Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 7:00 PM
25 online now:
Coragyps, DrJones*, dwise1, edge, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx, Theodoric (7 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,836 Year: 9,872/19,786 Month: 2,294/2,119 Week: 330/724 Day: 55/114 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
16NextFF
Author Topic:   The Flood - Animals and their minimum food requirement
CK
Member (Idle past 2300 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 1 of 239 (326727)
06-27-2006 5:43 AM


This is a spin-off of a topic in the geology forum and is intended to tackle one specific issue - that's of the minimum feed requirements for various types of animals.

In Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study by John Woodmorappe. He puts the total number of "invited" organisms at 15,754 - this consists of 7,428 mammals, 4,602 birds and 3,724 reptiles (including dinosaurs).

While we are never going to come up with a full-list, I want to get a better idea of the amount of feeding that the 8 people in the ark would have to be involved in. Even if we only establish a sub-set of animals, it will give a better idea of the task they had and also a resource for people to call upon in future debate.

I know there are other connected arguments about where some of the "special requirements" food is going from - such as for the Koalas but at least at the start of this thread let's take it as a given that some unknown source of each food type exists.

I am also assuming that we will all use american measurement?

OK - the first two animals that have been mentioned on the geology thread are:

Horses proposed by schrafinator

quote:
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.


Elephant - proposed by Mangy Tiger

quote:
Elephants need 300 pounds of food each per day (minimum).

It's harder to get a figure for water consumption - estimates seem to be in the 180 to 230 litres per day range (40 to 51 UK gallons or 48 to 61 US gallons). We'll go for the minimum of 48 US gallons.

So for two elephants we have:

2*300*365 = 219000 pounds of food.
2*48*365 = 35040 gallons of drinking water


So I make the current totals as follows:

Food: 11,000 (Horses) + 219,000 (Elephants) = 230,000 pounds of food.

water: 4,380 (horses) + 35,040 (Elephants) = 39,420 gallons of water.

REMEMBER THIS IS NOT A THREAD FOR SPECIAL PLEADING - THIS IS A FLOOD WHERE GOD LEFT THEM TO GET ON WITH IT - NO MAGIC REQUIRED OR WANTED HERE - TRY NEXT DOOR

Edited by CK, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by ohnhai, posted 06-27-2006 10:21 AM CK has not yet responded
 Message 4 by RickJB, posted 06-27-2006 10:30 AM CK has responded
 Message 10 by kalimero, posted 06-27-2006 11:34 AM CK has not yet responded
 Message 18 by Faith, posted 06-27-2006 1:24 PM CK has not yet responded
 Message 76 by nwr, posted 06-27-2006 11:15 PM CK has not yet responded
 Message 140 by Brian, posted 07-05-2006 5:20 AM CK has not yet responded
 Message 142 by Bible Backer, posted 09-04-2006 4:28 AM CK has responded
 Message 148 by Cthulhu, posted 09-04-2006 8:32 AM CK has not yet responded
 Message 238 by Vacate, posted 10-01-2006 11:26 AM CK has not yet responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 239 (326752)
06-27-2006 8:47 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
ohnhai
Member (Idle past 3335 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 3 of 239 (326778)
06-27-2006 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by CK
06-27-2006 5:43 AM


Side Note: Storage and preservation.
Already with just 4 animals catered for (forgetting for a moment the 8 animals there to take care of all the others) we have a SERIOUS quantity of food stuffs. Some dry store well but many do not. How do you store all that fresh produce for that amount of time in that quantity in a time before thermal heat exchangers?


Anyway to add to the figures: For 8 humans;

Water: Minimum requirement of water per day is between 2 – 4.5 litres . For argument we will take the upper limit as these humans have a lot of work to do.

So we have (4.5 * 365)*8 = 13140 litres (3471.22 US liquid gallons) Ok

Not sure how to calculate the food side..

Edited by ohnhai, : added water data for humans


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

    
RickJB
Member (Idle past 3163 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 4 of 239 (326780)
06-27-2006 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by CK
06-27-2006 5:43 AM


Well,

http://www.2ndchance.info/bigcatdiet.htm

A vetinary called Ron Hines reckons that a 350 pound adult male Bengal Tiger requires about 12 pounds of meat a day. Other big cats are similar. Females seem to need about 80% of that amount.

Noah's gonna need some spare animals!!

Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by CK, posted 06-27-2006 10:33 AM RickJB has responded
 Message 7 by ohnhai, posted 06-27-2006 11:13 AM RickJB has not yet responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2300 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 5 of 239 (326781)
06-27-2006 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by RickJB
06-27-2006 10:30 AM


So I make that (12*2)*365 = 8760 pounds

Anyone know a water requirement?

Is this a suitable example of a "kind" we would find on the ark? Any objections to Rick's suggestion?

Ah - just seen the 80% comment - need to recalculate.

Edited by CK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by RickJB, posted 06-27-2006 10:30 AM RickJB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by RickJB, posted 06-27-2006 10:38 AM CK has not yet responded

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 3163 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 6 of 239 (326783)
06-27-2006 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by CK
06-27-2006 10:33 AM


More to the point, do lions, tigers, leopards, panthers, cheetahs and pumas all count as kinds?

If so then (12*12)*365 = 52,560 pounds of tasty prey for the big moggies!

Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by CK, posted 06-27-2006 10:33 AM CK has not yet responded

  
ohnhai
Member (Idle past 3335 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 7 of 239 (326792)
06-27-2006 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by RickJB
06-27-2006 10:30 AM


the feed animals.
On the subject of feeding the predators the best way to store their food would be as live animals.

Doesn’t take a genius to see this greatly exacerbates our calculations as to the amount of food stuffs we need to load AND puts a dint in the whole 2x2 thing as well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by RickJB, posted 06-27-2006 10:30 AM RickJB has not yet responded

    
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2084 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 8 of 239 (326794)
06-27-2006 11:26 AM


Seriously the punch-line here is that it would take an ark the size of a small county to cart around a pair of every "kind" whatever that is. I don't really know why we need to make the ark story as believed by YECs even more rediculous than it already is. Obviously the story was told without the knowledge of how vast the "kind" biosphere actually is and as such the writers concieved of an ark big enough to deal with the many dozens rather than many thousands of species that would need to be preserved in a global flood.

As rediculous as you try to make a non-supernaturally protected ark seem, the YECer only has to resort to their favorite catch all, "things were different." I mean common, we don't know what traits the proto-cat or proto-horse creature had. Maybe all animals had some kind of super-awesome-hibernate feature that they subsequently lost due to super-fast-hyper-mega-in-kind evolution that occurred right after the flood.

Personally I think the whole YEC standard sequence of:

{identify problem with a scientific Genesis} => {insert ad-hoc spastic, insane asylum style reasoning} => {self gratifying plausability to maintain worldview}

is far more damning than just showing how rediculous it would be to get the myth to work in reality. At the end of the day you all are going to get some number of food/care stuffs that is many times the size of the proposed ark. But so what? As damning to the YEC misinterpretation of the flood story as it is, it is no where near as bad as the crazy talk that is bound to occur to reason away the base challange.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by CK, posted 06-27-2006 11:32 AM Jazzns has not yet responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2300 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 9 of 239 (326796)
06-27-2006 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Jazzns
06-27-2006 11:26 AM


Oh for sure - but I think it's just another useful tool to illustrate how much of a nonsense the story is. Sure it's never going to reach the die-hard but it's another factor for the undecided to consider.

Let's face it - in some respects the nonsense they come out with in response IS the most powerful argument going for it's non-occurance.

You've got to put down the bananas skins for them to slip up on! ;)

EDIT: actually now I think about it - it's more akin to giving them a banana, they throw the banana away and then chuck the skin on the ground and run at it.

Edited by CK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Jazzns, posted 06-27-2006 11:26 AM Jazzns has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by iano, posted 06-27-2006 12:45 PM CK has not yet responded

  
kalimero
Member (Idle past 617 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 10 of 239 (326797)
06-27-2006 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by CK
06-27-2006 5:43 AM


Dino's you say?
... (including dinosaurs).

From wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_size

Most Massive Theropods
Size by overall weight of all theropods over 4 tons.

Spinosaurus: 9-?20 tons
Tyrannosaurus: 6.7-?8.9 tons
Giganotosaurus: 4.16-?8 tons
Therizinosaurus: 6.2 tons
Tarbosaurus: 6 tons
Epanterias: 4.5 tons
Mapusaurus: 4-?5 tons
Edmarka: 4 tons
Carcharodontosaurus: 3-?4 tons
Suchomimus: 2.9-4.8 tons

Most Massive Sauropods
Size by overall weight of all sauropods over 20 tons.

Bruhathkayosaurus: ?157-?220 tons
Amphicoelias: ?125-?170 tons
Argentinosaurus: 66-88 tons
Antarctosaurus: 69 tons
Paralititan: 65-80 tons
Sauroposeidon: 50-60 tons
Brachiosaurus: 30-60 tons
Argyrosaurus: 45-55 tons
Supersaurus: 40-50 tons
Seismosaurus: 35-45 tons
Apatosaurus: 33-38 tons
Diplodocus: 10-20 tons
Barosaurus: 10-20 tons

Its hard to imagine the amount of food these animals would have required.

I also stumbled upon this (I know its just AiG - but still funny) :
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2.asp

The Bible teaches (in Genesis 1:29-30) that the original animals (and the first humans) were commanded to be vegetarian.

:laugh:
Also read: "Why Do We Find Dinosaur Fossils?" , there they talk about the flood and the ark.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CK, posted 06-27-2006 5:43 AM CK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Jazzns, posted 06-27-2006 11:49 AM kalimero has not yet responded
 Message 14 by Faith, posted 06-27-2006 1:09 PM kalimero has responded

    
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2084 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 11 of 239 (326803)
06-27-2006 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by kalimero
06-27-2006 11:34 AM


Re: Dino's you say?
It seems, if we are trying to make the BEST case for fitting everthing in the ark look rediculous, that we should assume the dinos were not on board. I mean seriously, there were dinos that alone would fill the entire volume of the ark if you ground them up into sausage. The "honest" YEC would have to either dismiss the literal reading of the passage that 2 of EVERY kind was on board or they just ad-hoc away saying that Noah went and collected eggs instead of the actual dinos.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by kalimero, posted 06-27-2006 11:34 AM kalimero has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by CK, posted 06-27-2006 11:51 AM Jazzns has not yet responded
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 06-27-2006 1:17 PM Jazzns has not yet responded
 Message 222 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-06-2006 7:47 PM Jazzns has not yet responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2300 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 12 of 239 (326804)
06-27-2006 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Jazzns
06-27-2006 11:49 AM


Re: Dino's you say?
Yes I think eggs are the general answer given.

Must have been tricky to stop the other animals eating them when they were running around the ark leaping from hay bale to hay bale!

So do we have figures for any other animals and then we can generate another running total?

Does anyone have the feed requirements for the humans (we have the water requirements).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Jazzns, posted 06-27-2006 11:49 AM Jazzns has not yet responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 114 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 13 of 239 (326818)
06-27-2006 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by CK
06-27-2006 11:32 AM


CK writes:

Anyone know a water requirement?

No idea CK, but often times a solution can be staring you in the face (hint: look at the title of the thread). Drilling a hole in the side of the ark below the waterline strikes me as an elegant solution. Things a bit tight? Drill another one

CK writes:

You've got to put down the bananas skins for them to slip up on!

Quite...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by CK, posted 06-27-2006 11:32 AM CK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Brian, posted 06-27-2006 1:14 PM iano has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31821
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 14 of 239 (326824)
06-27-2006 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by kalimero
06-27-2006 11:34 AM


You laugh at you know not what
The saureans you have listed were most likely merely varieties of an original Kind, only two of which would have been taken on the ark, and not necessarily the largest specimens either, or necessarily full grown. Much of what is today called a "species" is in other words most likely just a variety of the original Kind.

I'm unclear how many animals were still vegetarian at the time of the ark, although perhaps a vegetarian variety of dino was taken on the ark. I read on one creationist site recently that it is very likely most of the animals on the ark went into a state of dormancy or torpor, like hibernation, or a similar condition that occurs in some animals in hot weather that I can't remember the name of, and that this state of torpor may also occur under conditions of food deprivation. This makes sense. So that for a great number of the animals on the ark there was most likely not the enormous food and upkeep requirement that is supposed.

There is absolutely no doubt that the dinosaur fossils are evidence of the flood as in fact all the fossils over the earth are evidence of the flood. Such an event, causing rapid burial of intact creatures, is the only way the conditions for such preservation could have occurred. Some of the dinosaur beds show great numbers of them all piled up together as if washed into their grave by one great rush of water.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by kalimero, posted 06-27-2006 11:34 AM kalimero has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Brian, posted 06-27-2006 1:19 PM Faith has responded
 Message 22 by kalimero, posted 06-27-2006 2:10 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 169 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-04-2006 11:17 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Brian
Member (Idle past 3132 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 15 of 239 (326825)
06-27-2006 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by iano
06-27-2006 12:45 PM


Water Water everywhere, yet not a drop to drink!
Drilling a hole in the side of the ark below the waterline strikes me as an elegant solution.

I don't think drinking sea water would be very beneficial.

Brian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by iano, posted 06-27-2006 12:45 PM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by iano, posted 06-27-2006 7:52 PM Brian has responded

    
1
23456
...
16NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019