Get e-book Redaction, Part 1: Extinction Level Event

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Redaction, Part 1: Extinction Level Event file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Redaction, Part 1: Extinction Level Event book. Happy reading Redaction, Part 1: Extinction Level Event Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Redaction, Part 1: Extinction Level Event at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Redaction, Part 1: Extinction Level Event Pocket Guide.

The big picture: Out of the 14 cases that were referred to "other components of the Department of Justice and the FBI," 12 are redacted. The 2 that aren't redacted relate to Michael Cohen's conviction for wire fraud and campaign finance violations, and former Obama White House counsel Gregory Craig's indictment for making false statements during a Foreign Agents Registration Act investigation.

United States v. Bijian Rafiekian and Kamil Ekim Alptekin. Internet Research Agency Russian troll farm. Viktor Netyksho Russian hacking operation. This site uses cookies to enhance your reading experience. By using this site, you consent to our use of cookies. Skip to content Mobile toggle main menu Axios. Puerto Rico and U.

It is true that there have been a number of supercontinents in Earth's history, but the most recent, Pangaea , broke up over million years ago. Tectonic shifting is what causes earthquakes, so if the continents were to rearrange themselves so quickly it would be recorded in history and in the geological register. AIG sometimes claims that the animals would have been brought to the ark by 'homing instinct'. To wit: [14]. Though this was probably a supernatural event one that cannot be explained by our understanding of nature , compare it to the impressive migratory behavior we see in some animals today.

The story of the global flood in the Bible has Noah and his immediate family 8 persons in total [16] caring for two of every kind of animal in the entire world. In his book Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study , creationist author John Woodmorappe asserts that only 8, kinds of animals would have been taken on the ark. Even if only 16, animals were to be brought on that ark, eight people could not possibly have cared for them all. Each animal would have to be provided with sufficient fresh water each day.

System Fail

If we say that watering an animal took only 20 seconds then that gives us 88 human-hours of work watering animals per day. If the flood waters were used, some method of purification would be needed to remove the silt, salt, and other high concentrations of toxins. Distillation would require a tremendous quantity of fuel and labour. Filtering it through sand would be painfully slow and would require tons upon tons of sand weighing a minimum of 90 pounds per cubic foot [18] The sand would then have to be changed periodically due to mineral buildup.


  1. Join Kobo & start eReading today.
  2. Operations Management for Construction.
  3. The Beginners Guide to Coarse Fishing!
  4. Sport business analytics: using data to increase revenue and improve operational efficiency.
  5. Forderatlas Deutschland 2012: Kennzahlen zur offentlich finanzierten Forschung in Deutschland?
  6. Haunted North Alabama.

Solar distillation would require sunlight, which would be lacking for the first forty days of rains, and vast surface areas for water to evaporate and condense. Chemical purification and boiling, ignoring the impossible logistics, would do nothing to diminish the toxic levels of minerals.

Apocalyptic Books

No matter the purification method, a method to move thousands of gallons per day, from the waterline to upper levels, would be needed. Storing water from before the flood would have been even more absurd. Assume that at least of the animals had at a minimum the water requirements of a goat. A goat requires more than two gallons of water per day to survive. For these animals alone, gallons of water would be needed each day, weighing in excess of pounds. To last days, 75, gallons, weighing almost eighty tons would have to be brought aboard and stored, without compromising the buoyancy and stability of the Ark — for just these animals.

It is conceivable that a system of ducts could have captured rainwater and watered the animals for the first forty days of heavy rains.

Related Stories

Only by heavy, regular rains would this be conceivable, which of course contradicts the statement that the rains stopped on the fortieth day. Feeding all the animals would be literally impossible. If we accept a generous estimate of each person being able to feed one animal every 30 seconds, this means that human hours of labor would be needed to feed every animal each day Keep in mind, eight people equals a maximum of people-hours per day.

Perhaps some of the animals could be used to replace the human toil, if the design of the ark included provisions for this — but there is no note of such engineering in the Guide to Truth Bible. Also, making the lions and tigers and bears to eat pellets of grain for 40 days and 40 nights, all while surrounded by nice warm living sides of T-bone steaks and New York Cuts and filets mignon would have been a difficult task. The carnivores would probably have needed fresh meat on a daily basis, leading to the extinction of many unfortunate species.

Living in piles of their own dung is very unhealthy for most animals, and before long their health would suffer. The animals on Noah's ark would have to have their cages cleaned periodically. In most places that care for animals, this is done once a day. Eight people cleaning 16, cages a day is absurd. A healthy human, working hard, can clean roughly or so "average" cages or stables in a really tough workday.

Remembering the above, we also had to allocate time to providing water and food.

Reviews - Extinction Level Event

Of course, if Noah had built various magical machines mostly powered inclined planes and those "screw" things , the disposal of the poop would have been a bit easier. An alternative explanation is that each animal cleaned its own enclosure periodically. However, given the lack of opposable thumbs for most of the species on the ark, this explanation is implausible.

Animals also pee. Animals on the top deck would not need to have their urine dealt with because the decks could theoretically be slanted so the urine would flow out into the ocean. God must have supplied really detailed blueprints for Noah to get all this right. The urine on the bottom decks, however, would have to be manually removed or else it would build up and sink the ship.

Say there were only 10, animals on the bottom two decks. Say, setting the estimate low, each animal only peed on average one fourth of a cup per day. That gives us cups gallons of urine that needed to be bilge pumped per day. Now, reasonably, the most a person can carry [22] is about eight gallons per trip. One oft overlooked aspect of Noah's Ark is how the animals would have even survived their journey even if they were non-eating flesh robots that produced no waste.

The pitch and roll of a ship would have tossed animals about in their cages, creating a constant source of injury to anything larger than a mouse. Under the extremely severe weather conditions posited by the global flood even if the ship's integrity would have held it wouldn't have most of the 'higher' animals would have been turned into chunky salsa after a few months of this treatment.

The larger animals could have been hooked up to some sort of hammock device inside the cages to stop them from being thrown about too much, but this would require yet again much more space. The issue of piss and shit has been covered to a degree. Now the fun really begins- Zoonotic diseases. A Zoonotic disease is a pathogen that can spread between humans and animals.

Because animals and humans are in a confined space, disease will spread between them. Obviously soap and clean hot water would not be available. The people on the ark would have to handle pee and poop; that would have some germs there. Due to people being exposed to animal droppings and animals being exposed to people droppings, disease would kill everyone on the ark. It is not like there would be proper nutrition either. Anyone can become sick from a zoonotic disease, including healthy people. However, some people may be more at risk than others and should take steps to protect themselves or family members.

These people are more likely than others to get really sick, and even die, from infection with certain diseases. These groups of people include:. Immediately after the Ark landed and the animals exited the Ark, the first thing Noah did was to offer a sacrifice from each of the clean animals.

After all that work, man?

Redaction, no. 1

Come on. An alternative is to design the ark so that it will carry an entire ecosystem similar to a swamp, so the bacteria and plants will utilize the urine and fecal matter, and have water vapor for collection via metal plates or glass. However, the size of such a swamp will far exceed the assumed dimensions of the ark, given the number of animals on board. Water makes up a large proportion of the mass of a wetland such as this, and of course water is tremendously heavy.

Assuming a pound of waste material per animal per day the larger animals which produce many pounds of fecal material per day balancing out the smaller creatures , from animals in a day period equals approx tons of waste material during the Great Flood. To avoid becoming a fetid, dead swamp, and to allow the natural waste digestion process to occur, the waste products would have to be extremely diluted, with the swamp having perhaps at least fifteen times the mass of all waste products produced by the animals.

Thus the swamp could perhaps have to weigh over 20, tons, which would require a Handysize cargo ship to carry this waste processing swamp alone. The Ark would have had to be a vast ship to carry such a mass along with all the animals and feed. Also, a sophisticated plumbing system would have to be employed, because such a swamp would be on the top deck of the ark it requires sunlight , while urine and fecal matter would need to be transported from the lower decks.

Forensic Chemistry - Forensic Chemistry - Wiley Online Library

Even if you have only one deck for everything with caves or shelters for the animals; remember it's raining most of the time so animals roaming free to self-distribute probably wouldn't work plumbing is still needed because those have to be manually distributed across the entire swarm. As pumps and other sophisticated plumbing devices are not available for thousands of years, we can safely assume they are manually transporting the urine and fecal matters into the swamp.

The number of each "kind" that were to be brought on Noah's Ark during the global flood is inconsistent within the Bible. The contradiction can be found between Genesis 6 and Genesis 7 when God is telling Noah the number of animals he is to bring. Furthermore, the passage in Genesis 7 is an anachronism in biblical chronology, because which animals are clean and which are unclean was only revealed in laws given to Moses after the exodus of Israelites from Egypt.


  • Why the Guardian is changing the language it uses about the environment?
  • Redaction: The Meltdown Part II!
  • The Scorpio Illusion.
  • Biblical scholars have several different models for the origins of the Bible, including Genesis. One model is the documentary hypothesis, which holds that the Bible was assembled from multiple independent sources, each written centuries apart from the others, in a process of redaction. This means that one or more ancient Jews "spliced" different versions of different stories into one long book or rather, five longish books , resulting in noticeable duplications and contradictions such as the separate creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2 , and of course, the issues discussed on this page.

    Another possibility is that the Bible did begin as a single narrative, and over the centuries various stories, rules, and commentaries were added and subtracted to it — rather like a wiki. Either way, it is believed that the command to bring seven pairs of clean animals was a later variation, added to the story so that Noah has some clean animals to sacrifice at the end without making them extinct.

    In Genesis 6 , God tells Noah to bring two of all living creatures including as is logical several of all birds. The King James translation makes it slightly more flowery, but the meaning "two of each" is still clear. In the next chapter, Genesis 7 , God directly contradicts himself. Instead of two of every animal, male and female, God tells Noah to bring seven of every clean animal - although this is also read by many as seven pairs.

    How can one bring seven of some animals if he is already only bringing two of all animals? Genesis 7 also contradicts God's statement in the previous book by stating that instead of two of all birds, seven of all birds were to be brought. The second quote from Genesis also contains a gross anachronism. Which animals are ritually clean and which are unclean is only revealed in Leviticus 11, many hundreds of years later. If Noah knew the Mosaic law and passed it on to his children, there would be no point in God revealing it to Moses and Aaron later in Leviticus.

    In order to get away from this, you need to maintain one of two things: either Noah used his own intuition to discern which animals were "clean", or Noah was revealed at least parts of the Mosaic law, which were then lost at some point after the Flood. Of course, there's also the much more plausible explanation that the story was invented by a Jewish writer who was so accustomed to thinking about animals as clean or unclean that he did not spot this chronological inconsistency.

    Because the Biblical statements are so obviously contradictory, literalists have abandoned their usual tactic of denying the contradiction. If a few were found not to contain it, the mistranslation idea might hold water, but it would still not really matter because the vast majority of translations would still support the contradiction. It is logical to assume that statements that appear in nearly one hundred percent of all translations are correct, and are the correct translation and as close to the original meaning as possible.

    Below is a chart of the several verses in various bible translations; those translations that need more explaining are in their own subsections. Some creationists have suggested that the New Living Translation or the NLT does not contain this "error", because in Genesis it uses the word "pair" in the plural form: "Pairs of every kind of bird, and every kind of animal, and every kind of small animal that scurries along the ground, will come to you to be kept alive. This has a couple of interesting consequences, and it's also telling that the female animal is treated as an extension of the male.

    Not all animals form pairs. For example, there are genera of whiptail lizards which have only females, and which reproduce parthenogenetically.

    acalfiagesch.tk It would be impossible to take a male, because there aren't any. This also presents problems with eusocial animals: a male bee a drone and a queen bee do not make up a viable hive. One might also wonder about animals which do not form pair bonds, whether it makes sense to speak of a bull and his cow, for example.

    Some creationists try to solve the space problem with the suggestion that many kinds of large animals were taken as eggs or small babies. However many reptilian eggs rely on temperature-dependent sex determination, i. This thermosensitive period occurs after the egg has been laid, so sex determination in these reptiles is at the mercy of the ambient conditions affecting egg clutches. For example, in many turtle species, eggs from cooler nests hatch as all males, and eggs from warmer nests hatch as all females. How the Ark was able to temperature control such eggs is not explained.

    Another attempted method at space-saving is suggesting that only two of every "kind" was brought on board the ark i. Besides the overwhelming amount of irony in acknowledging microevolution, this also fails in that, as usual, it fails to define what a "kind" is. Another irony is that this attempted explanation partly contradicts young-Earth creationism, as it suggests that macroevolution does in fact occur: the dog "kind" evolving into various species wolf, coyote, hyena, dingo, etc.

    Even if you found a pair, biology and genetics would suggest that two single individuals will not have enough genetic diversity to actually parent a healthy, reproductive, successful population of animals--assuming mutations for recessive genetic disorders existed at the time. Both are far below the required 40 needed. This is a clear indication that the biblical writers and their present-day fanboys had no idea how Inbreeding depression worked. The aforementioned excuse of eggs or babies does nothing to alleviate this problem, and the latter suggestion of "only kinds" actually makes this problem much worse.

    Many creationists , both Christian and Muslim , have searched for the remains of Noah's ark, but in vain. Naturally, the fundie-hole Conservapedia treats the ark as a very real, rather than mythological, symbolical or even legendary vessel. They treat the Ark in the same manner as a modern vessel, using their "ship" template.

    Apparently Noah had years' notice img [49] but it took him less than 19 years to build once he'd started.