Abiogenesis and Information?

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

I'm not sure what they will use as their list of animals. It would seem reasonable though, that they wouldn't need every breed of cattle...just one. They also wouldn't need every cat, or canine.

Why not? After all, evolution is a myth, right?

[orogenicman]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

No...there's plenty of room in the ark to contain those animals that were there at the time.



What isn't right?

What IS right? None of it. Name one exhibit where they got the science right.

[orogenicman]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

I'm not sure what they will use as their list of animals. It would seem reasonable though, that they wouldn't need every breed of cattle...just one. They also wouldn't need every cat, or canine.

Erm, that woiuld require a belief in evolution, since if you only take one species of cat, you then have to explain how that one species generated all of the other species that exist today. What's more, you'd have to explain why the genomes of these animals indicate that they've been on this planet for millions of years and are not all identical.

[Strel]

You guys are wasting your time.

Creationists of this "caliber" will never be convinced no matter how much logic and how many facts ypu throw in their direction. They are psychologically incapable of objectivity.

[NightBazaar]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

I'm not sure what they will use as their list of animals. It would seem reasonable though, that they wouldn't need every breed of cattle...just one. They also wouldn't need every cat, or canine.

Such a list would be a lot longer than one might think. Let's see, it'd have to include the usual assortment of lions, tigers, giraffes, bears, elephants. Kangaroos, platapus', ostriches, eagles, butterflies, moths, snakes, alligators, penguins, rats, rabbits, fresh water fish (need a huge aquarium for those), spiders, chickens, armadillos, sloths, squirrels, owls, bats, peafowl, deer, chickens, swine, parrots, pandas, ants, bees, snails, beetles, rhinos, hippos, bison, fleas, flies, walruses, seal, and that's just for starters. Whales and dolphins would have to be included in suitable, gigantic aquariums since they'd never survive the mud-laden water for long.

There wouldn't be enough room to hold everything. Taking a few of each kind along would not produce a viable population for breeding after all the animals are finally released.

That's not including an enormous number of plants that would otherwise drown and be completely buried by mud that settles to the surface once the water recedes.

If the Ark landed on top of Ararat, as claimed, how many do you think would actually make it down the mountain without falling to their death? And those that do make it down, how would they survive, keepng in mind many would sink into the thick layer of soft wet mud, not to mention nothing to eat if most plants are deeply buried beneath the mud.

Do you really think there'd be room to hold everything based on the dimensional specs of the Ark? Keep in mind that all these animals have to have food and fresh water to drink. Need more storage room for food and fresh water. Keep in mind also that all these animals need to relieve themselves generating a thick nose-wrenching layer of feces and urine. Hard to breath with ammonia confined inside.

[Brian.Pearson]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

What is your standard of morality that you can make the claim that any of that is bad?

Don't you need your own morality a set of standards that you must live by vs somebody else's? I'm an atheist and I certainly have my own standards. if some character told me to cut somebody else's head off to prove myself to an angel I'd say to that person, he needs to get across the River Styx, and I'll give him the fee.