Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   Does The Flood Add up?
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 151 of 298 (326299)
06-26-2006 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by PetVet2Be
06-26-2006 2:10 AM


The Bible even depicts a creature the sounds like one of the sauropods. (Job 40:15-24)
we have a number of threads debating both livyatan and behemot.
here is a good place to start.
i think you find that the general consensus is that behemot is not a dinosaur (though possibly a mythecised animal), and that livyatan is clearly something almost completely mythical. (it may also interest you to know that in modern hebrew, "livyatan" means "whale.")


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by PetVet2Be, posted 06-26-2006 2:10 AM PetVet2Be has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 152 of 298 (326301)
06-26-2006 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by PetVet2Be
06-26-2006 2:10 AM


PetVet2Be writes:
I mean kinds as in equines, canines, bears, etc.
Okay, now what we need from you is a complete list of all the kinds, and how much space would be required for two of each kind. (Don't forget to allow for exercise-room.) Then we need to know what volume of food and water would be needed for all of those pairs for 370 days (see below). When you have provided all of those figures, maybe you can get away with saying there was "plenty of room".
And Dinos did not have to be sexually mature. Who said that they all got off the ark and immediately began reproducing.
Okay, then how long did it take the dinos to get from "juvenile" ark-size to reproductive size? How long were there two of each dino "kind" wandering around with no predation or other death by misfortune? The topic is "Does the Flood Add up?" We need numbers here, not just empty assertions.
And Dinos did not go extinct immediately after the flood.
Most of them must have. The Egyptian civilization, the Mesopotamian civilization, the Indus civilization, the Chinese civilization, etc. all fail to mention large numbers of dinos wandering around. The odd "dragon" tale, even if true, does not refute the fact that there have been very few dinos around since the flood. Why save them just to have them die out anyway?
And you are correct that the number is larger than 40, but its actually 150 (Genesis 7:24).
Nope. Still wrong. Read your own reference:
quote:
Gen 7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days.
The waters "prevailed upon the earth" for 150 days. We're not interested in that. We're interested in how long Noah and company were inside the ark.
quote:
Gen 7:7 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood....
Gen 7:10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.
Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
quote:
Gen 8:13 And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.
Gen 8:14 And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried.
The Bible plainly states that they were in the ark for more than a year.
Still a reasonable number.
Still an empty assertion. Show us the numbers.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by PetVet2Be, posted 06-26-2006 2:10 AM PetVet2Be has not replied

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


Message 153 of 298 (326333)
06-26-2006 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by MangyTiger
06-26-2006 1:49 AM


Re: What's the density of hay (or how big/heavy is a bale)?
quote:
What I was really wondering about was the elephants, who I was able to find out require a minimum of 300 pounds of feed a day each. So 600 pounds a day for around 365 days gives us the total weight of feed that had to be stored on the Ark for the two elephants. If we assume their feed will be of a similar density to horse feed we will be able to work out how much storage space was needed.
Loose hay is not very dense. My guess is about 3 or 4 pounds per cubic foot. Bales can be 7-10 pounds per cf but I doubt Noah had a baler. IIRC Woodmorappe makes some absurd claim about pelleted alfalfa. I guess he never saw the nature of the machinery needed to pellet hay. I have and it is beyond absurd to think that Noah had such equipment. So you are going to need a LOT of hay, but the ark supposedly was pretty big. But elephants are far from the only large mammals you need to feed and not even the largest. In addition to the elephants you also need a pair of indricotheres which were the largest known mammals, at least twice the size of elephants and some bronotheres which were about the size of elephants, not to mention giant sloths and glyptodonts (an armadillo like animal the size of a volkswagen beetle). I don't know if mammoths and mastodons are considered seperate from the elephant "kinds" in YEC mythology, I suppose it depends on who you ask but they were pretty different from each other and I suspect they ate a lot. Not to mention all the clean animals that you have seven each. If all even toed ungalates are "clean" that is about 80 genera that you need 7 each of or about 560 animals IIRC. These animals are also going to produce a lot of waste that needs to be removed.
Oone problem with taking young animals is that many animals grow significantly in a year and will eat nearly as much as adults while doing so and there is the nursing problem of taking young mammals we have already discussed. Another problem with bring young animals is that many animals need to learn behaviors from adults as they grow. How will that work if you bring them on a ark sans parents. Have you ever watched one of those nature shows on the amount of work it requires to reintroduce animals born in capativity into the wild?
The problem of 8 people feeding and cleaning up after so many different "kinds" of animals with such different nutritional needs is insurmountable. You have animals like snakes that only eat live prey, obligate carnivores like cats that require fresh meat (dried meat will lose the vitamin content cats need), insectivores of various kinds that need live insects and in some cases lots of them, fruit bats that eat fresh fruit, the aforemention kolas that need fresh eucalyptus leaves, pandas that need bamboo and so on and on.
Then you have to figure out what these animals, particularly the predators ate after the flood. Lion eats ardvaark, end of the ardvark "kind" forever.
The world wide flood simply does not add up by any realistic calculation.
Randy
Edited by Randy, : typos

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by MangyTiger, posted 06-26-2006 1:49 AM MangyTiger has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by CK, posted 06-26-2006 7:35 AM Randy has not replied
 Message 157 by nator, posted 06-26-2006 8:11 AM Randy has not replied
 Message 158 by nator, posted 06-26-2006 8:18 AM Randy has not replied
 Message 160 by Quetzal, posted 06-26-2006 9:32 AM Randy has not replied

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


Message 154 of 298 (326335)
06-26-2006 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Randy
06-26-2006 6:42 AM


Re: What's the density of hay (or how big/heavy is a bale)?
Randy I was reading your old thread here:
http://EvC Forum: Biogeography falsifies the worldwide flood. -->EvC Forum: Biogeography falsifies the worldwide flood.
Anyone who hasn't read that thread should.
I don't mean to be cruel to anyone but if you can get through the whole thread without bursting out laughing you are a better person than me. The conversation that Randy has with the Golfer is pure comedy gold.
Edited by CK, : added "person".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Randy, posted 06-26-2006 6:42 AM Randy has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 155 of 298 (326338)
06-26-2006 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by PetVet2Be
06-26-2006 2:10 AM


OK, here are some figures
Hello Pet Vet,
Thanks for your reply. You wrote:
quote:
All the food they would need for water is rain water (they probably had enough).
Probably? How do you know? You sent me to that AIG page for "figures" but there are none regarding my specific question.
I'll ask again. Do you know the food and water requirements needed to sustain just one horse for a year?
quote:
Actually they would need enough food for 2 horses.
Horses are clean, so it would actually have been 7 horses, but we can do that math later. We can stick with one for now.
quote:
Yes this is a lot but, they had enough room to store a lot of food.
Well, your AiG website describes a vessel with a lot of room, but until we actually do the calculations using the actual figures, we don't know if it would have been enough room or not.
The AiG page certainly doesn't do that. And By the way, One of the books the AiG page references as a source is Woodmorappe's Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, and I should let you know that it is quite laughable. I own a copy and some of the errors and assumptions he makes are truly astonighing. But, moving on...
I dug up a four year old thread called Animals on the Ark in which we discussed the specifics of this very issue.
I'd like to refer you to Message 15 of that thread. In it, I provide some actual numbers. I've cut n pasted below for you:
Let's assume that there were only two horses on the Ark.
Let us also assume that they were of average size and were relatively easy keepers.
Let us ignore the fact that keeping a horse standing still in a small stall for a year would be quite dangerous to it's health, as they need to move around to keep their guts working properly.
Let us also ignore the muscle atrophy and depression and boredome which would also have detrimental effects.
Let us also assume that we would not feed these horses grain, because anyone who feeds horses knows that confining a horse and feeding it lots of grain (high-powered) food is a prescription for life-threatening health problems (colic) and excitability and unruliness. Letting the horse roam on several acres (at least) of land and feeding it hay and grass (low-powered) food generally results in a much more sane, tractable, placid horse.
Now that we have determined that Noah would need to take on a lot of hay to feed these horses, let's see if we can figure out how much these two horses would need.
Well, if we are talking about a sedentary horse, and just wanting to get it to survive, not necessarily keeping it in good weight, I estimate, very conservatively, that you could get away with feeding the horses 15 pounds of hay a day, each. A bale of hay is something like 30 pounds.
This means that Noah, just to feed two horses and no other herbivores on the Ark, would need nearly 11,000 pounds of hay for 365 days.
Of course, this doesn't even account for the fresh water that would have to be stowed on board, as nobody could drink sea water and they couldn't collect enough rain in 40 days and 40 nights to last them the other 325 days.
Horses drink about 6-10 gallons of water a day, so this makes the two horses' minimum fresh water requirements for the year at 4,380 gallons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by PetVet2Be, posted 06-26-2006 2:10 AM PetVet2Be has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by CK, posted 06-26-2006 8:07 AM nator has not replied
 Message 161 by Coragyps, posted 06-26-2006 10:10 AM nator has replied

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


Message 156 of 298 (326339)
06-26-2006 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by nator
06-26-2006 8:03 AM


Re: OK, here are some figures
We should draw up a table for future reference.
So far we have
2 Horses - 4,380 gallons of drinking water and 11,000 pounds of hay.
Anyone have any handy figures for any other animals?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by nator, posted 06-26-2006 8:03 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by MangyTiger, posted 06-26-2006 8:04 PM CK has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 157 of 298 (326341)
06-26-2006 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Randy
06-26-2006 6:42 AM


Re: What's the density of hay (or how big/heavy is a bale)?
quote:
IIRC Woodmorappe makes some absurd claim about pelleted alfalfa. I guess he never saw the nature of the machinery needed to pellet hay. I have and it is beyond absurd to think that Noah had such equipment.
Yup, and back in the day, a member named John Paul referenced that very book and mentioned the pelleted alfalfa in a discussion with me. My reply is here
This is part of what I wrote:
OK.
Let me get this straight.
You are really wanting me to believe that Noah had PELLETED HAY AND HORSE FEED? You have got to be completely crazy if you are asking me to believe such a thing. Oh, and what the heck is "doubly-compressed hay", and how did Noah compress it?
Did they drive down to the feed store in their Ford pickup to buy it in 100 pound bags, or did they have the feed store deliver it to the Ark biulding site on their delivery flatbed? Do you think they would have chosen a 9% protein or a 12% protein? Do you think they went for the Purina, or did they choose Omolene, or another brand?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!
I miss John Paul.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Randy, posted 06-26-2006 6:42 AM Randy has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 158 of 298 (326343)
06-26-2006 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Randy
06-26-2006 6:42 AM


Re: What's the density of hay (or how big/heavy is a bale)?
quote:
fruit bats that eat fresh fruit
Well, the Bible describes bats as birds, so wouldn't bats be in the bird "kind"?
I mean, doesn't that mean that there would only have to be a single "kind" of bird, excluding bats, on the ark?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Randy, posted 06-26-2006 6:42 AM Randy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by jar, posted 06-26-2006 10:49 AM nator has not replied

PetVet2Be
Inactive Member


Message 159 of 298 (326365)
06-26-2006 9:28 AM


I am going to bow out of this discussion for a while to do some research. I'll be back when I got some more information.

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Coragyps, posted 06-26-2006 10:13 AM PetVet2Be has not replied
 Message 164 by ringo, posted 06-26-2006 10:38 AM PetVet2Be has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 160 of 298 (326368)
06-26-2006 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Randy
06-26-2006 6:42 AM


Re: What's the density of hay (or how big/heavy is a bale)?
Nice post. The question arises, besides the animals you mentioned, about what happened to all the lineages/clades of really odd-ball mammals that are completely extinct today. All of the order Pyrotheria - about the size of a mastodon - which have no living descendants. I assume we're supposed to believe that this entire clade wandered off the ark, swam to South America, then promptly died. Maybe our PetVet can explain what Carodnia vieirai (picture a hippo with fangs) ate? And how Noah knew? Then there's the really weird ones like the marsupial carnivore Thylacosmilus (what did it eat, again?). Once more, they apparently got off the ark, swam to South America, then promptly keeled over and died leaving no descendants. The bestiary of "kinds" on the ark doesn't just include dinosaurs, but every one of the now-extinct mammalian orders which left NO descendants. The bible says they were on the ark - what happened to them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Randy, posted 06-26-2006 6:42 AM Randy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Faith, posted 06-26-2006 3:09 PM Quetzal has not replied
 Message 228 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 5:32 AM Quetzal has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 161 of 298 (326388)
06-26-2006 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by nator
06-26-2006 8:03 AM


Re: OK, here are some figures
Horses are clean,
Nope. Not cloven-hoofed or cud-chewing. And besides, Frenchmen eat horse, so surely it can't be kosher.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by nator, posted 06-26-2006 8:03 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by nator, posted 06-26-2006 2:39 PM Coragyps has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 162 of 298 (326389)
06-26-2006 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by PetVet2Be
06-26-2006 9:28 AM


I am going to bow out of this discussion for a while to do some research. I'll be back when I got some more information.
Good idea, I'll bet. You'll be astounded as to how often we've seen this same material around here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by PetVet2Be, posted 06-26-2006 9:28 AM PetVet2Be has not replied

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


Message 163 of 298 (326400)
06-26-2006 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by PetVet2Be
06-26-2006 2:10 AM


Actually 8 people is not that bad as many animals, such as the grazers, did not have to be fed every day. i.e. they were likely given enough food at a time to last 2 or more days.
They would need to do more than just feed the critters. They would need to clean out their dung, and get them some exercise.
As for the Aussie animals, I think that God has a sense of humor and directed animals to different places, Austrailia being his "oddity" place.
If Aussie animals were on the ark, isn't it strange that none of them were even explicitely mentioned? These animals are odd enough, that you would think something would have been written about them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by PetVet2Be, posted 06-26-2006 2:10 AM PetVet2Be has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 164 of 298 (326407)
06-26-2006 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by PetVet2Be
06-26-2006 9:28 AM


PetVet2Be writes:
I am going to bow out of this discussion for a while to do some research.
Just a suggestion: don't confine your research to more-of-the-same creationist websites. They tend to generate more questions than answers.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by PetVet2Be, posted 06-26-2006 9:28 AM PetVet2Be has not replied

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


Message 165 of 298 (326411)
06-26-2006 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by nator
06-26-2006 8:18 AM


Re: What's the density of hay (or how big/heavy is a bale)?
I mean, doesn't that mean that there would only have to be a single "kind" of bird, excluding bats, on the ark?
No. The Bible describes many Bird Kinds. For Example there is the Raven Kind and the Dove Kind and teh Bat Kind, lots of Bird Kinds.
Magic Mythical Biggies-sized Flood happened, there should be a very simple test. We should be able to look at the genetics of all of the Raven Kind and all of the Dove Kind and all of the Bat Kind of Bird Kind and find that all show a common ancestor at about 4500 years ago.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by nator, posted 06-26-2006 8:18 AM nator 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