|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The Flood - Animals and their minimum food requirement | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I mean seriously, there were dinos that alone would fill the entire volume of the ark if you ground them up into sausage. Don't be ridiculous. We're talking about a space as big as a football field with three stories of that size. However, I don't think they took any big dinosaurs on the ark, only a small variety. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
A state of hibernation-like-torpor induced by food deprivation is a theory I just ran across yesterday. Makes sense to me.
http://www.creationism.org/caesar/tough.htm
The enormous difficulty Noah and his family members would have had in feeding all the animals on the ark would have led to many animals’ not receiving adequate amounts of food. As it turns out, lack of food is one of the chief causes of hibernation or estivation among animals. Richard G. Van Gelder, Chairman of the Department of Mammology at the American Museum of Natural History, writes:
Although hibernation and estivation are generally thought of as mechanisms enabling an animal to avoid a season of excessive heat or cold, it seems that these dormant states are as much as, or more, related to A TIME OF LITTLE OR NO FOOD as to temperature. There are actually various levels of dormancy, the most extreme being called true hibernation. It involves a marked drop in body temperature, reduced metabolism, and a condition of torpidity, in which the animal has lost sensibility or the power of motion partially or completely. (1) [emphasis added] He further notes:
Akin to hibernation, and perhaps identical to it, is estivation. This summer torpidity has been far less studied than has hibernation. THE INDUCEMENT FOR ESTIVATION SEEMS TO BE THE DISAPPEARANCE OF GREEN VEGETATION early in the summer in, for example, some parts of western United States. The Washington ground squirrel (Spermophilus washingtoni) emerges from hibernation in late January or early February and breeds, the young being born in February or March. By the end of June the adults have gone into estivation, and, without emerging from their burrows, go into hibernation, remaining in a state of torpor for seven or eight months. (2) [emphasis added] Such a state of languor, induced both by adverse climatic conditions and a lack of food ” particularly greens, which could not stay fresh for long aboard the ark ” would have annulled the need for Noah and his seven shipmates to feed and clean up after an enormous number of animals. They would only have needed food and upkeep (Gen. 6:19-21) for the small number of species which under no circumstances slip into hibernation or estivation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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. If this is true, why is it that there isn't a single science department in any high school or university that teach this? Denial I'm sure. It's obviously true, Brian, the fossils themselves prove the Flood. Denial is the only way to explain why it isn't recognized, and that has to be because 150-200 years ago somebody decided that there was no flood and that things have been the same forever, and nobody is willing or able to question this received wisdom except us creationists.
There may be no doubt in you mind, but history and archaeology has shown the Flood to be a myth. That's the myth. They've shown nothing of the kind. They just decided long ago that it's a myth because they liked the idea of assuming that the fossils evolved from each other up that stack of disparate sediments that they laughably labeled eras in time. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
In any case, animals confined in stalls and cages for a year aren't going to be consuming a lot of calories.
All that detail about the construction ought to be enough evidence of the truth of the story. God isn't in the business of proving every little thing. He provides enough evidence to convict the scoffers of guilt, and otherwise expects to be believed because of Who He is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I was just answering the usual stupid ideas about the flood that you haven't bothered to call off topic until I answered them. So sorry, I will leave you alone now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
A horse? I would guess that some 90% of the creatures on board the ark were not as big as a horse.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It's a given that the ark was a physical impossibliity. Otherwise, creationists would have built a working prototype by now. It's extremely expensive for starters, and too many specifics of the design are not known. Nevertheless many have imagined it, and here is somebody who is building a 1/5 working scale model of the ark he intends to launch: BBC NEWS | Europe | Dutchman builds modern Noah's Ark From Google Images, Noah's Ark Interior And just for context, a history of drawings of the ark. The fourth down gets the dimensions right at least:
Missing Link
| Answers in Genesis
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Rainwater is certainly not salty, but as I've posted a few times recently, it is also thought that the original oceans were not salty either, since the antediluvian world was watered by "mist." The idea is that salt is leached from the sides of the continents, and from river runoff, into the oceans, which is supposedly increasing in saltiness. Also there was supposedly just one continental mass at the time of the flood, which separated as a result of breaching of the sea floor by the "fountains of the deep" (which also started volcanic activity at the bottom of the oceans), and after the separation of the continents there was of course much more surface to be eroded and leached from.
So it is not inconceivable that ocean water was drinkable. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : grammar
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I think there is a valid point here that is being burried and ignored. So, let us assume that the animal hibernated through the ordeal. What happens after they landed? It would have taken weeks for the seeds that survived the flood to germinate and grow into plants for the plant eaters to feast on. It would have taken the plant eaters at least another year to pump out babies. In the mean time, were the carnivores expected to sit there and wait while the herbivores recovered their populations? The idea is that if many animals hibernated, that would cut down on the total amount of food and upkeep required, not that the need for food and upkeep would be completely eliminated. What you have described is what would have been the situation in any case, hibernation or no hibernation. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Then I should have answered Dr. Jones I guess. But the point was just that hibernation is a completely different subject from the problem of food after they left the ark.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The shape of the ark is not given, {edit: Shape meaning things like rounding and tapering it for seaworthiness} only the dimensions. If you were to try to build from such directions, how could you guarantee the outcome? I think it's amazing that someone is willing to attempt a 1/5 scale model and take it onto water. By the look of the picture he's being creative about the design where there are no explicit instructions available. The general size/proportions of the thing is similar to some modern battleships. There's no reason it couldn't be made seaworthy simply using current knowledge, but again, instructions are not given in the Bible. Was it just a rectangular box? Hard to know.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Your 'layer of fresh water' on top of the seas is falsified by the biblical texts that claim undersea fountains gushed water as well. Wouldn't one assume the rainwater was collected in vessels of some sort? However, again, according to some creationists, and it makes sense to me, there is no reason to think the ocean was salty at the time. Which I also said in Message 83 I have some beautiful tropical fish that take quite a bit of looking after, God knows where Naoh got all the aquariums, airpumps, filters, to keep these babies alive. I think we have to assume that God made sure some sea life survived without the ark. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Not possible... as has been explained many times in this thread and others. I missed the "explanation." Could you direct me to it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Good point. I guess it was stored water and rainwater then.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024