Title Author Date

Noah's Ark Elphick, Michael Apr 25, 2005

Dear Amiel,

I did enjoy reading your account of genesis "A Masterpiece Chockfull of Inconsistencies": - http://www.nctimes.net/~mark/bibl_science/bible-science.htm

I have recently gone thought exactly the same process. I find the early chapters in Genesis fascinating and quite lovely. It's the first time in 45 years that I have read them, thanks to the challenge of a Creation Scientist!

I wonder if you have read the creation story of Haggadah, one of the books that did not make it into the Bible? This is a bible story with some real fun in it! The Epic of Gilgamesh is also worth reading for its similarities to the Noah Flood story.

Why am I writing? It's because your calculations regarding the mass of animals in the Ark are flawed. You take the horse as a representative of all animals, which is quite wrong! I was following the same reasoning - how many animals could you get into the Ark? - when I can across your essay. From internet searches I found that there are 4000-5000 species of mammal, 3,500 of amphibian, 6,500 of reptiles and 10,000 species of bird.

From that, excluding insects, I have calculated an approximate mass not in excess of 5,000 tons (assuming each *mammal* was equivalent to a horse, and there were two of them, male and female). You need to put this right before a Creationist discovers and ridicules it! Actually, the quantity of food required at 5% of body weight per day over a period of a year (90,000 tons), greatly exceeds the mass of animals, so your conclusions are correct.

The Noah story does not mention plants, presumably these were kept on board as seeds, so it's strange that the dove could come back with a freshly plucked olive leaf when the earth had been wiped clean of all living
creatures.

Sincerely yours,

Michael Elphick.

read replies (6)
write a reply Related Article(s):
A Masterpiece Chockfull of Inconsistencies

Title Author Date

evolution/periodic table Williams, Loren Apr 25, 2005

Hello, I notice on your web page that there is an expression to the effect that the periodic table is just as basic to biology as the periodic table is to chemistry.

You may be interested in the following:

http://www.re-discovery.org/

Cheers,
Loren

write a reply

Title Author Date

Substitution of Argument Wiolowan, Constantine Apr 07, 2005

The article of Ion Musgrave substitutes the main argument of Doolittle vs. Behe: IC.
Beside the incorrectness in saying that Fib-/Pl- mice are normal ("practically" etc.) the main flaw of Doolittle logic is this "Contrary to claims about irreducible complexity, the entire ensemble of proteins is not needed. Music and harmony can arise from a smaller orchestra".

It is no wonder that Fib-/Pl- mice are doing better than Fib- or Pl-: the ENTIRE system does not function (let's forget about the inability to bring offspring). And the one-by-one (yin-by-yang) addition of factors results in severe disorders.

Does Fib-/Pl- prove the absence of IC? No. They prove only the fact that underdone system is worse than no system at all.
Mark Perakh has got the Doolittle false proof very well: he uses this "small orchestra" example to "prove" that clotting system is not IC-system at all.

Using this argument as a template I could argue that a car is not IC (or doesn't have IC) because if a car without brake is dangerous, car without ignition and wheels is not, besides, I'm still normal because I can use my bike (=platelets)! So who talks about car as an IC?

read replies (7)
write a reply Related Article(s):
Clotted rot for rotten clots

Title Author Date

Reply to Berlinski by Elsberry Rossow, Amiel Apr 13, 2005

It can be noted that this Wesley R. Elsberry's essay on The Panda's Thumb (
http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000937.html ) is accompanied by an extensive discussion where authors of many interesting comments shed additional light on the story in question. Among the comments there also are several by Berlinski where he continiues defending his mendacious op-ed piece in the Daily Californian and brazenly justifying his groundless attack on Talk Reason. Amiel Rossow

write a reply Related Article(s):
A Response to Berlinski

Title Author Date

Academic Extinction Berlinski, David Apr 12, 2005

To the editor:

This e-mail is not intended for posting. I have read, and considered, your remarks, posted recently on The Panda's Thumb, and I would be happy to respond in detail, privately, if you wish, on-site, if not. Do let me know.

David Berlinski

read replies (6)
write a reply Related Article(s):
A Response to Berlinski

Previous | | Next