Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 123 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-22-2017 4:57 PM
448 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Upcoming Birthdays: CosmicChimp
Post Volume:
Total: 799,181 Year: 3,787/21,208 Month: 2,182/1,605 Week: 382/376 Day: 71/101 Hour: 3/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45678Next
Author Topic:   Creationist experiment to prove the possibility of Noah's ark
Doubletime
Junior Member (Idle past 2711 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 05-08-2009


Message 31 of 115 (508026)
05-10-2009 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Theodoric
05-09-2009 2:05 PM


Im not a traditional 6 day kreationist. The word used for day can mean " period of time " so i have abit diffrent view.

Yes it is. ACcordong to evolution a cell evolved to every species. Wich means it became something new.

The bible allows species to variate. We have many kinds of humans but they are all destined to be humans for eternity.

Well as far as the 25,000 insect specie thingie they can not mate. Because they are not made to mate with ech other so they never mate at all. But, Im sure you could take sperm from 1 species plant it in another and get a hybrid.

Ring species doesent change much. Remember this is only my definition =D


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Theodoric, posted 05-09-2009 2:05 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-10-2009 2:38 AM Doubletime has not yet responded
 Message 33 by Meddle, posted 05-10-2009 10:10 AM Doubletime has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15374
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 32 of 115 (508033)
05-10-2009 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Doubletime
05-10-2009 1:54 AM


Well as far as the 25,000 insect specie thingie they can not mate. Because they are not made to mate with ech other so they never mate at all. But, Im sure you could take sperm from 1 species plant it in another and get a hybrid.

This is an odd thing to be sure of.

Presumably you are equally sure that you couldn't cross chimps and humans that way, because humans are ... special.

Here we can clearly see the enormous gulf between them.

But crossing this and this ...

... you're sure it's feasible?

Well, at last we have a testable prediction in creationism. Why don't you give it a try, let us know how you get on?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Doubletime, posted 05-10-2009 1:54 AM Doubletime has not yet responded

  
Meddle
Member
Posts: 156
From: Scotland
Joined: 05-08-2006


Message 33 of 115 (508061)
05-10-2009 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Doubletime
05-10-2009 1:54 AM


Doubletime writes:

Im not a traditional 6 day kreationist. The word used for day can mean " period of time " so i have abit diffrent view.

But this thread is not discussing the biblical creation, it is looking at the feasibility of Noah's ark. The issue of kinds is brought up to reduce the number of animals the ark was expected to house (and feed, water, muck out etc.), just as you used it earlier for dogs and insects.

On this page it looks at the evolution of cats, another favourite 'kind' cited by creationists. Note that from genetic studies it is found that modern cats evolved from a common ancestor approximately 10 million years ago. So either evolution occurred almost 2000 times faster than science describes, or Noah's ark and the flood occurred at least 10 million years ago.
But that just goes for modern cats. The same study also looked at species which are genetically closely related, including the genet, linsang, fossa, mongoose and hyaena. Would yo class them in the same kind as cats, and what would you base your decision on?

And if it takes this long for cats to differentiate, how long would it take for the beetle and butterfly posted by Dr. Adequate to differentaite from a common 'kind'?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Doubletime, posted 05-10-2009 1:54 AM Doubletime has not yet responded

  
menes777
Member (Idle past 1638 days)
Posts: 36
From: Wichita, KS, USA
Joined: 01-25-2010


Message 34 of 115 (544366)
01-25-2010 5:17 PM


Specialized foods
I have always wondered how do you get all of the specialized foods on the ark for all the different creatures with unique diets. Such as some requiring fresh nectar, live food (such as mice), fresh leaves (Eucalyptus) and so on. Much less the dietary requirements that aren't so unusual. Such as how do you keep vegetables from spoiling (much less fresh) in a dark, damp boat with no refrigeration?

I have heard all sorts of explanations about using dried or compressed foods, but none of them really make sense.

I also think another question would be how do you feed a mobile zoo that is many times larger than any zoo in existence with only 8 people? Without the help of automation or modern feeding techniques?


  
menes777
Member (Idle past 1638 days)
Posts: 36
From: Wichita, KS, USA
Joined: 01-25-2010


Message 35 of 115 (544371)
01-25-2010 5:37 PM


quote:
I vaguely remember someone on this board suggested that to solve the fresh water supply problem Noah had to drill a hole or two right below the water line.

The question here would be how fresh is the flood water? I did this little bit awhile back on another board (http://www.ooblick.com/...d-gets-taken-again/#comment-174224) and thought I might share it here. It's of course barring the fact that you can drink the flood water.

quote:
Another problem you have to consider is the water problem. I did some fairly rough calculations on how much water would be required for about a year’s voyage at sea (314 days) for 16,000 animals.

Assuming the ark is your dimensions above, it’s about 41,006 cubic meters (1,518,750 cubic feet).

16,000 animals x 314 days x 1 liter/day = 5,024,000 Liters consumed the entire trip. – Now that is 1 liter for not only consumption but for sanitation and cleaning. Meaning one half of a two liter bottle per day for a year.

5,024,000 Liters = ~ 5,024 cubic meters of space or about 12.3% of the entire space available on the ark. Now either Noah had an extremely sophisticated water distribution system to get the water from a large vat to the rest of the ship or he had to store it in barrels, which in turn would take up more space and require more time in watering and cleaning the animals. The big vat theory also has some problems as it would either take up most of one deck level or would extend down below the water level. Either way it would be a festering zone for algae and bacteria, not to mention possible contamination by the outside water from leakage. But that 1 liter is really not realistic, let’s look at a more realistic number.

16,000 animals x 314 days x 5 liter/day = 25,120,000 Liters consumed the entire trip.
5 liters seems a bit more realistic when you take into account consumption as well as sanitation and even waste. You also have to consider that if dried foods are used (which another creationist states as part of his ark model) that water intake must increase sometimes as much as 2 fold (sometimes 3).

25,120,000 Liters = ~ 25,120 Cubic Meters.
Houston we have a problem! That is 61.3% of the ENTIRE space of the ark used for only water??? That might give some insights into why a mission to Mars for a handful of people is a very risky proposal. Ignoring the difficulties of storing, accessing and even filling the ark with enough fresh water, there still needs to be room left over for food, the animals and a way to get to those animals in a way that they can be cared for. Not to mention ventilation for fresh air and exercise.


The rebuttal to that was that fresh water could be pumped in from the outside. However, considering the other issues going on with the Ark I doubt that would be possible. Any ideas as to how that would be feasible?


Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Meldinoor, posted 01-25-2010 6:24 PM menes777 has not yet responded
 Message 37 by ShaunJ72, posted 01-25-2010 6:44 PM menes777 has not yet responded
 Message 38 by ZenMonkey, posted 01-25-2010 10:06 PM menes777 has not yet responded

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 2127 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 36 of 115 (544376)
01-25-2010 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by menes777
01-25-2010 5:37 PM


And that's just 16,000 animals
This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by menes777, posted 01-25-2010 5:37 PM menes777 has not yet responded

    
ShaunJ72
Junior Member (Idle past 2097 days)
Posts: 1
From: London UK
Joined: 01-25-2010


Message 37 of 115 (544381)
01-25-2010 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by menes777
01-25-2010 5:37 PM


It had to be a miracle!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by menes777, posted 01-25-2010 5:37 PM menes777 has not yet responded

    
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 1829 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 38 of 115 (544394)
01-25-2010 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by menes777
01-25-2010 5:37 PM


Water, water everywhere!
Hmm. I never thought of the Ark problem this way.

I know that I've demonstrated my incompotence with math before, but what are the consequences of the basic need for water? Essentially, is it possible for any creature to drink less that its own body volume in water over the course of a year? How much does it really need?

For the sake of argument, let's take humans for a test case, and in true physics style, let's simplify the problem. Instead of trying to account for the irregularities of the human figure, let's just approximate by positing a cylinder with the dimensions of the average human being. That works out to 5'9" (175cm) height and 1'6" (46cm) diameter. Plug it in to the formula V= π r2h and rounding, we get 290686cc or 291 liters or 77 gallons.

Someone please check my math!

Can a human being last an entire year on just 77 gallons of water? If the minimum daily requirements to maintain some semblance of health is about 2 quarts, I would say no. Looks like you need about twice the volume of water for the volume taken up by every person you have on hand.

Does that translate out to the same sort of thing for every "kind" of animal? In other words, for every creature you have on board, do you need at least twice its body volume of water just to keep it alive? I dunno, but that certainly looks like a lot of water to account for.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by menes777, posted 01-25-2010 5:37 PM menes777 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by hooah212002, posted 01-25-2010 10:52 PM ZenMonkey has responded
 Message 41 by lyx2no, posted 01-25-2010 11:36 PM ZenMonkey has responded

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 223 days)
Posts: 3180
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 39 of 115 (544397)
01-25-2010 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by ZenMonkey
01-25-2010 10:06 PM


Re: Water, water everywhere!
But wasn't it raining the whole time? Couldn't they just look up, mouth agape, taking all the water the heavens had to offer? The same for the animals. In another thread, it was postulated that the ark was made of reed, so as to be porous. Then ALL the critters aboard would just look up and drink from the sky!


Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by ZenMonkey, posted 01-25-2010 10:06 PM ZenMonkey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by ZenMonkey, posted 01-25-2010 11:06 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

    
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 1829 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 40 of 115 (544399)
01-25-2010 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by hooah212002
01-25-2010 10:52 PM


Re: Water, water everywhere!
I remember that thread. The theory was that you could build the Ark out of reeds and that water would just flow *through* the reeds, making it impossible for it to sink.

I loved that one.

Edited by ZenMonkey, : No reason given.


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by hooah212002, posted 01-25-2010 10:52 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2035 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 41 of 115 (544401)
01-25-2010 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by ZenMonkey
01-25-2010 10:06 PM


Too Much Water, Water Everywhere!
Someone please check my math!

I'm not exactly going to check the math, but… people have a density only slightly below that of water, and water weighs 8.34 pounds per gallon so your average, 77 gallon man weighs in at 640 pounds.


You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by ZenMonkey, posted 01-25-2010 10:06 PM ZenMonkey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by ZenMonkey, posted 01-26-2010 12:58 AM lyx2no has not yet responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 1829 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 42 of 115 (544402)
01-26-2010 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by lyx2no
01-25-2010 11:36 PM


Re: Too Much Water, Water Everywhere!
The problem appears to be that I was confusing the amount of storage space that you'd need for an animal with the actual volume of the animal itself. A person (or any other animal) is going to need some sort of storage space around it, however minimal. So packing them in cylinders sorta represents that. Given the choice, hexagonal chambers would probably be optimal, but I'll let someone else tackle the math for that.

What I've got is two separate problems: storage space for an animal, in this case a person, and the storage space for the water it's going to need to survive.

The storage space works out to what I figured. The average height (175cm) is all right, and we can take the maximum width at the shoulders as the diameter for the whole cylinder. So what we get is a big hot water heater in which a person standing up with his or her head touching the inside of the lid would be just able to turn around. That cylinder's volume is still going to be something like 77 gallons. There's quite a bit of empty space in that cylinder when compared to just the volume of the person, but not very much living space. If we really wanted to be minimal, I suppose we could pack people in oblong coffin-sized boxes, retaining the same height and width, and making the depth about 24cm measuring from the back of the head to the tip of the nose. That gives us a box that comes out to about 178 liters in volume (48 gallons), if you're packing everyone in with essentially no room whatever in which to move around.

Turning now at the volume of water for that person to live on, I should have done it the easy way. If he or she needs at minimum 2 quarts of water a day to live, then that's 182.5 gallons consumed by a single person over the course of a year.

I think that the point, however much I've flailed around getting to it, is that even if you pack in your critters stacked up in boxes without any living space whatever, you still have to account for the room taken up by the water they're going to need as well, which looks like it's something like three or four times that.

How much room do you have on that Ark again?


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by lyx2no, posted 01-25-2010 11:36 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

  
Trae
Member (Idle past 1625 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 43 of 115 (544403)
01-26-2010 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Brian
08-02-2008 6:53 AM


Pairs of unclean? I don't think so.
Hrrm. The math isn't working for me.

2Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

I follow that the language is clear that there are seven sets of male and female. However, the format of the later part of the sentence seems to be the same form as the first part; so instead of a single pair of unclean animals the language instead reads a set of pairs.

Sets:
7 sets (male and female) of clean = 14 each.
2 sets (male and female) of unclean = 4 each.

So is the translation quoted above incorrect?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Brian, posted 08-02-2008 6:53 AM Brian has not yet responded

  
menes777
Member (Idle past 1638 days)
Posts: 36
From: Wichita, KS, USA
Joined: 01-25-2010


Message 44 of 115 (544450)
01-26-2010 2:08 PM


I found this little snippet on another Noah's Ark site (http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/noahs_ark.html) which in turn got it from Alt.Atheism. Really gives some perspective on what it takes to keep animals fed.

quote:

From The Dallas Morning News, November ?? 1996:

What? Rat again?
You thought you had trouble selling your family on the remains of the Thanksgiving turkey. Over at the Dallas Zoo, they're dealing with some tougher-to-push leftovers.

Here's what the zoo offered its residents for Thanksgiving:

* A ton of hay,
* 35 pounds of fish,
* 50 pounds of meat,
* 100 stalks of celery,
* five pounds of red onions,
* 100 pounds of carrots,
* 25 pounds of spinach,
* 15 pounds of kale,
* 10 pounds of mixed vegetables,
* 150 pounds of sweet potatoes,
* 10 heads of cabbage,
* 48 heads of romaine,
* 30 ears of corn,
* four loaves of wheat bread,
* 24 eggs,
* a pound of yogurt,
* 40 pounds of bananas,
* eight pounds of blueberries,
* 170 oranges,
* 500 apples,
* 36 cantaloupes,
* four papayas,
* 250 rodents (the variety pack),
* 6000 mealworms,
* 600 wax worms and
* 7500 crickets.


Let's just take the first item on the list, a ton of Hay. How much exactly is a ton of Hay? Well doing some googling it looks like 1 of those big bales (6' in diameter, 6' in height) is about a ton of hay. Now continuing this suppose we can feed all of the animals on the ship with a ton of hay a day. That means we could feed the whole ship on 314 tons of hay or 314 of those large bales. What is the volume of those large hay bales though?

Ok assuming 6' diameter and 6' in height, that would come to about 20 cubic meters. Now 314 of those would make about 6280 cubic meters for all the hay for all year.

If we use our earlier figure of 41,006 cubic meters, that would mean that ~15% of the ship would go towards hay bale storage. Could 16,000 animals share a ton of hay between themselves for one day (not to mention not everything can eat hay)? Not if you want them to still be alive after a year. That's about a 1/10th of a pound per animal.

If we change hay to be just generic food (yes not all food has the density and weight of hay) and we average out the consumption rates of the animals to 1 pound per day (which is probably far too low). Then the problem should become very clear. It would require 62,800 cubic meters of space for food alone, or 150% of ship capacity. Were there three arks? One for food, one for water and one for animals?


  
Manifest
Junior Member (Idle past 2452 days)
Posts: 4
Joined: 03-02-2010


Message 45 of 115 (549361)
03-06-2010 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Admin
08-02-2008 5:29 AM


quote:
This *would* absolutely make a great reality show. One can imagine during the loading of the ark Shem saying to Noah, "The wolves are refusing to eat the hay we provided and ate the sheep again, we have to find more bloody sheep."

Implying Noah - being around 600 years old - wasn't wise enough to bring young ones on the ark.

One would have to count the kinds of animals out there which are clean and unclean. The kinds being essentially the ones which could originally breed. Wolves, dogs, jackals, coyotes are the same kind of animal so you don't need to bring one of every species merely a puppy dog male and female. We could try to figure this out in this thread. Some think it would be between 1000 to 8000 - which considering the size of the boat - being around 25,000 square feet as far as I know - is nothing.

In fact I think in China they built an exact replica size wise of the boat so this shouldn't be hard to do.
http://www.clipsyndicate.com/...full_size_noah_s_ark_replica

Having this many people on the boat to take care of so few animals simply feeding them and taking the excrement is nothing big to believe in. Less feeding less excrement. Being eight aboard the boat to separate tasks.

Take the biggest number being 8000 animals. Divide it by 8 for the number of people. 1000 animals to feed a day (if you feed them daily instead of leaving them food to eat when they are hungry this is assuming a 10 hour workday which is 600 minutes. This leaves about 36 seconds to throw the hay or whichever food they were eating - maybe they separated the animals in rows according to what they eat - and scoop excrements doesn't seem like a hard thing to do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Admin, posted 08-02-2008 5:29 AM Admin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by lyx2no, posted 03-06-2010 11:39 AM Manifest has responded
 Message 47 by Dr Jack, posted 03-06-2010 11:49 AM Manifest has not yet responded
 Message 48 by Coyote, posted 03-06-2010 12:58 PM Manifest has not yet responded
 Message 72 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 03-10-2010 10:38 AM Manifest has not yet responded
 Message 76 by hooah212002, posted 03-10-2010 7:24 PM Manifest has not yet responded

    
Prev12
3
45678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017