Peanut Gallery - AronRa/Enyart - Phylogeny

[DepricatedZero]

YYNj
But I digress. If you believe in a global flood, that means you don't believe in reality.

Do you believe there was once a global flood on Mars?

hydroplate nonsense incoming!

this is like being front row at a Gallagher show without a plastic sheet

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

If there is soft tissue found in these fossils than either science is wrong about the age of the earth because of the mummy findings or the findings in the mummy experiment were wrong and we have to reformulate our understanding of how long soft tissue lasts. It is amazing how you are all to willing to accept the mummy findings as gospel and throw out everything we know about radiometric dating. Do you have any justification for this?

This is like saying if you find a hot cup of coffee in a cup that you thought was millions of years old, it's more logical and rational to rethink how long coffee can stay hot, rather than rethinking the age of the cup. That's inane.

For the millionth time, the soft tissue tested positive for 14C!!! That means it's young. You expect to find 14C in a specimen like this. You can resort to a "rescue device" and claim that the 14C comes from 13C, but that's just a rescue device. You should be saying, "Wow, that dinosaur must be young. I wonder if the 14C possibly came from 13C and neutron capture?" It's like the crazy people that can't explain why the near side of the moon, which is protected by the Earth, is the beat up side of the moon. (Creationists can explain this.) And so they come up with a wild theory with absolutely no evidence that there used to be 2 moons and they collided.

Of course the C13 rescue device doesn't work because there's not enough uranium, thorium, etc. in the earth's crust to account for this.

There's even 14C in supposed billion year old diamonds, the hardest natural material.

http://creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

For the millionth time, the soft tissue tested positive for 14C!!! That means it's young. You expect to find 14C in a specimen like this. You can resort to a "rescue device" and claim that the 14C comes from 13C, but that's just a rescue device. You should be saying, "Wow, that dinosaur must be young. I wonder if the 14C possibly came from 13C and neutron capture?" It's like the crazy people that can't explain why the near side of the moon, which is protected by the Earth, is the beat up side of the moon. (Creationists can explain this.) And so they come up with a wild theory with absolutely no evidence that there used to be 2 moons and they collided.

Of course the C13 rescue device doesn't work because there's not enough uranium, thorium, etc. in the earth's crust to account for this.

This has already been addressed.

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]

:lol:

First off, this is why people laugh at creationists. I would ask for a citation for this claim, but I already know that your basic understanding of how Carbon-14 is formed is flawed. Thus, the citation you are using is bunk. Carbon-14 does not come from Carbon-13, Carbon-13 is another isotope of Carbon, but it is stable. Carbon-14 is formed from Nitrogen-14. Amazing how someone so ignorant of science attempts to talk down to someone that actually knows something about science. The hubris of it all.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Sorry I did not make this all into one post. I was not thinking because of all the laughter YesYouNeedJesus's last post brought me. :lol:

YYNj
But I digress. If you believe in a global flood, that means you don't believe in reality.

Do you believe there was once a global flood on Mars?

:facepalm:

Why are the creationists on this forum saying this? When did any scientist ever make this claim? Doing a quick Google search about this only returns YEC sites and this. Perhaps you would like to read that link.

It's like the crazy people that can't explain why the near side of the moon, which is protected by the Earth, is the beat up side of the moon. (Creationists can explain this.) And so they come up with a wild theory with absolutely no evidence that there used to be 2 moons and they collided.

I must be honest and say that I have never heard scientists propose that there were two moons, nor have I heard scientists propose that the cratering of the moon came from the two moons colliding. However, I do not keep up on the latest news from planetary formation. It would be nice if you could provide a source for this claim. Furthermore, I have always understood that the cratering on the moon came from the late heavy bombardment. One would think that two moons colliding together would turn everything molten, thus there would be no cratering because everything would have solidified into one object.

There's even 14C in supposed billion year old diamonds, the hardest natural material.

http://creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend

Again, finding Carbon-14 in fossils or diamonds is also not as spectacular or amazing as you think it is. Both would contain some Nitrogen in them already, thus any exposure to radioactive material while buried could turn the Nitrogen into Carbon-14. Here is just one example from Talk.Origins. Creationists need to stop hoarding debunked arguments.

See how I answer your whole post and some? Perhaps you will take the time to address some of the questions you have over looked here.

 

[australopithecus]

I must be honest and say that I have never heard scientists propose that there were two moons, nor have I heard scientists propose that the cratering of the moon came from the two moons colliding. However, I do not keep up on the latest news from planetary formation. It would be nice if you could provide a source for this claim. Furthermore, I have always understood that the cratering on the moon came from the late heavy bombardment. One would think that two moons colliding together would turn everything molten, thus there would be no cratering because everything would have solidified into one object.

There is a hypothesis that the moon is actually 2 merged bodies, but I'm not confident it's taken seriously by many. I cite sources but I'm posting on my phone. That said, it's clear to anyone with eyes that the near side isn't the most beat up, and even if it were it's not "protected" by earth, it's tidally locked. The moon rotates on it's axis about the same time it takes to orbit, that's why we only see the near side. This hasn't always been the case. Even if it were, there's nothing to say the near side shouldnt be cratered.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

This is like saying if you find a hot cup of coffee in a cup that you thought was millions of years old, it's more logical and rational to rethink how long coffee can stay hot, rather than rethinking the age of the cup. That's inane.

A terrible metaphor - not surprising since you have already admitted that you have not read the paper yourself and you clearly have no clue how the dating methods work, nor even when it's appropriate to use them.

A better metaphor would be:
"You found a cup of coffee. This cup of coffee had grains still left in it from millions of years ago - so we decided that through science, and advanced replication of what we found, we would make the exact cup of coffee in a lab.
Now, the Cup of Coffee we just made in the lab based upon the evidence of Coffee Grains we found earlier would not be up for valid dating via the Carbon-14 method. And neither would the Coffee Grains due to the effects of being stuck in the bottom of a sink and air-tight for several million years.[/i]

Yes, that would describe the situation quite adequately.

For the millionth time, the soft tissue tested positive for 14C!!! That means it's young. You expect to find 14C in a specimen like this. You can resort to a "rescue device" and claim that the 14C comes from 13C, but that's just a rescue device. You should be saying, "Wow, that dinosaur must be young. I wonder if the 14C possibly came from 13C and neutron capture?" It's like the crazy people that can't explain why the near side of the moon, which is protected by the Earth, is the beat up side of the moon. (Creationists can explain this.) And so they come up with a wild theory with absolutely no evidence that there used to be 2 moons and they collided.

14C doesn't come from 13C -
We need a scoreboard to count up how many time you speak upon things which you know nothing about, and clearly have no understanding of how it even works.

And, no, the far side of the moon is more beaten up than the side facing the Earth.
Have you seen a picture, lately, of the moon - or did you sleep through that class in Elementary school, too? You're going 3 for 3 in this post, YYNJ.
And regardless of how the moon came to be it's clearly evident through basic looking at the fucking picture that the far side of the moon is clearly more beaten up and wrecked than the Earth-face side of the moon.

Of course the C13 rescue device doesn't work because there's not enough uranium, thorium, etc. in the earth's crust to account for this.

There's even 14C in supposed billion year old diamonds, the hardest natural material.

Oh Gods.

There you go - talking without knowing what you're talking about. I bet you'd think they come from Coal, too.

Take a word from your own Bible and shut up while you're behind (Proverbs 17:28).

 

[MindHack]

If by interesting you mean exactly the same as whenever a creationist tries debate someone who knows what they're talking about; that being piss poor and painful to watch.

I KNOW!
It's like watching an intellectual version of the movie "Jackass"

:lol:

I wish I hadn't read this comment a few days back. It keeps popping up in my head. :|

 

[scalyblue]

YYNj
But I digress. If you believe in a global flood, that means you don't believe in reality.

Do you believe there was once a global flood on Mars?

There is as yet insufficient data for a meaningful answer.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

If there is soft tissue found in these fossils than either science is wrong about the age of the earth because of the mummy findings or the findings in the mummy experiment were wrong and we have to reformulate our understanding of how long soft tissue lasts. It is amazing how you are all to willing to accept the mummy findings as gospel and throw out everything we know about radiometric dating. Do you have any justification for this?

This is like saying if you find a hot cup of coffee in a cup that you thought was millions of years old, it's more logical and rational to rethink how long coffee can stay hot, rather than rethinking the age of the cup. That's inane.

If the paper cup we found it in had fossilized and the 'coffee' had been reduced to base chemicals, it would become much more reasonable.

Your metaphor is inept.

For the millionth time, the soft tissue tested positive for 14C!!!

When? Provide evidence.

That means it's young. You expect to find 14C in a specimen like this. You can resort to a "rescue device" and claim that the 14C comes from 13C, but that's just a rescue device. You should be saying, "Wow, that dinosaur must be young. I wonder if the 14C possibly came from 13C and neutron capture?"

No one here claimed that the carbon 14 come from carbon 13. To my knowledge no one here claimed that there was carbon 14 in the specimen.

It's like the crazy people that can't explain why the near side of the moon, which is protected by the Earth, is the beat up side of the moon. (Creationists can explain this.)

You know, there is a substantial difference between the near and far sides of the moon, but it has nothing to do with how "beaten up" they are; in fact the far side of the moon has considerably more impact craters. You don't know what you're talking about.

And so they come up with a wild theory with absolutely no evidence that there used to be 2 moons and they collided.

I dare you to find a scientist who says this.

Of course the C13 rescue device doesn't work because there's not enough uranium, thorium, etc. in the earth's crust to account for this.

You've already proven that you don't know how atomic decay works, but just for fun: citation needed.

There's even 14C in supposed billion year old diamonds, the hardest natural material.

http://creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend

The small apparent non-zero values are less than measurement error. In other words, the readings are consistent with zero C14 content. In fact, the experiments cited by the creationists appear to be attempts to establish the measurement error of there equipment. Older carbon dating techniques directly detected decays of C14 atoms. The problem: If the material is too old, the small amount of C14 present may not decay in the measurement interval. Newer, more accurate techniques use mass spectroscopy. Mass spectroscopy, like any man-made measurement, is not perfect. In particular, given a pure sample of C12, I suspect a mass spectrometer would indicate that a non-zero amount of C14 present. It is nigh impossible to measure exactly zero.

 

[scalyblue]

Oh, wow, I found these little gems.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/09/26/bob-enyart-and-will-duffy-partners-in-idiocy/

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/bob_enyart_wants_me_to_respect.php

Just reminding everybody, billy boy here is bob's producer, he's never going to recant his stance because it is within his interest not to.

 

[TheOnlyThing2Fear]

YYNj

For one, you don't see that kind of stuff happen on creationist sites because the dissenting threads are deleted.

For two, you are well past the poe threshold here. Either you are a naive, petulant child, you are so indoctrinated that you actually believe this drivel, (in which case I really pity you) or you are being contrary on purpose, which makes you a troll.

But I digress. If you believe in a global flood, that means you don't believe in reality.

I do believe Jesus is a proper name, whether or not you choose to ignore written history. So the small "j" is about as childish as when the affable PZ Myers does it.

We're all so glad you are monitoring creation sites to affirm that dissenting threads are deleted. That's about as believable as threads aren't locked on LoR.

To sum up what an arbitrary audience member gets from your second point ("For two...") is to say how you speak with such authority, yet from such a minority, that a Napoleon complex may be what has lead you to be so indoctrinated that you actually believe this drivel, (in which case I really pity you)...

But I also digress, If you have no evidence that a flood on a global scale never occurred in the history of the planet then one would question your questioning anyone else's reality.

 

[bluejatheist]

YYNj

For one, you don't see that kind of stuff happen on creationist sites because the dissenting threads are deleted.

For two, you are well past the poe threshold here. Either you are a naive, petulant child, you are so indoctrinated that you actually believe this drivel, (in which case I really pity you) or you are being contrary on purpose, which makes you a troll.

But I digress. If you believe in a global flood, that means you don't believe in reality.

I do believe Jesus is a proper name, whether or not you choose to ignore written history. So the small "j" is about as childish as when the affable PZ Myers does it.

We're all so glad you are monitoring creation sites to affirm that dissenting threads are deleted. That's about as believable as threads aren't locked on LoR.

To sum up what an arbitrary audience member gets from your second point ("For two...") is to say how you speak with such authority, yet from such a minority, that a Napoleon complex may be what has lead you to be so indoctrinated that you actually believe this drivel, (in which case I really pity you)...

But I also digress, If you have no evidence that a flood on a global scale never occurred in the history of the planet then one would question your questioning anyone else's reality.

Let's see, 2 irrelevant points, 3rd point, another ad hom, nothing new for you hm? And 4th point, the good old "Prove me wrong" approach. You surely know exactly how far that gets you on this forum.

You just keep on digging that hole deeper there.

 

[TheOnlyThing2Fear]

After a little break, this is the post you decide to respond to?

Cmon! There's many good points and arguments to deal with, why deal with this one which is simply taking jabs at Bob

So let's be real for a bit. I am now pointing out that you ignore Brett, but that you ignore ANY post that is not constructive, condusive and relevant. Especially since your time is limited and there are more people responding to you at once.

Agreed that my last comment "...ignoring "brettpalmer" is akin to reading the "good points and arguments"..." was un-constructive, yet when a door is left that wide open...

My intent here is to learn from the site, and I am succeeding at that. Other threads, not filled with the eye-poking on this one, are more educational and thought provoking. My decision to even respond to brettpalmer's snide comments was to hopefully derail the unecessary profane laced, flame thrower he (she?) seems to have for Enyart. It only lead to a tit for tat and more eye-poking, so he's no longer on my pen pal list. Had he responded with something constructive instead of the hand video, which I dubbbed "the palmer", I would have believed he had something constructive to add. He has taken my comments right off the cliff, but that was my prediction.

I decided to listen to some of the archives on Enyart's website. The show topics are hardly limited to discussions on science and he does sound educated in the topics being discussed. There are shows discussing the culture in general and when I listened to a couple of shows on his testimonies before legislatures and exposing so-called Christian organizations dishonoring their very beliefs to gain a seat at a political table, he seems genuinely interested in seeking the truth. Sure, that's subjective, but for anyone on LoR to just dismiss the man for no other reason than he doesn't hold to evolutionary teaching, therefore he must be a ____________, does very little to advance the discussion, especially for occassional readers such as myself.

The path I choose on responding to many comments is rooted in the hope that the alternate viewpoint would be better understood, or called out, not just readily dismissed. I will admit that on other sites comparable to LoR, there's a more amplified level of disdain and hatred for anyone who's beliefs are contrary to evolutionary teaching. Thankfully, that is not the norm here, as this also insults those who are giving of their time with well reasoned responses.

I have never been asked here, but have been accused about my beliefs, and for the record am a man very advanced years, and have yet to acknowledge the so-called facts that somehow prove testing something physical from the earth today equals what happened 1,000, or even 1,000,000 years ago. I see and read a lot of evidence for and against evolution theory, and what is most striking to me is that for all the scientific advancements and the careful implementation of evolutionary teaching in government run schools, it remains the minority belief, according to those keeping track of what people think and believe.

Thank-you for your reply. I am attempting to catch up on the thread and hopefully won't be so inclined to interject my own brand of tongue-in-cheek on any of those non-constructive comments.

 

[TheOnlyThing2Fear]

Thank-You for the well reasoned explanation of what you believe to be true about an event I believe can only evidenced in the theories of modern science.

The "Big Bang" is a term, just like "singularity", or "explosion", describing what some claim is the genesis of the known universe. Isn't it true very little is known about the universe, especially, its origins?

Yes, it is true, which is why Big Bang cosmological theory only leads you as far back as the evidence goes.

Much like how the Theory of Evolution doesn't talk about how life first arose, Big Bang cosmology doesn't talk about how, well, existence began; it just talks about why we have the Universe that we observe today, based on what is evidenced when we "look back in time". Just like the Theory of Evolution explains the diversity of life and the species we have today, by "looking back in time" at the evidence, that shows us that we all have a common ancestor going back to a certain point. Point "zero", you might call it. The Theory of Evolution doesn't go beyond that. It has nothing to do there, that's a separate theory and field.
No one knows what was there "before" the Big Bang, and Big Bang cosmology doesn't explain it. You'd need new cosmology, new science to explain that - if it is even possible.

I'm unclear about your claim that a theory was subsequently imaged by satellite. I understand scientific discovery is evolving and new evidences are posited for peer review regularly, but evidence leaving cosmologists "with very good reason to think that the big bang actually happened" sounds a little loose fitting in the absolute knowledge department.

I assume you guys are talking about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Background_Radiation

Now for the bit that I underlined: Science does NOT deal in absolute knowledge, but just agrees with the evidence. If observed evidence does not agree with a theory, the theory falls.
So could the Big Bang theory fall? Sure. But here is what is important: The theory replacing it would have to explain the new evidence that toppled the Big Bang theory, PLUS the new theory would have to explain ALL THE OLD evidence/observations, too!

The same goes for the Theory of Evolution: A theory replacing that would have to explain how all the fossils seem to become more simple the further you get down into the geological column, and it would have to explain phylogenetic and genetic relations between all the life we see today - relations, mind you, that conform to the relations suggested by the fossil record.

Both the Theory of Evolution and Big Bang cosmology can (and have shown to) contain inaccuracies, but a theory is a framework, not a single sentence, and it can contain (and explain) thousands, millions of pieces of evidence.

What I observe is science going deeper and deeper into the cell to hopefully explain, or evidence, the very nature of the evolutionary process. And science going deeper and deeper into space to stake a claim on the origin of the universe. There are things about the origin of the universe we, at this juncture, will never know and perhaps will be known in the future. Today's theory is the standard to build upon yesterday's miscalculation and tomorrow's crystal ball. That's just an observation, not a criticism. Isn't it true, that you know, by definition and senses what a rock is? Isn't it also true you do not know what a Big Bang really is?

Yes, there are most likely (almost assuredly) things we will never be able to explain, but we can try to get as close as possible. We can get "adequate" explanations.

Yes, theories can be wrong, but even the "overturning" of theories that we have seen in recent years usually have to do with minor details.

Take for instance Newton's theory on gravity. Did you know that Newton was wrong??

Einstein came along and replaced him, basically.

Then why are we still learning about Newton and his formulas? Because he was VERY close to being totally accurate, and many of his formulas can still be used to get to a level of accuracy that is well beyond reasonable limits. But for more precise results, especially on a larger scale, you need Einstein. This is basically why (as it has been mentioned) we use Einstein's theory for the GPS system and not Newton.

(This is me trying to explain a complex subject in very simple terms. I'm not even that well-versed in this stuff, so if anyone has any corrections to make, feel free.)

I see a disservice to the entire educational establishment and the recipients of said education, pushing theory after theory, hoping one sticks. Yes, red and blue shifts are visible, and there is much enlightenment about what that means, but it's not known, beyond the theory of the day, and beyond what modern instrumentation can measure in the observable amount of space around our "tiny" galaxy.

Now you're being unfair. The educational establishment isn't just "pushing theory after theory, hoping one sticks". The educational establishment is trying to educate people in what is accepted scientific concensus.
And you're making it sound as if we're getting new theories every year or something. The fact is that the Theory of Evolution, for instance, has stood for over 150 years (which is a long time, relatively speaking, at least in the modern world). Then there's Germ Theory, Atomic Theory, Newton's theory of Gravity combined with Einstein's Theory of Relativity. These theories have undergone some corrections and precision-adjustments, but the new evidence has not controverted or overturned the theories.

I'm not arguing that the theories surrounding what red shifts tell us are not plausible, rather that all to often theories are taught as fact. Not unlike some of the wild SWAG's that date fossils and layers of the earth. Even a number like 4.55 billion years is nothing more than a SWAG (IMO). Otherwise the age of the earth would not have continued growing in leaps and bounds from one generation of scientists to the next. What will the age of the earth be 50, or 100 years from now is anyone's guess. And these forums will have long since been thrown on the trash heap of insignificance by a new generation of enlightened brainiacs with better tools.

What does SWAG mean?

On the age of the Earth. I don't know if you've noticed, but have you seen the development of the age of the Earth? Yes, it started out small, and kept changing for a while, but notice how it's slowed down now, and any new number that comes out is usually just added precision? That's a pretty good indicator that you're getting closer to a factual number.

Theories aren't facts, but collections of facts in a framework. A theory explains the observed facts.

The Theory of Evolution explains the observed fact of evolution, for instance. (And yes, there is a distinction. If you don't know the distinction, then just ask and I'll try to explain.)

Big Bang cosmology explains the observed fact of Cosmic Background Radiation. (Among other things.)


But there is something that is missing from your picture. Something very important: PREDICTIONS!

That's really one of the strengths of theories.

Like when Einstein's Theory of Relativity predicted Gravitational Lensing, and then later it was actually observed, that was a great pat on the back for that theory, and a pretty good indicator that it's at least very close to being accurate, right?

The Theory of Evolution (even as far back as Darwin himself) holds many predictions, large and small. A relatively small example, but very significant, is the example of Tiktaalik. Creationists always seem to downplay the significance of that fossil, saying it's not really a transitional form between, well, anything, but that's not the most significant thing about the fossil.
The really significant thing about the Tiktaalik fossil is that it was found based on predictions!
Evolutionary theory explains that you would find a transitional form between sea and land dwellers, and it predicts how old such a form would be. Now, evolutionary biology IN CONJUNCTION with geology, a wholly separate scientific field, lead scientists to predict where (in what geological layer) such a fossil could be found.

And unlikely as it may seem, they actually found it!

THAT kind of thing deserves to be taught in schools, period.

Ugh! I just posted for the last hour on all your points and got logged out. Sorry, but I'll have to do it again sometime over the weekend. I'll give more thought to what you have shared and attempt to type faster next time.

 

[Laurens]

But I also digress, If you have no evidence that a flood on a global scale never occurred in the history of the planet then one would question your questioning anyone else's reality.

I have evidence that there never was a global flood.

1. There's no evidence for it, now most people like to say that absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence, but if I claimed to have six elephants in my back garden, you could quite reasonably say, when you examine my garden and find no elephants, no elephant foot prints, no elephant dung etc. that I was making it up...

2. The geological column could not have formed the way it did in a flood.

3. The order of fossils in the geological column would not appear arranged as they are if they were formed in a flood.

4. Vast amounts of water cannot just appear and disappear, that would be impossible

5. A global flood would damage a lot of the vegetation, especially if it was as violent as some creationists claim.

6. There's no way that one man could have collected 2 of every species on the planet in a short period of time

7. There's no way that one man could fit 2 of every species on the planet inside a single ark

8. There's no way that one man could fit enough food for 2 of every species on the planet inside a single ark

9. There's no way that if as some creationists claim Noah only took 2 snakes on the ark, they would have evolved into 3000 species within 4000 years or so, that is a more rapid rate of speciation than any evolutionary biologist would ever accept.

10. There's no way that when the flood ended lots of the species on the ark wondered off to their specific geographical location without leaving any of their kind in any other locations. How did the marsupials get to Australia?

I could go on but 10 is a nice round figure....

There is plenty of evidence that the Noah's ark fairy story is impossible.

 

[Inferno]

Ugh! I just posted for the last hour on all your points and got logged out. Sorry, but I'll have to do it again sometime over the weekend. I'll give more thought to what you have shared and attempt to type faster next time.

Depending on which browser you have:
Download and install Lazarus form recovery for Google Chrome
Download and install Lazarus form recovery for Firefox

If you have any other browser, I feel sorry for you.

This add-on lets you recover lost posts, raise them from the dead so to speak. It's dead useful, I've already had posts of 10k+ characters deleted because I got logged out. I clicked on Lazarus and voilà , it was all restored.

 

[Frenger]

[
6. There's no way that one man could have collected 2 of every species on the planet in a short period of time

7. There's no way that one man could fit 2 of every species on the planet inside a single ark

8. There's no way that one man could fit enough food for 2 of every species on the planet inside a single ark

9. There's no way that if as some creationists claim Noah only took 2 snakes on the ark, they would have evolved into 3000 species within 4000 years or so, that is a more rapid rate of speciation than any evolutionary biologist would ever accept.

Just to make it even more rediculous, the bible states that SEVEN of every animal was collected. All clean beasts anyway, and 2 of every dirty beast. I'm not sure who would count as dirty but I leave that open to your imagination.

Does anyone know if there would even be enough wood available to create an ark big enough? I'm sure some clever maths could figure it out roughly, which is why I leave that to someone else

 

[Laurens]

[
6. There's no way that one man could have collected 2 of every species on the planet in a short period of time

7. There's no way that one man could fit 2 of every species on the planet inside a single ark

8. There's no way that one man could fit enough food for 2 of every species on the planet inside a single ark

9. There's no way that if as some creationists claim Noah only took 2 snakes on the ark, they would have evolved into 3000 species within 4000 years or so, that is a more rapid rate of speciation than any evolutionary biologist would ever accept.

Just to make it even more rediculous, the bible states that SEVEN of every animal was collected. All clean beasts anyway, and 2 of every dirty beast. I'm not sure who would count as dirty but I leave that open to your imagination.

Does anyone know if there would even be enough wood available to create an ark big enough? I'm sure some clever maths could figure it out roughly, which is why I leave that to someone else

So we need to figure out the weight of all the animals on board the ark (to ensure that it is designed to be capable of supporting such enormous weight).

Then we need to get an estimate of how much space is needed to fit each animal in.

Then things just start to get really silly when you have to accommodate for these guys:

 

[Inferno]

Just to make it even more rediculous, the bible states that SEVEN of every animal was collected. All clean beasts anyway, and 2 of every dirty beast. I'm not sure who would count as dirty but I leave that open to your imagination.

Does anyone know if there would even be enough wood available to create an ark big enough? I'm sure some clever maths could figure it out roughly, which is why I leave that to someone else

Just to be pedantic: "... of every KIND of animal", even though nobody knows what a "kind" is. Creationists usually imagine the number of individual animals on the Ark to be on the order of 19.000, which includes butterflies and ants, but also (supposedly) dinosaurs, elephants, rhinos, hippos, giraffes, lions, tigers and many more.

Also note that God failed to kill all of the fish, whales and dolphins, even though he specifically stated that he'd kill everything.

 

[Inferno]

So we need to figure out the weight of all the animals on board the ark (to ensure that it is designed to be capable of supporting such enormous weight).

Not necessary. We know how large the Ark is... Genesis 6

15And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

Given a cubit length of roughly 18 inches, that translates into 138 metres of length, 23 metres of width and 14 metres high. Put two elephants, two rhinos, two hippos and two diplodocus's in there and already the ark will explode.