Adam Knowlden
09-18-2006, 04:32 AM
Hey JC,
well I respect your beliefs, I have to ask,
[ QUOTE ]
Because i know this is all we have I'm making the most of my time.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This life is all we have folks, enjoy it while you can.
[/ QUOTE ]
How do you KNOW for certain that this present existence is all there is? I propose you cannot know that for certain.
I also propose that believing in an afterlife can be equally as motivating to this end, indeed moreso.
I believe I am held accountable for my actions on earth to the very person who gave me my existence. This extends beyond a legacy based on my personal accomplishments, but rather a legacy based on advancing the Kingdom of Christ. I would argue that striving for a vision that reaches beyond oneself is much more fulfilling than a life based on pride.
[ QUOTE ]
Because atheist don't believe in an afterlife doesn't mean that they dont have empathy for other humans.
[/ QUOTE ]
But it can also mean they can be justified in having no empathy for others.
[ QUOTE ]
Oh and Noah was a Samaritan king that commandeered a commercial barge full of merchandise. He rode the flood to the Persian gulf and landed on a hill. How would Noah get 10 billion species of plants, bugs animals ect. on a boat that he made while it was raining?
[/ QUOTE ]
This is a common misconception. The Bible states he took kinds on the ark, not species. For example, there are 500 types of dogs. But all of those different types arrived form one pair of original dogs. You would not need to bring all 500 species of dog on the ark, just two. Further, where does it say to take all plants and insects?
Also, it was raining, but the bible clearly emphasizes the fountains of the deep were broken up, in other words, underground water constituted the majority of the flood waters.
Here is an exerpt for you:
Which Part of the Animal Kingdom was on
the Ark?
Modern anti-creationists
continue to resurrect long-discredited tomfooleries about the overcrowded Ark. For instance,
although it was shown long ago (Whitcomb and Morris 1961; Jones 1973) that the Ark was not
required to carry every member of Kingdom Animalia, recent critics (e.g., Futuyma 1983, McGowan
1984, Moore 1983, Skehan 1986, Plimer 1994, and Morton 1995) continue to burlesque the Ark by
placing just about every imaginable living thing on it. Morton (1995, pp. 68-9) has visions of snails
and earthworms struggling for thousands of years to make it to the Ark in time. Moore (1983, p. 16)
fantasizes that the Ark carried deep-sea fish. McGowan (1984, p. 57), not to be outdone, puts whales
and sharks on the Ark. Futuyma (1983, pp. 202-3) adds to the farce by repositing all the millions
of plant and animal species onto the Ark. Schneour (1986) and Plimer (1994) take rationalistic
arguments against the Ark to new heights of absurdity by insisting that it had to carry cultures of
microorganisms !
At the other extreme, we have compromising evangelicals (e.g:, Hugh Ross 1990) who want to
"save" the Flood by insisting that Noah only had to carry a few common domesticated animals on
the Ark. Needless to say, Scripture does not limit the contents of the Ark to domesticated animals
(Jones 1973). Neither, for that matter, does Jewish tradition (Friedler 1967, p. 5; Ginzberg 1909,
1988, p. 328).
Let us now consider what Scripture does say concerning the types of animal life taken on the
Ark. It is clear that the contents of the Ark were limited to all living and extinct land mammals,
birds, and land reptiles (Jones 1973), as elaborated and shown here in Tables 1 and 2. The Hebrew
terminology in the Genesis account rules out invertebrates having been taken on the Ark (Jones
1973). The same holds true for marine and amphibious vertebrates (HaseI1978, pp. 86-7). Let us
consider the main inhabitants of the Ark in more detail.
Birds. Terrestrial birds were undoubtedly on the Ark. By contrast, many types of seabirds spend
less than 10% of their lives on land, and for this and similar reasons can be considered marine
creatures (see Ainsley 1980).
It is thus very unlikely that they were on the Ark, but I have included
them in the totals. The distinction between true seabirds, and shore-birds, is discussed in detail in
the section Carnivores and Piscivores.
Although many terrestrial vertebrates can swim continuously anywhere from several hours to
a few days (see Johnson 1978, and references cited therein), it is quite impossible that they could
have survived the Flood outside the Ark once the floodwaters had prevailed on the earth. However ,
many land animals must have temporarily survived while the Floodwaters were still cyclically
advancing and retreating. As the waters buoyed them up, they swam. At the same time, the
sediments were deposited beneath them. When the waters temporarily retreated, the animals were
stranded on the sediment, and made footprints. Such a cycle must have repeated itself up to several
times, thus generating the successive layers of footprint horizons we now find in the geologic record.
Note that footprint horizons found near the top of the sedimentary column (e.g., Late Cretaceous)
should not be mistakenly thought of as late-Flood deposits.
Any local stratigraphic sequence
containing footprint horizons is probably entirely early-Flood in origin (e.g., Oard 1995). Although
land animals certainly drowned, sooner or later, the same need not have been true of their eggs.
For instance, while lizards were on the Ark, lizard eggs, notably resistant to seawater (Carlquist
1974, p. 9), may have survived the Flood in a viable state.
Amphibians? Possibly the more terrestrial amphibians were on the Ark (Jones 1973). But since
they were few in number (Carroll 1988; Duellman 1979) and were mostly small in size (Carroll
1988; Jenkins and Walsh 1993; Pough 1989), their inclusion could only have had a negligible effect
on the calculations of Ark inventory .Furthermore, I have erred on the side of amphibious animals
by including, on the Ark, many mammalian and reptilian genera that may have been or actually
~ are aquatic or semi-aquatic. This was necessary because various members of otherwise-terrestrial
vertebrate families are aquatic, and an unknown number of extinct genera may have been capable
of prolonged life in water without necessarily bearing any skeletal features indicative of such
capabilities.
Unknown Animals.
We can be confident that we have discovered nearly all genera of extant land
animals. However, there is no way of determining, or even intelligently guessing, the numbers and
sizes of unknown extinct animals. A number of estimates for the numbers of specific unknown types
of extinct animals do exist (e.g. dinosaurs: Dodson 1990). However, the computations involved all
presuppose the validity of organic evolution and the geologic time, scale in their calculations, and
thus have no meaning in the creationist-diluvialist paradigm.
When considering unaccounted-for extinct animals, we must remember that there is plenty of
extra space on the Ark beyond that accounted for in this study (as quantified and discussed in: The
Engineering and Infrastructure of the Ark. Secondly, by choosing the kind as equal to the genus
instead of the family, I already have placed up to eight times the actual number of animals on the
Ark.
Furthermore, the existence of unknown extinct animals is partly offset by th~ fact that a
substantial fraction of all provisionally-accepted extinct genera, all of which are placed on the Ark
in this study, are of dubious validity (Carroll 1988). Indeed, since its inception, vertebrate
paleontology has suffered from a proliferation of invalid generic names based on nondiagnostic
material, and an exaggeration of the numbers of putatively valid generic names derived from more
complete material. In recent decades, a considerable number of extinct genera have been "sunk,"
and this process continues today. For example, a recent study (King and Rubidge 1993) has drawn
severallong-accepted therapsid genera into synonymy.
Since all my calculations are much more numerically sensitive to the needs of the fewer large
animals than to those of the numerous smaller ones, it follows that dubious genera of the large-sized
animals are the ones that appreciably exaggerate the inventory and logistics of the Ark. For instance,
for purposes of this study, I have included all 87 commonly-cited sauropod dinosaur genera
as valid, and placed them on the Ark (asjuveniles}. Yet, according to sauropod specialist McIntosh
(1992, p. 345), only twelve sauropod genera can be regarded as "firmly established" and an
additional twelve "fairly well established." Likewise, a significant fraction of the thousands of
extinct medium to large sized hoofed-mammal genera are of questionable validity. This is illustrated
by the fact that, in recent decades, the rate of discovery of extinct large-mammal genera has only
modestly exceeded the rate of the suppression of invalid generic names within most large-bodied
mammalian orders (Peczkis 1989).
Why Animal Destruction?
Some critics (e.g., Moore 1983) question why God chose to destroy the
animals along with humans during the Flood, reasoning that animals are not conscious entities and
cannot be morally culpable of anything. Scripture does not tell us God' s precise motives for including
the destruction of animals, other than the fact that the whole earth was polluted (Genesis 6:11).
Thus the Flood was not only punitive but also cleansing in character. The destruction of animals,
then, need not have had anything to do with their ostensible moral culpability (any more than does
the mass extermination and cremation of diseased animals, or the shooting of man-eating lions).
Animals are incapable of moral instruction (Psalm 32:9). However, if animal consciousness is at all
relevant, it is important to point out that we do not know what kind of mental states animals are
capable of. Present-day neurobiology is incapable of discerning which neural processes result in
conscious thought (of whatever type) and which do not (Glynn 1993, p. 607). At the same time,
numerous studies (e. g., Barber 1993) suggest that at least some animals are sentient beings.
Taxonomic Rank of the Created Kind
Calculating the numbers of animals on the Ark requires not only an analysis of their taxonomic
identity, but also taxonomic rank. Despite years of work by creationists demonstrating that the
created kind must be broader than the species, anti-creationists (e.g. Moore 1983) perpetuate the
old objection about the Ark being grossly overcrowded with every species of animal. Clearly, the
anti-Biblicists will seek to discredit the Ark account at any cost. To make it even worse, the
anti-creationists-Awbrey (1981), Moore (1983), along with the compromising evangelical
HughRoss (1994, p. 73)-have the audacity to level the false charge that creationists have invented the
concept of the created kind as an ad hoc device to reduce the numbers of animals on the Ark. These
critics seem willingly ignorant of the many evidences of the created kind being broader than the
species (see below). Already in the 17th century (Allen 1963, p. 80; see also Young 1995, p. 58),
English Bishop John Wilkins had pointed out that the tiresome controversy about the roominess
of the Ark would be ended if men would stop calling every animal by five names!
There is a very fundamental reason why the created kind must, at minimum, be at the generic
and not specific level. The genus is the smallest division of plants and animals that can usually be
identified without scientific study (Cain 1956, p. 97). Since Scripture was written to be understood
without modern scientific training or other knowledge unavailable to the ancients (or even outside
of Scripture itself), the created kind could not possibly refer to species, but must be broader than
the species. Furthermore, the created kind is not some vague ethereal entity as the anti-creationists
make it out to be, but is well founded by creationist scholarship. For instance, there is a wealth of
evidence that, at minimum, the created kind is broader than the species of conventional taxonomy
(see below). In fact, many biologists use the term syngameon (see Templeton 1991a, p. 20, and
earlier-cited works) to refer to the most inclusive unit of interbreeding among plants and animals.
The syngameon is usually broader than the species and even, in many cases, the genus. Moreover ,
Jones (1972a), has shown that the Hebrew term for creation kind, min, is a real entity and not
simply that "like begets like." Any putative difficulty in the discovery ofa one-to-one correspondence
between a specific taxonomic rank and the created kind in no way negates the concept of the kind.
It merely reflects the limitations of man-made taxonomy (ReMine 1993, p. 513), although
quantitative studies of animal morphology (Wyles et al. 1983) support the position that conventional
taxonomic divisions are not merely convenient labels, but have some objective validity .
Can the created kind ever be above the family level? Gish (1993) recently pointed out that he
had been misrepresented by anti-creationists, and had never suggested that the created kind may
be as high as the order of conventional taxonomy. In his decades-long studies of turtles, Frair (1991;
and earlier-cited works) did suggest that the created kind among turtles may be as high as the order .
However, the Testudines may be an atypically homogenous group, at least at the ordinal level (Karl
et al. 1995, p. 265). Furthermore, members of different families within Testudines do not freely
interbreed with each other (Frair, personal communication). Following the interbreeding criteria
discussed below, it follows that the kind among turtles must be below the ordinal level.
Identifying the Created Kind.
Jones (1972b), largely using Scriptural evidence (e.g., the animal
lists in Leviticus), demonstrated that the created kind is approximately equivalent to the subfamily
or family, at least in the case of birds and mammals. Recently, Scherer (1993) has arrived at the
same conclusion, but on the basis of scientific evidence.
This evidence includes numerous
.documented cases of interbreeding between individuals of different species and genera, as well as
interbreeding with a third species or genus in situations where two species or genera do not
themselves interbreed. Thus, Scherer's definition of the kind is very similar, if not identical, to
Templeton's (1991a, p. 20) aforementioned term syngameon.
The many instances of interbreeding which Scherer ( 1993) cites can be multiplied greatly. For
instance, Hubbs (1955) and Smith (1992) provide a large inventory of known instances of
trans-specific and trans-generic breeding among fish.
McAllister and Coad (1978) have presented
a matrix depicting all known instances oftrans-generic breeding in the fish family Cichlidae. (This
matrix is quite similar to the one by the creationist Scherer (1986) for trans-generic breeding within
the avian family Anatidae). Almost all the genera of the marine turtle family Cheloniidae can form
fertile hybrids with each other (Karl et al. 1995).
Of course, there are countless examples of hybridization within the genus, as between fish
species (e.g., McClure and McEachran 1992; Meagher and Dowling 1991), reptiles (Bailey 1942;
Frye 1991; Huff 1980; von Mertens 1968), and amphibians (Oliveira et al. 1991; Wilson et al. 1974).
Breeding among different species of birds is exceedingly common, and also occurs between genera
(Tatarinov 1986) .For a bibliography of all papers providing similar examples, in just several issues
of only one journal of avian biology (Auk), see (Monroe 1991). There is also a recent survey (Close
Which Part of the Animal Kingdom was on the Ark?
and Lowry 1990) of such occurrences among marsupial mammals. Finally, instances of hybrid zones
among different species of plants and animals have recently been tabulated (Harrison 1990; see also
Minelli 1993, pp. 75-6).
The above-cited examples hardly exhaust the possibilities for interbreeding between species
and genera. Indeed, it is a fact that most species are named according to morphological differences
between animals and not closure of the gene pool:
...the fact that only a tiny percentage of recognized species have been tested,
naturally or otherwise, for reproductive isolation from other apparently closely
related forms. ...(Archer 1981, p. 130)
Making the Crowded-Ark "Problem " More Challenging.
If, as the preponderance of evidence
(Jones 1972b; Scherer 1993) shows, the created kind was equivalent to the family (at least in the
case of mammals and birds), then there were only about 2,000 animals on the Ark (Jones 1973). In
such a case it is obvious that there was no problem in housing all the animals on the commodious
Ark.
However, in order to make this exercise more interesting, I have deliberately made the problem
of animal housing on the Ark much more difficult by adopting the genus as the taxonomic rank of
the created kind. This necessitates, as shown below, nearly 16,000 animals on the Ark. This number
is based on land animals of whose existence we know (either as live animals or fossils). Because I
have intentionally made the Ark-crowding problem so much more difficult than it actually was, all
other possible sources of error, individually and collectively, are rendered trivial by comparison.
This makes it unnecessary to provide error bars for the various tables in this work.
Which Animals Were Clean?
Did Noah take seven individuals or seven pairs of clean animals on the Ark? Jones 1973) has
surveyed over forty Bible commentaries on this matter and found them about evenly divided as to
whether Scripture indicates seven pairs or seven individuals. In this work, I accept seven pairs,
although, as shown below, this has little effect on the overall calculations.
Accounting for clean animals on the Ark may at first seem problematic for several reasons. In
the first place, the concept ofa clean animal at the time of Noah may not have been the same as it
was millennia later with the Levitical system (H. Morris 1976, pp. 190-191). However, considering
the perspicuity of Scripture, I will, in the absence of evidence to the contrary , assume that the
concepts of clean animals were the same during the time of Noah as they were after the inception
of the Law of Moses. In fact, as shown below, if we let the Bible be its own interpreter, it becomes
evident that the number of clean animals is not only knowable, but is also quite small.
Since, in this work, we are setting the created kind at the level of the genus, we must first
question the number of valid genera involved because of the high degree of interbreeding between
genera of clean animals. This can be especially seen in the families Bovidae (Wall et al. 1992) and
Cervidae (Van Gelder 1977). Among the birds, hybridization is commonly seen between the genera
in Galliformes (various chickens, turkeys, quail, and pheasants: Amundsen and Lawrence 1955;
McGrath et al. 1972; Prager and Wilson 1975); Anseriformes (i.e. many genera in Anatidae: Prager
and Wilson 1975; Scherer 1986); and, to a lesser extent, in Passeriformes (i.e., finches: Roberts
1973). Considering generic-level taxonomy further, we need to note that not all genera of
Anseriformes and Galliformes are accepted as clean according to certain Jewish traditions (Forst
1993). Furthermore, there is the usual problem of taxonomic lumping versus splitting, and this, of
course, impacts the numbers ofvalid clean genera. For instance, in the Bovidae, some authors split
Bos and Bubulus each into two genera (Wall et al. 1992, p. 263).
Let us now consider which specific reptiles, mammals, and birds are clean animals. First of all,
no reptiles are candidates for clean animals, as Scripture informs us that they are all unclean
(Rabinowitz 1972, p. 33), as are all the smaller mammals (e.g., rodents, shrews: Huttermann 1991,
p. 185). The sole clean mammals include those which possess cloven hooves and chew continuously
(Deuteronomy 14: 4-6). Indeed, motion photography shows that the typical cow chews 30,000-50,000
times during each 24-hour period (Welch and Hooper 1988, pp. 108-9). The Bible specifically lists
the clean mammals as consisting of, in terms of modern taxonomy, approximately thirteen
bovid/cervid genera (Jones 1972b). According to Jewish tradition (for example, Maimonides:
Grunfeld 1972, p. 49-50), this Scriptural list is exhaustive; so no other live or extinct mammal is to
be accepted as clean, even if it chews again and divides the hoof.
This fact imposes a major constraint on tht number of possible clean animals, in that the
simanim (sign) of cloven hoofs and chewing again is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a
land mammal to be accepted as clean (Forst 1993). For instance, the giraffe divides the hoof and
chews again, but there is no clear Jewish tradition ofit being kosher (Rabinowitz 1972). According
to some other Jewish traditions (Dresner and Siege11959, 1966), all clean animals are necessarily
domesticated (or perhaps at least in a loose symbiotic relationship with humans). This conclusion
is also supported by Morris (1995, pp. 22-23). Thus, the number of candidates for clean animals is
Which Part of the Animal Kingdom was on the Ark?
drastically reduced, as only a few tens of genera of mammals and birds are commonly reckoned as
domesticated (for a list of these genera, see Fowler 1986, p. 1067). This is despite the fact that many
other animals are apparently no less suitable for domestication (Loosli and McDowelll985, p. 4).
All the foregoing considerations indicate that the clean animals are a rather small and exclusive
circle of animals which can be known, ruling out the possibility that just any wild (and also any
extinct) bovid, giraffid, or cervid genus is a clean animal. The number of potential clean animals is
further reduced once we recognize that Scripture is a complete, self-contained revelation. Since the
Word of God requires no extra-Biblical sources of information to be understood properly, it follows
that only animals individually specified in Scripture as clean can be regarded as such. As noted
earlier, this amounts to, for mammals, approximately thirteen bovid/cervid genera (Jones 1972b).
The Clean Birds. Scripture lists numerous birds which are unclean (see Jones (1972b) for listing
along with taxonomic analysis), and only several types of birds, belonging to a few tens of genera
at most, are mentioned in the Bible in relation to human use (Rabinowitz 1972). If Jewish tradition
is considered, one needs to add only a few additional birds, not mentioned in the Bible, to our list
of clean birds (Rabinowitz 1972). These are all strongly granivorous and, as mentioned, consist of
several members of Galliformes, Anseriformes, and Passeriformes.
Having already discussed the clean members of the first two orders, I now focus on the passerine
birds. By analogy with the other clean birds, all of which are dominantly seed-eating, note that only
the 122 genera comprising the following families are dominantly granivorous: Estrildidae,
Ploceidae, Fringillidae, and Emberizidae (Inskipp 1975, p. 21). Jewish tradition restricts this
further to only sixteen passerine genera having a definite tradition ofbeing clean (Rabinowitz 1972,
p. 30). However, taking into account all of the signs of cleanliness, and letting the Bible be its own
interpreter, we are left with only the genus Passer. This is about the only member of Order
Passeriformes mentioned in Scripture (Psalm 84:3; Proverbs 26:2; Matthew 10:29). Notably, it is
Passer domesticus which has a close symbiotic relationship with man, accounting for its spread
around the world wherever man has sown cereal crops (Summers-Smith 1988, p. 137).
Clean Animals and Sacrifice.
Various commentators have suggested a connection between
Noah's sacrifice after the Flood (Genesis 8:20) and the identity of the clean animals, but Scripture
does not indicate how many animals were sacrificed by Noah (Jones 1973). However, keeping in
mind the Hebrew terminologies and usages in Scripture, and being consistent with Biblical
terminology, we can note that Noah's sacrifice was a burnt offering (Hebrew olah: Rainey 1971, p.
601). This type of sacrifice, according to other examples in Scripture, is limited to bulls, sheep and
goats, and birds (Rainey 1971, p. 601-2). Jewish tradition about Noah himself indicates that he
sacrificed only those animals which he had taken by seven pairs (namely: an ox, a sheep, a goat,
two turtle doves, and two young pigeons: Ginzberg 1909, 1988, p. 333), because he reckoned that
he had been commanded by God to take those animals by seven pairs for precisely that reason.
Only a Few Clean Animals on the Ark.
Our discussion of the nature and identity of the clean
animals dispels the absurdity that there were thousands or tens of thousands of clean animals on
the Ark (Morton 1995, pp. 67-8). Let us now examine how the presence of clean animals affects the
logistics of the Ark.
The inclusion of the seven pairs of approximately thirteen bovid/cervid genera (Jones 1972b)
increases the values quoted in Tables 1 and 2 by less than o~e- half of one percent, and the logistics
(Tables 3-4 and 6- 7) by only 2-3%. As for the seven pairs of c!Jean birds, the overall calculations are
so insensitive to the numbers of these small-bodied animals that even putting tens of extra small
animals on the Ark changes the quoted values by far less than 1 %. It is evident that the calculations
pertaining to the logistics of the Ark are only slightly affected by the addition of the clean animals,
even if they were in seven pairs and not seven individuals. For this reason, the quoted values in all
the tables of this work do not include the clean animals, whose impact is negligible.
The Ark Animals by Body-Mass Category
In common with all scientific measurements, all data in this work have been converted to, and
expressed in, the metric system. To avoid any confusion, however, I use the expression "metric ton "
interchangeably with 1000 kilograms, and with the megagram. All of the calculations in this work
involving the Ark assume a short cubit of 45.72 cm (Wright 1985, p. 419). This is a conservative
figure. For instance, the Jewish scholar Ben- Uri, in his study of the Ark, accepts a cubit of 50 cm
(Friedler 1967, p. 5), and other commentators have cited even larger values.
In order to derive a complete inventory of animals on Noah's Ark, I have compiled and computed
body-mass estimates for all the living and known extinct genera of land vertebrates (Table 1). These
can be broken down into eighty-eight orders of live and known extinct land vertebrates (the
twenty-five largest of which are shown in Table 2). Note that the distribution of their constituent
genera is highly asymmetric, and there is a sharp asymptotic drop-off of constituent genera per
order when the orders are listed from largest to smallest .
Indeed, merely the three largest
orders (Passeriformes, Squamata, and Rodentia) collectively account for nearly half of the 16,000
animals on the Ark (Table 2). At the other extreme (not shown), forty-four orders have ten pairs
or fewer, and thirty-five have five or fewer pairs.
Methodology Used. May (1978), in his study of insect body sizes, has found a similar asymmetry
to the one which I have discussed in the previous paragraph in relation to land vertebrates.
Therefore, I have used a similar methodology to the one that he has used to calculate the body-size
(in my case, body mass) distribution of genera within the land-vertebrate orders, which is described
in the ensuing paragraphs.
Since the few large orders by themselves contain the overwhelming majority of all the genera,
it is obvious that the calculations ofbody-mass distribution on the Ark are insensitive to the precise
body-mass distributions of the many small orders but highly sensitive to the body-mass distribution
of the considerably fewer but larger orders. Therefore, it is necessary to have a detailed body-mass
breakdown of only the larger orders. For the many smaller orders, it is sufficient to simply assign
a characteristic value for body mass to each small order, or just provide a rough estimate of the
body-mass distribution of its constituent genera.
Constructing the Ark-Animal Database.
We need to specify all the live and extinct vertebrate
genera in terms of body sizes (masses). No such comprehensive database exists, so I assembled one
by using existing smaller databases, supplemented with careful extrapolation. A
As shown each animal was assigned to an order-of-magnitude body-mass category. This reflects the
fact that adults vary greatly in body mass within a genus, so a single value for body mass would
have little meaning.
body mass estimates are available for nearly all extant land mammal genera (Damuth 1987;
Nowak and Paradiso 1983), and for most extant avian genera (Dunning 1993; Ritland 1982). This
is not the case for reptiles, so I compiled body mass estimates for nearly half of all extant reptilian
genera. For tortoises, I converted carapace sizes available for various genera (Ernst and Barbour
1989) into body masses.
For squamate genera, I first tallied the relatively comprehensive estimates
of body masses that are available (Andrews and Pough 1985; Guyer and Donnelly 1990; Nagy and
Peterson 1988, p. 127; Pough 1973,1977; Seymour 1987; and Stevenson 1985). I then expanded
this data base by converting tabulated snout-vent lengths (Censky and McCoy 1988; Dunham et al.
1988; Henderson et al. 1988; Shine 1991; Shine and Greer 1991; and Witten 1985) into body masses
by means ofa regression (Pough 1980).
Extrapolating Within Extant Vertebrate Families. The distributions ofbody masses obtained
for numerous reptilian genera were subsequently extrapolated, within each respective extant
reptilian family (listed by Duellman 1979), to the total number of extant squamate genera
(enumerated by Duellman 1979) and extinct ones (enumerated by Carroll 1988) that occur within
each extant family.
As for extinct genera in modern families of birds, I simply extrapolated the available
body-masses of genera to the grand total of genera (live plus extinct) of each family. For mammals,
I followed a somewhat different methodology .Peczkis (1988) has found that 67% of mammalian
genera tend to occur in the modal body-mass category of the typical mammalian family, and 90%
of genera occur in the two largest weight categories of the given family. Utilizing this information,
I identified the modal and next-largest body weight category of each of the extant mammalian
families. I then totaled the number of live and extinct genera in each family, and then apportioned
this total in each family according to the ratios found by Peczkis (1988). It should be noted that the
vast majority of all the extinct mammalian genera are members of still-living families, which is also
the case with extinct avian genera, but not with extinct reptilian genera.
Large Extinct Mammalian and Avian Orders.
Following the same methodology as described
above, I needed only to subject the larger extinct mammalian and reptilian orders to detailed
body-mass analyses, as the smaller ones have very little impact on the calculations. There are no
large extinct orders of birds to consider. Now let us consider the relatively large extinct mammalian
orders (e.g., Notoungulata and Condylartha; Table 2). I am not at liberty to reveal the sources which
I used to determine the modal and next-largest body-mass categories of each of their constituent
families because they are the subject of a forthcoming paper .
Large Extinct Reptilian Orders.
For Order Therapsida, I generated a body-mass breakdown
{shown in Table 2) of its genera through the use of skull {and sometimes whole-skeleton, or
thigh-diameter). The data was culled from several sources {principally Anderson and Anderson
1970, Chart 1; Baur and Fried! 1980, p. 260, Brink 1982, and Kemp 1982), along with general
comments on their distribution by body mass {Peczkis 1995).
For the dinosaur orders {Saurischia and Ornithischia), a body-mass apportionment is available
for over two-thirds of all known and putatively-valid dinosaurian genera {Peczkis 1995). I
extrapolated the body-mass distribution within each dinosaurian family, tabulated by Peczkis
{1995), to the total number of genera of each respective dinosaur family {enumerated by several
authors in the Wieshampel et al. 1992 volume). The totals were then apportioned with respect to
the two dinosaur orders, and are shown in Table 2.
Small Extinct Vertebrate Orders.
I now consider the remaining extinct orders of mammals,
birds, and reptiles. Since, as noted earlier, there is no need for great detail with respect to the
apportionment of their genera according to body mass, I arrived at a general distribution of their
respective genera by utilizing several comprehensive sources {especially Carroll 1988, and Potts
and Behrensmeyer 1992) along with an overview of their mean and maximal body sizes {Benton
1990, p, 288).
Enumerating the Animals on the Ark.
There were nearly 16,000 animals on the Ark {Table 1),
spanning eight orders of magnitude of body mass, ranging in size from hummingbirds {i.e., a few
grams per individual) to sauropods {up to perhaps 80 megagrams when adults). I have based all the
ensuing calculations on the Ark logistics by using the arithmetic mean of each respective small
body-mass category {e.g., assuming in calculations that all animals in the 1-10 gram category weigh
5 grams, etc.). For animals larger than 100 kg, I used the geometric mean of each category {e.g.,
letting every animal in the 100-1000 kg category weigh 316 kg for purposes of calculations). My
reason for using the geometric mean for the larger animals is the fact that there are more smaller
than larger animals in each respective large-bodied category .This follows from the fact animals
follow a log-normal distribution of genera relative to body-mass categories {Maurer et al. 1992),
with t!te larger animals being part of the tail end of this distribution.
With respect to medium and large animals {that is, all animals greater than 10 kg as adults), I
have represented them on the Ark as juveniles (for details, see: Large Animals as Juveniles. ..).
However, for purposes of census, I have tabulated the large-bodied animals as adults in Tables 1
and 2. In all the other calculations (e.g., Tables 3,4,6,7), I have represented the medium to large
animals as juveniles, also using JF {Juvenile Factors) to convert adult food/water intake to
growing-juvenile intake for the 371-day interval. Details on calculating JF are also provided in the
Large Animals. ..chapter),
Mass Distribution of the Animals on the Ark.
As can be seen from the census , the vast majority of the animals on the Ark were small. Without allowing the representation oflarge animals as juveniles, the median animal on the Ark would have been the size of a small rat
{about 100 grams: Hendrickson 1983, p.70). It is obvious that Whitcomb and Morris (1961) have
been overly generous to their compromising-evangelical detractors when they had suggested that
the average animal on the Ark was the size of a sheep. In fact, from the tabulation, it can be seen
that only about 11% of the animals on the Ark were substantially larger than sheep.
Floor Space Allotments for the Animals
How much floor space should be allowed for each size of animal on the Ark? I discuss this matter in detail in the section Implications of Animal Crowding. In this chapter, I only provide a brief rationale for the particular values I quote and use (Table 3). We might naturally suppose that there is an analogy between the Ark and situations where modern animals are transported en masse on ships. However, such animals are at sea usually only a few days or weeks, so the duration is not comparable enough for a meaningful comparison with the year-long Ark experience.
Moore (1983, p. 16) has claimed that animals require large floor areas, based on the experiences of zoos, and the transport of animals to zoos. However, the zoo is a very inappropriate and misleading analogy for the housing requirements of the animals on the Ark. First of all, the zoo is a facility intended for the public display of captive animals, as well as for the relatively comfortable confinement of animals on a permanent basis. Enclosures must generally also be spacious enough for animals to breed in captivity .By contrast, the Ark represents temporary confinement of animals, in an emergency situation, without their necessarily breeding during the stay on the Ark. The Ark was most certainly not a floating zoo, but a floating Flood shelter. Since we only need consider the minimum floor space for animals to survive in reasonable health for one year , we must orient ourselves not according to modern zoos, but according to modern examples of animals kept under conditions of extreme confinement. The closest modern analogues to the Ark are not the zoo but the laboratory animal situation and the intensive livestock unit, commonly known as the factory farm (Johnson 1991). In the latter, we have up to 100,000 animals, living under very crowded conditions under one roof, and cared for by a handful of people. The intensive confinement of animals is not new. For instance, the ancient Romans used to fatten hares by keeping them in small cages (Varro 36 B.C., p. 320), and they fattened dormice by keeping them in jars (Varro 36 B.C., p. 321).
Moore (1983, p. 17) has berated Whitcomb and Morris (1961) for comparing the confinement of animals on the Ark to that of livestock on railroad cars, owing to the fact that livestock are allowed to leave the cars, during railroad stops, for exercise. Moore is clearly clutching at straws, because the extreme confinement of animals in railroad cars is not unique, and the exercise of animals is irrelevant. Indeed, the situations of intensive animal confinement (namely factory farms and laboratory-animal situations), discussed and quantified below, reflect long-term intensive animal confinement, for months or years, commonly with few or no opportunities for animals to leave their enclosures.
Animal Housing: Requisite Ark Floor-Space
I have constructed Table 3 for the purpose of estimating the minimum floor space needed for all the animals on the Ark. For the smaller animals (i.e., 1 gram to 10 kg in mass) I have accepted the standard floor-space areas recommended for the housing of laboratory animals (Simmonds 1991, pp. 186-7). For larger animals (i.e., greater than 10 kg as juveniles), I quoted the values for floor spacing of intensively-housed livestock (Esmay 1977, p. 72; ILAR 1978, pp. 34-5), which are also comparable to those allotted for large animals under conditions of laboratory housing (Jennings 1974, p. 91). Since all the larger animals were represented on the Ark as juveniles, it is necessary for the floor-space allowance for the larger animals to reflect this fact. For our purposes, a 50 kg animal was taken as a representative juvenile of a 1,000-10,000 kg adult, and a several hundred kg (or more) animal was a representative juvenile of a 10,00O-100, 000 kg sauropod dinosaur.
We can see from Table 3 that less than half the cumulative area of the Ark's three decks need to have been occupied by the animals and their enclosures. Furthermore, this assumes no tiering of the enclosures, which of course maximizes the Ark floor space needed for animal housing, but also allows at least some of the food and water to be stored overhead. There is plenty of room left over to account for the Ark infrastructure, and passageways between the animal enclosures, although the latter need not consume much additional floor area. For instance, in coal mines, alleys only 1.5 meters wide between mule stables have proven wide enough for large feed trucks to pass through (Greer 1916, p. 999), and those on the Ark could, of course, have been much smaller.
I have found that most athiests have never actually read the account for themselves, but instead simply copy the same strawmen attacks over and over again, without bothering to do independent research.
This is the main difference between "the myth believeing creationists" and the evolutionist. The creationist tend to have actually studied what the evolutionists believe, while the evolutionists have no idea what the creationists believe. Its very apparent by the overwhelming multitude of ad hominem and red herring arguemnts.
[ QUOTE ]
I have alot of questions about everything, none can be solved by blind faith.
[/ QUOTE ]
Do you believe in abiogenesis?
[ QUOTE ]
I need more then a book that was written by a crap ton of unknown authors over the span of 150+ years
[/ QUOTE ]
The bible was written over thousands of years, not hundreds. We know who nearly all of the authors are, and the others are easy to deduce from writing styles and patterns. Further we have a manifold of original manuscripts of both the old and new testaments which verify the accuracy of the current translations of scripture.
Very few, if any, credible archeologists and historians doubt the validity of the dead sea scrolls or the thousands of original new testament manuscripts currently in our posession.
[ QUOTE ]
that parts have been modified thrown out (aka it was edited, the word of "god" was edited). I need more then imaginary evidence and faith. And a face in my pancake certainly isn't a sign by any means. This life is all we have folks, enjoy it while you can.
[/ QUOTE ]
The existence of God cannot be proven or disproved absolutely. I cannot even prove that you exist by those standards. Since God's existence cannot be absolutely proven, how do we determine if God's existence is even probable? I suggest using the same standard that is used in science...the 95% confidence interval.
If no standard for evidence is determined, the tendency is to raise the standard for proof as the amount of evidence increases.
The standard I propose is a 95% 'certainty' that God does indeed exists (and a 5% certainty that He doesn't exist).
There are many, many things we do daily that we do not have absolute certainty of the outcome .We travel in our cars or airplanes without being certain that we won't be killed in an accident.
Even without 'absolute' certainty, we believe that we will be successful. This is the kind of faith that I am adhering too.
Those are some general observations and recommendations for examining the evidence for God's existence.
I have seen several web sites produced by atheists who claim that they can prove that God does not exist.
However, all of these atheistic arguments against the existence of God use some form of straw man or red herring argument, because they argue against the existence of a god who is significantly less powerful than the God described in the Bible.
The Bible says that God is transcendent (exists beyond the three physical dimensions of the universe) and exists beyond our dimension of time (the Bible states that God was acting before time was created).
Atheists argue against the existence of a god who is finite and limited to a single dimension of time. This is the straw god who cannot logically exist. In fact, there are religions that are logically impossible. For example, the god of Mormonism is a former man who became a god. He had a father, who had a father, etc. One runs into the problem of where the first God came from. In contrast, the God of the Bible had no father, but is eternal, existing in at least two dimensions of time.
According to naturalism, the universe has no purpose and no interest whether or not there is life in it. Logically, we should not be here. In fact, modification of laws of physics almost always results in universes that don't even contain matter! Our presence in the universe suggests that we are not here by accident. In fact, the atheist must address the question of why there is anything at all. Why should there be a universe instead of nothing?
Yes, you can get absolute proof of God's existence. One way to get proof is to die. I do not recommend this method if you have not accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. All who die get to see God. However, those who have rejected Him through their lives on earth are separated from God at the judgment, since He cannot have contact with those who insist upon holding onto their sinfulness.
An easier (and less risky) way to get proof of God's existence is to see if the promises of the Bible are true. The Bible says that if you accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior that He will come into your life and that you will have a personal relationship with Him. But you need to believe first, once you believe, experiment and test the promises. You won't regret it.
Also, did you know wikipedia is not a scholary encyclopedia? Its made up by laymene. A wiki is a web page anyone can edit. Its ok for a reference, but I wouldn't study it too deeply. Its very suseptible to bias.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.