Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Flood - Animals and their minimum food requirement
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 136 of 239 (328250)
07-02-2006 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by nator
07-02-2006 9:52 AM


Re: Just a little question
and to impute evil motives to them.
===============
Pot, kettle, black.
I have never imputed evil motives to anyone. Or it's extremely rare if I ever have. Calling someone an idiot is not imputing evil motives. Whereas it is standard here for creationists to be called "Willfully ignorant" or accused of lying.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by nator, posted 07-02-2006 9:52 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by ramoss, posted 07-02-2006 1:35 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 138 by jar, posted 07-02-2006 2:07 PM Faith has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 137 of 239 (328281)
07-02-2006 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Faith
07-02-2006 11:12 AM


Re: Just a little question
What WOULD you call it if someone purposely refuses to look at the evidence, or dismisses the evidence out of hand because it contradicts their beliefs?
That is what YEC's do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Faith, posted 07-02-2006 11:12 AM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 138 of 239 (328283)
07-02-2006 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Faith
07-02-2006 11:12 AM


Re: Just a little question
I have never imputed evil motives to anyone. Or it's extremely rare if I ever have. Calling someone an idiot is not imputing evil motives. Whereas it is standard here for creationists to be called "Willfully ignorant" or accused of lying.
Calling someone wilfully ignorant is not imputing evil motives, it is describing their behavior. It's not even like calling someone an idiot or moron.
The key point is how do folk that believe in the flood explain how the animals on the alleged ark were gathered, housed, fed and cared for? Once we get that settled we can move on to issues like the rate of evolution needed after the alleged flood, how the new critters could be fed, distribution, unique species like those found in Australia or islands.
Edited by jar, : -d

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Faith, posted 07-02-2006 11:12 AM Faith has not replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3426 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 139 of 239 (328392)
07-03-2006 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Jazzns
06-29-2006 12:15 PM


Re: Like a fish out of water
Better yet, even more on topic, plants were more nutritious back then before they micro-devolved into the crappy kind we have today. See! Now you can stuff 1.8 million cubic feet of hay into just a few thousand cubic feet of super-awesome-pre-flood-plant-food-stuff.
Would that be like the lambas bread in Lord of the Rings? So maybe Noah and his kin were elves and provided the food for all the animals in small, chock-full of nutrition loaves?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Jazzns, posted 06-29-2006 12:15 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4960 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 140 of 239 (328875)
07-05-2006 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by CK
06-27-2006 5:43 AM


Query about figures.
Hi CK,
Do you know if Woodmorappe took into consideration that there were 7 of all the clean animals and it was only the unclean that had 2 of each kind?
Genesis 7:2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate
More problematic is the fact that a literal translation of Genesis 7:2 actually states that Noah took 14 of each clean animal on to the Ark.
of all the clean beasts thou dost take to thee seven pairs, a male and its female; and of the beasts which are not clean two, a male and its female (Young's Literal Translation)
The English Standard Version also has seven pairs, as does The Message, The Amplified Bible, The New Living Translation, The Contemporary English Version, The Holman Christian Standard Bible, and the Revised Standard Version.
I wonder if the author has considered the larger amount of animals given in these Bibles?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CK, posted 06-27-2006 5:43 AM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Randy, posted 07-05-2006 9:27 AM Brian has not replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 141 of 239 (328907)
07-05-2006 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Brian
07-05-2006 5:20 AM


Re: Query about figures.
I also have Woody's book, though not handy right now, so I thought I comment on this question.
quote:
Do you know if Woodmorappe took into consideration that there were 7 of all the clean animals and it was only the unclean that had 2 of each kind?
To some extent, however, IIRC, he does not consider all animals that "divide" the hoof and chew the cud (even toed ruminants) to be clean, only those commonly eaten by the Israelites. Of course he wouldn't want to admit that there were many ruminants with divided hooves that the Israelites never heard of. For example Giraffe and Oakpi are ruminants with divided hooves. Were they clean animals? If so you need either 7 or 14 depending on which version of the story you accept and they would eat quite a lot. You also need African Buffalo, Bison, Moose, Deer etc. in 7's. I don't know whether the giant ice age bison would be considered a separate "kind" of clean animal or not.
quote:
More problematic is the fact that a literal translation of Genesis 7:2 actually states that Noah took 14 of each clean animal on to the Ark.
of all the clean beasts thou dost take to thee seven pairs, a male and its female; and of the beasts which are not clean two, a male and its female (Young's Literal Translation)
The English Standard Version also has seven pairs, as does The Message, The Amplified Bible, The New Living Translation, The Contemporary English Version, The Holman Christian Standard Bible, and the Revised Standard Version.
It is also unclear to me whether you need 7 or all birds or only of clean birds. Still there are a lot "kinds" of birds.
Woody figures about 16,000 animals on the ark which may cover most extinct and extant "kinds" if kind is defined broadly enough.
That is going to require a LOT of food and a LOT of different "kinds" of food.
Regarding hay, I wonder if anyone here as ever cut hay with a scythe. I have and it is very tedious and time consuming. Hay also rots easily in high humidity, which will be a big problem on this big boat sealed with pitch during a global rainstorm. You are going to have to get rid of a lot of spoiled hay and probably sprouting and spoiled grain during the trip so some extra will need to be packed away.
While to problems of producing and storing enough feed for this giant floating zoo are mind boggling it is the problem of 8 people taking care of all these animals on a big boat that is truely insoluble. I don't know if that is off-topic here or not.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Brian, posted 07-05-2006 5:20 AM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Bible Backer, posted 09-04-2006 6:32 AM Randy has not replied
 Message 149 by johnfolton, posted 09-04-2006 8:57 AM Randy has not replied

  
Bible Backer
Inactive Member


Message 142 of 239 (346360)
09-04-2006 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by CK
06-27-2006 5:43 AM


Hi CK, you're forgetting that Noah could have easily constructed multiple follower barges containing much of the food that the animals needed. Noah could have also used a series of fishing nets to capture enough fish to feed the carnivorous species.
As for the rainwater flooding the ark, Noah would have no problem building a roof of some kind to prevent the rainwater from even entering the boat. No pumping system required...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CK, posted 06-27-2006 5:43 AM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by CK, posted 09-04-2006 4:37 AM Bible Backer has replied
 Message 152 by ringo, posted 09-04-2006 10:50 AM Bible Backer has not replied
 Message 153 by sidelined, posted 09-04-2006 12:49 PM Bible Backer has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 143 of 239 (346361)
09-04-2006 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Bible Backer
09-04-2006 4:28 AM


quote:
Hi CK, you're forgetting that Noah could have easily constructed multiple follower barges containing much of the food that the animals needed.
Well I must confess this is indeed a new one, I don't think anyone has suggested it before. So Noah built the ark and multiple barges?
quote:
Noah could have also used a series of fishing nets to capture enough fish to feed the carnivorous species.
We can get into the specifics of which animals would actually be capable or willing to eat fish later but you are suggesting that this already overworked crew had time to operate fishing nets - really?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Bible Backer, posted 09-04-2006 4:28 AM Bible Backer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Bible Backer, posted 09-04-2006 6:12 AM CK has replied

  
Bible Backer
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 239 (346366)
09-04-2006 6:12 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by CK
09-04-2006 4:37 AM


quote:
Well I must confess this is indeed a new one, I don't think anyone has suggested it before. So Noah built the ark and multiple barges?
I think it's a reasonable assertion, yes. It wouldn't be much harder to construct enough barges to ease the food storage problem. They could be connected with gangways to allow the crew access. They also could be in close proximity to the ark.. not necessarily in a line.
quote:
We can get into the specifics of which animals would actually be capable or willing to eat fish later but you are suggesting that this already overworked crew had time to operate fishing nets - really?
I believe the crew was not necessarily overworked to begin with so using the nets would not really be such an issue. The other tasks which many suggest would take the crew a long time to do would be eliminated with efficient design of the ark.
Edited by Bible Backer, : No reason given.

"Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works,
and glorify your Father which is in heaven."
-Matthew 5:16

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by CK, posted 09-04-2006 4:37 AM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by CK, posted 09-04-2006 6:32 AM Bible Backer has not replied

  
Bible Backer
Inactive Member


Message 145 of 239 (346367)
09-04-2006 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Randy
07-05-2006 9:27 AM


Re: Query about figures.
quote:
< !--UE-->More problematic is the fact that a literal translation of Genesis 7:2 actually states that Noah took 14 of each clean animal on to the Ark.< !--UB [/quote] -->
Hi Randy, Noah did in fact take 14 animals of the clean sort according to Genesis 7:2, but you must not assume that Noah was able to maintain all 14 over time. Noah could have used these 12 animals of each kind to feed the others, sparing two of each kind for mating after the flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Randy, posted 07-05-2006 9:27 AM Randy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Cthulhu, posted 09-04-2006 8:29 AM Bible Backer has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 146 of 239 (346368)
09-04-2006 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Bible Backer
09-04-2006 6:12 AM


quote:
I believe the crew was not necessarily overworked to begin with so using the nets would not really be such an issue. The other tasks which many suggest would take the crew a long time to do would be eliminated with efficient design of the ark.
Not overworked? Do you agree with normal creationist number of @20,000 animals on the ark? If you do not, what is the number you go with?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Bible Backer, posted 09-04-2006 6:12 AM Bible Backer has not replied

  
Cthulhu
Member (Idle past 5852 days)
Posts: 273
From: Roe Dyelin
Joined: 09-09-2003


Message 147 of 239 (346374)
09-04-2006 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Bible Backer
09-04-2006 6:32 AM


Re: Query about figures.
As a general rule, giraffes don't eat giraffes. They eat plants.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Bible Backer, posted 09-04-2006 6:32 AM Bible Backer has not replied

  
Cthulhu
Member (Idle past 5852 days)
Posts: 273
From: Roe Dyelin
Joined: 09-09-2003


Message 148 of 239 (346375)
09-04-2006 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by CK
06-27-2006 5:43 AM


For those who want to know, there's an actual formula for the daily food requirements of an endothermic carnivore.
It's 0.11(mass in kg)^0.75
For ectotherms, it's generally from 1/10 to 1/6 of that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CK, posted 06-27-2006 5:43 AM CK has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 149 of 239 (346381)
09-04-2006 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Randy
07-05-2006 9:27 AM


Re: Query about figures.
spoiled grain during the trip so some extra will need to be packed away.
I agree they would of packed away grain, with all the pitching Noah was instructed to do this alone would of easily preserved compact energy rich grain, fruits, from spoilage from humidity.
To a creationists the glaciers in the northern hemisphere temporarily froze some creatures above the surface of the earth. The flood only raining 40 days means glaciers would of started melting immediately after the flood.
The creatures in the southern hemisphere to a creationists would of survived on floating mats of vegetation: granted those that couldn't cling to these mats would of perished within the surface of the earth(fossil record of the creatures that perished within the earth).
You have no native hoofed creatures in australia and no native kangaroo fossils outside australia. The fossil record agrees that all species died within the world flood but not all perished. The lack of native hoofed creatures in australia and the fossil record itself is evidence in the natural that the flood was world encompassing disaster.
http://archives.gophercentral.com/issue_20096:33.html
In fact, it has been reported that young of year of some
species have been known to endure being frozen solid within
ice at times during the winter...and they apparently thaw
out with no problem.
Page not found | Geophysical Institute
Freeze tolerance is just as it sounds”insects turn into little bits of ice, then thaw in spring to fly or crawl away. To pull off this trick, insects or their larvae must remove much of the water from within their cells and keep ice organized to remain outside cell membranes. They also add sugars and alcohols to their bodies to counter the effects of freeze-drying. If ice forms inside cells or if cells become too dry, the insects die. Insects aren’t the only organisms to use this strategy to survive; trees and wood frogs survive after being mostly frozen much of the year.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Randy, posted 07-05-2006 9:27 AM Randy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by nwr, posted 09-04-2006 9:20 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 151 by NosyNed, posted 09-04-2006 10:45 AM johnfolton has replied
 Message 156 by nwr, posted 09-04-2006 2:26 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 161 by obvious Child, posted 09-04-2006 7:14 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 183 by sidelined, posted 09-05-2006 10:57 AM johnfolton has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 150 of 239 (346387)
09-04-2006 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by johnfolton
09-04-2006 8:57 AM


Re: Query about figures.
You have no native hoofed creatures in australia and no native kangaroo fossils outside australia. The fossil record agrees that all species died within the world flood but not all perished. The lack of native hoofed creatures in australia and the fossil record itself is evidence in the natural that the flood was world encompassing disaster.
ROTFL
The distinctive fauna of Australia clearly refutes the flood story (except, perhaps, as a rather exaggerated report of a local flood).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by johnfolton, posted 09-04-2006 8:57 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024