In the Noah's Ark story, where are the whales?
Yes indeed, where were the whales? And all the other cetaceans . And the sharks and all the other fish. And the corals and all the other marine invertebrates. And all the marine plants and other marine organisms . And then, of course, there are all the organisms that inhabit other aquatic environments such as lakes and rivers: where were they on the ark?Those who believe the ark story will explain this away by saying that as these organisms live in water there was no need for them to be on the ark. But in doing so they are displaying a profound ignorance of aquatic environments. Let's take corals as an example. Corals are sessile organisms and highly susceptible changes in their environment. Even slight changes in water temperature, chemistry, pressure, light intensity and other parameters can have a profound and devastating effect on corals. One only needs to look at coral bleaching to see this. And yet those who support the ark story would have us believe that the world's corals not only survived the initial inundation of flood waters but also withstood being located in pitch darkness kilometres below the water surface for a year (the duration of the flood). This is a thoroughly ludicrous proposition.The marine ecosystem is incredibly complex. Coral reefs, like mangrove forests and sea grass beds, are nurseries for many marine species and thus play a crucial role in the overall well-being of the oceans. Without these habitats the entire marine food web would be disrupted and the marine ecosystem would largely collapse. And yet none of these crucial environments could have possibly survived the flood.It is pure fancy to think that Noah could have built a boat capable of housing and feeding all the land species for a year. That he would have had to have done the same for all marine species shows how thoroughly flawed the ark story really is. Any yet people still believe this to be true. Such a belief can be attributed either to willful ignorance, a level of indoctrination that blocks out rational thought, logic and the acceptance of scientific evidence, or a lamentable lack of scientific understanding. Such levels of ignorance might have been acceptable 200 years ago before the scientific revolution but it is very concerning that, in the 21st century, so many people still believe in such blatant nonsense.
If Noahs Ark is true where did the whales go?
Your post doesn't read like it was written by someone with an IQ of 150. Too many grammar mistakes. If Noah's Ark is true, where did the whales go -- why would they need to go anywhere? They cannot survive outside of the sea and obviously only land-based creatures were brought upon the ark. Seems like someone with such a high IQ would know that. I don't feel bad. Let's talk about your claim that those with a high IQ can obviously see that Noah's Ark is not true. How then do you explain Pastor Chuck Missler in Idaho having an IQ of 180 when he believes Noah's Ark is true? (You can watch him on YouTube.) And how do you explain the fact that many Christians with IQ's north of 150 believe all of the Bible is true? Seems to me if your IQ was up in that territory you would realize people of high intelligence have many different religious beliefs. I suspect a troll post here. Two baby elephants could fit on the ark. Didn't take a high IQ to figure that out, either. But the main factor here is we believers accept the first sentence of the Bible, which establishes the premise that an all-powerful God exists who can do ANYTHING. That would include expanding space inside of space if necessary. If you reject the premise set in the first sentence of the Bible, there's no point in reading further. How did you get to Noah's Ark? You have no problem with God creating Adam out of the dust of the earth, and Eve from his rib, but have issues with Noah's Ark? Because intelligent people have conflicting religious beliefs it proves religious beliefs have nothing to do with intelligence. There's something else going on here, which the Bible refers to as man's heart. Yours seems hopelessly hardened. This, too, testifies to another dimension to humans, a spiritual side.
How did Noah manage to keep blue whales, sharks and octopuses in his ark?
Dude the bible is a LIE Noah didnt fit any octopus, shark , or whale in his ark, i doubt he even existed
Where did sailors get drinking water during very long voyages in the times of Columbus?
First some numbers, though approximations all, and only for the first expedition: Length of the three ships, about 50 feet on deck each. Number of crew on each ship, about 30. Time at sea: 3 days from Lisbon to the Canaries; about 34 days from Canaries to first landfall in the Bahamas. It took longer for the ships to return to Europe, but not extraordinarily longer.Some considerations regarding time at sea. Bathing, probably none, but that would have been not much different from standard hygiene in those days anywhere in Europe. The smell? Probably pretty awful, but a term from Febreeze commercials helps here - from personal experience I can verify that “nose blind” is a fact. I doubt that the sailors would have noticed, let alone been nauseated by, the smell.Water: carried in casks aboard, and replenished upon making landfall as well as at sea whenever there was a storm. 35 days’ supply of fresh water wouldn’t have been dreadful - 900 gallons of water, perhaps, carried in 50 gallon casks. It would have served as ballast as well. I would expect that wine and rum would have also been carried, both of which, mixed with water to make it drinkable, could reasonably disinfect the water. Moreoever, I think that sailors of that time (and perhaps the general population) had a more robust immune system than modern day people considering the general poor sanitation of the times.One shouldn’t try to compare a 50′ modern sailing yacht to a 15th century 50′ Caravel. The ~ 7′ draft of a caravel would mean perhaps 3,500 cubic feet of cargo space below the water line because all of its draft would be hull below water line. A 50′ modern sailing yacht might have 1,200 cubic feet below the water line because its ballast is an external keel and perhaps 1 foot of hull below the water line. Huge difference.
What are some interesting things to do in Hawaii?
I visited Hawaii many many times for 8 years before moving here over five years ago. I live in Kona, on Hawaii Island, or The Big Island as locals call it. The cheapest time of the year is late October to mid November. Fewer tourists at that time. The weather is hot and the ocean still warm. Usually less rain at that time too.First, plan to spent two weeks. Start on Oahu.Visit Waikiki. Stay at the Outrigger Hotel. It’s on the beach. Nice place, in the heart of downtown Waikiki.Walk across the street to the new International Marketplace mall. Enjoy the restaurants and shopping.Visit Pearl Harbor, The North Shore, and the small east side town of Kailua. The hotel concierges can set you up with local tours.Next fly up to Kauai. The northeastern most island. Rent a car, the island isn’t that big. Stay in Princeville. Again, have a concierge set you up with tours. The helicopter tour is spectacular. The Napoli Coast boat tour is nice, but beware the winter waves. They are brutal in smaller boats. Go in the fall.Then fly down to Maui. Stay near Lahaina on the southeast shore. It’s a nice town, and all the hotels and resorts are just to the north a few miles. Again the hotel concierge will set up a local tour.Then fly down to Kona. Rent a car. Stay downtown Kona at the Marriott Kona Beach hotel. Locals call it the King Kam. The concierge can set you up with a volcano tour, and a Monua Kea tour, a 13,000 extinct volcano. Take a boat tour out of Kona to do whale watching, in spring. The water falls are near Hilo, like Akaka Falls. Kona is on the west, dry side. Hilo was a lot of rain and the foliage is more tropical.Enjoy Hawaii more by taking Helicopter tours. They are pricey though.Take boat tours, especially off the Kileau volcano coast.Some towns have ultra light aircraft tours too. They are cheaper that Helicopters.Meet some locals and chat them up. Ask for advise about restaurants and the best local beaches.
Was the story of Noah's ark meant to be taken literally?
I certainly hope not cause every aspect of it is impossible from the size of the ship and getting the animals and feed loaded to the impossibility of that much water ever being on the Earth. Fun fact. If you had that much water on the planet it would have to rain about 200 meters everywhere for 40 days and the atmospheric pressure would collapse your lungs. Not that it matters since even if you could breath the air would drown you.
Why is Australia hot when it’s near Antarctica?
Australia proper is not actually very near to Antarctica. It is at least approximately 3400 kilometers from Hobart, Tasmania to the Antarctic Coast. It is at least approximately 2800 kilometers from Macquarie Island to the Antarctic Coast. These distances are not trivial. Heard Island and the McDonald Islands which are also politically part of Australia are closer at 1750 kilometers away. The catch? The last islands mentioned are uninhabited. Populated areas of South America are far closer to Antarctica. Ushuaia, Argentina sits a mere 1200 kilometers away from the shores of Antarctica, closer than any place in Australia.Australia’s thermal potential is heavily influenced by its proximity to the Tropic of Capricorn, the Equator, its vast continental desert interior cut off from maritime influences, its more populated coastal areas strongly influenced by the Pacific and Indian Oceans as well as a number of seas, and favorable trade winds which bring humidity but also moderation to a number of its subtropical and tropical regions. The country has a variety of climates within its borders so not every place in Australia is hot per se. However, Australia averages higher temperatures than other locations because it largely straddles a zone from the temperate latitudes to the tropics, devoid of most of the more continental climate regimes one might find at low elevations in Northern Asia, much of Northern and Eastern Europe, and North America. In Australia, such climate types would only exist at altitude.