Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Flood - Animals and their minimum food requirement
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 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 replied
 Message 4 by RickJB, posted 06-27-2006 10:30 AM CK has replied
 Message 10 by kalimero, posted 06-27-2006 11:34 AM CK has not replied
 Message 18 by Faith, posted 06-27-2006 1:24 PM CK has not replied
 Message 76 by nwr, posted 06-27-2006 11:15 PM CK has not replied
 Message 140 by Brian, posted 07-05-2006 5:20 AM CK has not replied
 Message 142 by Bible Backer, posted 09-04-2006 4:28 AM CK has replied
 Message 148 by Cthulhu, posted 09-04-2006 8:32 AM CK has not replied
 Message 238 by Vacate, posted 10-01-2006 11:26 AM CK has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 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 replied

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

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 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 replied

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

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 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 replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 21 of 239 (326839)
06-27-2006 1:46 PM


TOPIC WARNING
This topic has nothing to do with fossils - if you want to discuss fossils and the flood - start a thread. It has nothing at all to do with the topic.
This topic has nothing to do with theories of "hibernation-like-torpor" - if you want to propose that, start a thread. It has nothing at all to do with the topic.
This is a topic to discuss the food requirements of animals that might have been present on the ark. If people want to suggest alternative reasons why they did not need to eat - start a thread.

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Jazzns, posted 06-27-2006 3:56 PM CK has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 26 of 239 (326888)
06-27-2006 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Jazzns
06-27-2006 3:56 PM


Re: Hibernation changes food requirements
quote:
I think the super-awesome-hibernation-skillz of the animals may be a "valid" *cough* response to the whole food requirements problem. What would be interesting would be to take the total food requirments once we have it and see how much we would have to shrink it to fit in the ark. That percentage would be what the hibernating animals would have to live on.
That seems fairly sensible to me - but I REFUSE to budge on anyone introducing the idea that Noah had refrigerators on the ark or access to pizza delivery.
Edited by CK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Jazzns, posted 06-27-2006 3:56 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 28 of 239 (326891)
06-27-2006 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Faith
06-27-2006 3:59 PM


Why is Faith allowed to drag every fucking topic off course?
quote:
All that detail about the construction ought to be enough evidence of the truth of the story.
What does the construction of the Ark have to do with the op? How the material was actually stored is NOT the purpose of this topic.
quote:
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.
What does that statement add to this very specific discussion?
Do you have anything sensible or useful to say? Anything more useful than "God said" - you have the faith and belief forums for that.
What is difficult to understand about the fact that the science forums are for the discussion of SCIENCE?
Edited by CK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 06-27-2006 3:59 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 06-27-2006 4:11 PM CK has not replied
 Message 35 by deerbreh, posted 06-27-2006 4:28 PM CK has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 33 of 239 (326899)
06-27-2006 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Jazzns
06-27-2006 4:16 PM


Re: Can we get a number?
That's a big number - even if we say that 90% of the animals have super-awesome-hibernation-skillz - that leaves us with 3.75 million pounds of food - what volume would that take? (for those better than me with numbers?)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Jazzns, posted 06-27-2006 4:16 PM Jazzns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Wepwawet, posted 06-27-2006 4:36 PM CK has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 34 of 239 (326900)
06-27-2006 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Faith
06-27-2006 4:20 PM


Re: Can we get a number?
and how did you come to that figure? From where? On what basis?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Faith, posted 06-27-2006 4:20 PM Faith has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 94 of 239 (327097)
06-28-2006 9:03 AM


Construction of the ark
Please take detailed discussion of the ark and it's construction and so on to this new thread:
http://EvC Forum: The Ark - materials, construction and seaworthness -->EvC Forum: The Ark - materials, construction and seaworthness

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 109 of 239 (327462)
06-29-2006 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Omnivorous
06-29-2006 10:27 AM


Re: Like a fish out of water
We already know that Noah and his chums would be killed from trying to breath steam - how would this affect the fishies? wouldn't they more than likely boil to death before anything killed them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Omnivorous, posted 06-29-2006 10:27 AM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Omnivorous, posted 06-29-2006 11:31 AM CK has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 125 of 239 (328085)
07-01-2006 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by ptman
07-01-2006 6:57 PM


Re: Just a little question
quote:
It is at least an honest answer.
It is an honest answer and nobody has a problem with that. However in those forums (the science ones) it counts for nothing. Otherwise Atheists like me could just argue that it's untrue because "the bible is very far-fetched".
Edited by CK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by ptman, posted 07-01-2006 6:57 PM ptman has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 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

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024