Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Queen of Swords · 06-21-2003, 08:42 AM

If you want the real story of what happened on the Ark, you need only click here.

Roland98 · 06-21-2003, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid
Ah well, just a quickie:

Magus, you do realise that there heaps of organisms that utterly depend on other organisms to exist, yeah? These things could not survive anywhere except in and on the other critters. So unless god did a frantic bit more creating after the flood, all these others, whether �clean� or not, had to be on board too.

One problem. The large subset of these organisms I�m specifically thinking of are known as �parasites� and �pathogens�.

These things had to be on the ark too.

The ark�s inhabitants were therefore subject to such delights as epidemic typhus, typhoid, cholera, amoebic dysentery, rabies, Ebola, Lassa, Marburg, hookworms, bot-flies, sand fleas, plague, malaria, hepatitis and a few dozen more. And that�s just the humans.

Please do tell: why was the ark not a stinking pile of rotting corpses long before settling on Ararat?

TTFN, Oolon

Sorry to butt in, but AIG has a classic on this one written by Carl Wieland. Comedy at its best:

Diseases on the Ark

Some highlights:

Quote:

(1) Specialization of the Pathogen: By this means, some disease-causing organisms may have been much less particular about their chosen host, and could thus have come through the Flood in some of the tens of thousands of animal species carried on board the Ark, only later 'devolving' (specializing) into their present 'human-only' status. Alternatively, some which now only survive inside a human body may have been robust enough to survive outside of any host.

A few interesting notes about this quote: note how Wieland uses "devolving" and "specialization" interchangably--even though, of course, one must have "gain of information" in order to have any beneficial evolution. Additionally, the "tens of thousands" of species contradicts Woodmorappe's 16,000 animal hypothesis (a book of which is advertised on the same page!)

Quote:

(2) Mutational 'Horizontal Evolution' : "Common viral diseases of today may well have 'evolved' from animal diseases. "

Some hilarious misunderstandings and spin about evolution in this paragraph. Too long to quote it all here.

Quote:

(3) Carriage by a Symptomless Host: Natural immunity in a particular host organism can mean that a disease organism can be carried without the host suffering any ill effects. Of course, this could only apply to a few diseases at most in such a small human population, but certainly adds one more option for survival of diseases. ..Furthermore, the declining lifespans of humans after the Flood may indicate an overall degeneration, such that Noah's family may have had a lot more host immunity to diseases which now cannot be asymptomatically carried.

I love anything in which they bring up the declining lifespans...

Quote:

(4)Survival Outside a Living Infected Organism. (i)Survival in insect vectors

The floating vegetation argument.

Quote:

(ii)Survival in human corpses: This could apply especially to those dying in the late stages of the Flood, becoming bloated and floating to shore later. This seems conceivable for some moulds and bacteria � even some viruses have been known to last for decades. Of course, organisms then have to have an opportunity to again infect a living person.

Obviously this only refers to the ones that weren't immediately buried in mud and fossilized...sheesh, make up your minds, people!

Quote:

(iii)Survival in the dried state: Though some viruses die readily when dry, others survive long periods in the dried state. For example, rabies virus in bat droppings can dry out to become airborne dust, which has infected cave explorers. How does anything stay dry in a worldwide Flood? Some of the floating clumps mentioned earlier may have had dry interior portions � also, some parts of the Ark itself would have provided a dry enough environment.

I'd love to see the ark with some dried smallpox just a-floatin' around...

And to conclude:

Quote:

(iv)Survival through freezing in polar regions: The whole matter of apparent catastrophic snap-freezing of some mammoths in the Arctic circle is controversial as regards whether it was associated with the Flood or a post-Flood event, but it brings to mind the fact that many disease organisms survive well when frozen. In general, the Flood event was probably a warm one, but insufficient modelling has been done to establish what conditions could have been possible at the poles.

Love it! Their intelligence and scientific understanding may be far sub-par, but Creationists sure make up for it with their imagination, don't they??

lpetrich · 06-21-2003, 11:44 AM

One has to marvel at all the evolution that creationists are willing to accept.

Spaz · 06-21-2003, 11:50 AM

They just can't accept that it's impossible can they?

Magus55 · 06-21-2003, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spaz
They just can't accept that it's impossible can they?

Because it isn't impossible. You seem to think the entire universe and all life created itself by complete chance, which is also impossible. But of course, probability is crap to you because it shows 15 billion years is astronomically too small of a time span for the universe to form by chance. I think its more rediculous that you think the universe just said " hmm, I'm tired of being a singularity, so i think ill expand just for the heck of it and form life on a tiny little planet in some small insignificant corner of the universe, just for fun. "

pz · 06-21-2003, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
Because it isn't impossible. You seem to think the entire universe and all life created itself by complete chance, which is also impossible. But of course, probability is crap to you because it shows 15 billion years is astronomically too small of a time span for the universe to form by chance. I think its more rediculous that you think the universe just said " hmm, I'm tired of being a singularity, so i think ill expand just for the heck of it and form life on a tiny little planet in some small insignificant corner of the universe, just for fun. "

I think you're right. I do think that is a more ridiculoous idea.

Do you have any more ridiculous ideas to share with us all? It looks like you are on a roll so far.

PandaJoe · 06-21-2003, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
Because it isn't impossible. You seem to think the entire universe and all life created itself by complete chance, which is also impossible. But of course, probability is crap to you because it shows 15 billion years is astronomically too small of a time span for the universe to form by chance. I think its more rediculous that you think the universe just said " hmm, I'm tired of being a singularity, so i think ill expand just for the heck of it and form life on a tiny little planet in some small insignificant corner of the universe, just for fun. "

Magus, never stop beleiving what you beleive. It's just too damn funny.

WinAce · 06-21-2003, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
I think its more rediculous that you think [a timeless disembodied mind with comic book superpowers] just said " hmm, I'm tired of being [lonely], so i think ill [magically poof something into existence] just for the heck of it and form life on a tiny little planet in some small insignificant corner of the universe, just for fun. "

Fixed it for you.

Spaz · 06-21-2003, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
Because it isn't impossible. You seem to think the entire universe and all life created itself by complete chance, which is also impossible. But of course, probability is crap to you because it shows 15 billion years is astronomically too small of a time span for the universe to form by chance. I think its more rediculous that you think the universe just said " hmm, I'm tired of being a singularity, so i think ill expand just for the heck of it and form life on a tiny little planet in some small insignificant corner of the universe, just for fun. "

Lol, wtf are you talking about? First of all I've never said how I believed the universe formed, I've only said one thing about that before in a question asking thread where I said I dunno how the universe formed, because I don't and I have studied it. And what is that 15 billion year possibility for the universe to form crap? Before the universe formed there would have been no time, so how can you say it's too short a time for time to form?

That's how old the universe is, which means that's how long it's taken for it to spread out to its current form (of which we have no idea where the vast reaches of the universe end) so what does that have to do with anything? Oh but I forget, anything so complex must've been created by something even more complex that didn't need to be created. The evidence for that being a 2000 year old book. Your logic is beyond me.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-21-2003, 08:42 AM	#131
Queen of Swords Contributor Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Canada. Finally. Posts: 10,155	If you want the real story of what happened on the Ark, you need only click here.

06-21-2003, 11:44 AM	#133
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	One has to marvel at all the evolution that creationists are willing to accept.

06-21-2003, 11:50 AM	#134
Spaz Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: 6th Circle of Hell Posts: 1,093	They just can't accept that it's impossible can they?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.