out as it would in the wild.

IT'S NOTHING TO DO WITH SIN!!!!!

This.

We've evolved to be able to, using medical techniques, keep mothers and children from dying during difficult childbirth.

Taking survival of the fittest in it's most literal form, this means that we haven't evolved not to have painful childbirth, because it is not a survival necessity.

If apes have difficult childbirths, they die. The ones that don't have difficult childbirths survive. Therefore only the non-difficult childbirths live on and pass their genes to the next generation.

If someone had been around to nurse apes and cause them to survive difficult childbirth, then they would still have difficult childbirths

[Sie]

nd you will continue to be lambasted about it because you post stuff like this and reveal quite clearly you have no understanding of it whatsoever. Like literally haven't got the slightest idea of how it works to a point where it's sounds like your incapable of grasping it.

You see this is what is wrong.

There are lots of times where VT Atheists post up stuff that actually is easily refutable, which indeed reveals a lack of research etc on the Bible or on a subject regarding a subject that I have been debating.

However I don't feel the need to degradate the original poster by adding to the post with statements like "This shows how little knowledge you have etc etc etc..

It's sufficient to post the counter argument and then leave it at that.

Still I'm sure it will continue in my case - However the statement WATER DUCK BACK comes to mind!!

"Stop drawing direct attention to my ignorance, it's insulting"

Observing and then telling you that you are extremely ignorant of a particular subject is not an insult. It's a matter of fact. If you happen to be insulted by that, tough.

Also, using the bible to prove the bible doesn't refute shit.

[Eames]

Our nearest relatives, yes, but the differences in brain capacity are HUGE. Hence we have developed in such a way that we can override physical disadvantages by using innovative technology and techniques (e.g. assisted births). Hence we can still reproduce despite the narrow birth canal. And the narrow birth canal "tendency" does not get weeded out as it would in the wild.

But in the 3.6million years from Hominid Lucy down to Homo Sapiens 100,000 years ago. ONLY natural selection would have been taking place?

Because according to Anthrapologists "no innovative technology and techniques (e.g. assisted births)" fcould have possibly taken place.

Therefore how would the first hominid have given birth to the mutated hominid with a bigger brain, which then eventually became Homo Sapiens?

I think you are now deliberately misunderstanding to suit your own agenda. The change in brain size from generation to generation would have been negligable, unnoticeable. Over 3.6 millions years however, such a negligable change would become apparent as a trend.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Someone doesn't understand what happened to the Dodo.

[JulieB]

"Stop drawing direct attention to my ignorance, it's insulting"

Observing and then telling you that you are extremely ignorant of a particular subject is not an insult. It's a matter of fact. If you happen to be insulted by that, tough.

Also, using the bible to prove the bible doesn't refute shit.

It is unnecessary and unpleasant and actually against site rules IIRC. Post on poster and all that...

Still what's the point in even bringing it up as VT Atheists seem to have an opt out on site rules in some threads.

I think you'll find I have used plenty of secular sources to put matters straight in this thread as well as others,

however denegrating the original poster is pointless to my mind and detracts from the debate.

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

JulieB wrote:

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.

Evolution Theory. The Theory bit does not mean what you think it means.

It does not mean this is the best guess or it's something like this.

"Theories are intended to be an accurate, predictive description of the natural world." from wiki +

This exact subject was discussed on QI the other week, the trap that a lot of people fall into is as in this thread. You have a question with only one answer, you can use the word Jelly, mole, airship after evolution but it does not really matter. 1 question, 1 answer. Do not waste your time trying to out think the universe.

The Theory of Evolution is what it is. Accurate.

[JulieB]

I think you are now deliberately misunderstanding to suit your own agenda. The change in brain size from generation to generation would have been negligable, unnoticeable. Over 3.6 millions years however, such a negligable change would become apparent as a trend.

I can find no evidence that Evolutionists can show any adaptations in the fossil record to accomodate an increasing brain size by any adaptations/mutations present in the reproductive system.... Hominids had the pelvis they required to give birth. Homo sapiens had the pelvis they required to give birth. There are so few fossils in existence that it's hard for anyone to claim anything.

Hence the reason that quote from Askepedia I quoted from states "Chances are our species are direct desendants of Lucy’s species"

How therefore can Atheists deride people for even daring to say that there is another explanation.

[Eames]

I think you are now deliberately misunderstanding to suit your own agenda. The change in brain size from generation to generation would have been negligable, unnoticeable. Over 3.6 millions years however, such a negligable change would become apparent as a trend.

I can find no evidence that Evolutionists can show any adaptations in the fossil record to accomodate an increasing brain size by any adaptations

present in the reproductive system.... Hominids had the pelvis they required to give birth. Homo sapiens had the pelvis they required to give birth.

There are so few fossils in existence that it's hard for anyone to claim anything.

Hence the reason that quote from Askepedia I quoted from states "Chances are our species are direct desendants of Lucy’s species"

How therefore can Atheists deride people for even daring to say that there is another explanation.

I'm not an Atheist, or a Christian, and have so far not derided anyone in this debate IIRC.

What I can say is that there is at least some evidence to support the theory that we are decended from apes and that species on this planet have evolved over a long period of time.

The history of the world documented in the Bible, is a collection of stories about the history of a people/culture. It is that culture's attempt to explain where they came from and the point of their existance. Now, there is evidence to suggest that SOME of what is written in the Bible may have a grounding of truth. The Parting of the Red Sea for example MAY have a reasonable explanation IIRC.

By the same token some of what is written is also impossible/unrealistic when viewed with the eyes of an entriely different culture 4000 years later. Just as the Ancient Egyptian belief system now seems to be ridiculous.

The Bible can teach us some good lessons: Don't kill each other, Don't steal, if you're nice to people, people will be nice to you.... etc. But to use it as the definitive text to explain the history of all life on this planet is completely foolish - and confuses faith with fact.

In response to the OP, no, the Ark could not hold ALL the animals in the quantity suggested by the Bible - that just silly.

Did a bloke somewhere in the Middle East, at some point in history, build a **** off big boat and stick his livestock on it to save them from a flood? That doesn't seem totally unreasonable.

Interpretation is key, and I would imagine the truth lies somewhere between the two polarised views in this thread.