|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,787 Year: 4,044/9,624 Month: 915/974 Week: 242/286 Day: 3/46 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Noah's Ark volume calculation | |||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
prophet writes: Each time these questions are examined it seems to be done with prejudice motives. Scientists have an agenda; to prove it can't happen. The "Religious" researchers have an agenda; to prove it did happen. Prejudice it seems, takes precedence. When has a joint aventure transpired with the goal being discovery first? Your paranoid side is showing. Trust me, scientists are not out to disprove religion. No one is funding research proposals to disprove creation ex nihilo, a miraculous origin of life, Noah's flood, or the burning bush. I know this site has a number of atheist members, but moderation of this site will not be antagonistic to religion, not if I have anything to say about it. I'm a deist myself and I run the joint. This site exists to promote science education, specifically to promote the teaching of genuine science in science class. Why don't we just stick to the topic of whether Noah's ark was big enough to get the job done. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
prophet writes: No - Percy... My paranoid side is not showing... I have NO problem dismissing "religions." Well, now you're just displaying more confusion. Your paranoid side is showing because you believe scientists are out to get your religion, which is what you said inMessage 250, that "Scientists have an agenda: to prove it can't happen." Scientists have no such agenda, which is why your paranoid side is showing. I again suggest you just stick to the topic about whether Noah's ark was big enough to get the job done. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
The San Diego Zoo has 4000 animals (950 different species) and employs 1900 people. That's approximately 2 animals per person. If Noah's ark had 950 species then because of the extra pairs of clean animals 2000 animals would be a fair estimate. That's 250 animals per person, or more than 100 times the workload of employees at the San Diego Zoo. Granted Noah didn't have a payroll or scientists in residence or visitors and so forth, but you get the idea.
Trucks carrying supplies for the animals arrive every day at the San Diego Zoo. Noah's ark would have had to carry enough supplies for the entire 9-month voyage. As discussed earlier in this thread using the example of sheep, because of the very narrow quarters and the stress from the noise and knocking about of transport, many animals will only survive for a short period of time such as a few days at most. After that mortality becomes an issue, so many animals on the ark would have required moving about space and very calm waters. Animals when stressed or frightened will often hurt themselves and others. Noah would have needed a medical officer equally expert with pandas and people. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
prophet writes: I find it extremely difficult to believe ytou cannot answer this question yourself. You can put a fish in a small pond with a big gator... If that gator does not eat the fish soon enough it will adopt it as a friend. This is a frequency in nature. Gator's adopting fish as friends? Would it surprise you to learn that most people probably think you're making this up?
Also baby predators can easily be tempered to tolerate as friends, animals it would otherwise eat. I can't even get my cats, a brother and sister pair, to tolerate each other much of the time, let alone other tasty animals that they've been exposed to since kitten-hood. Noah must have kept the small rodents in some very secure cages. Even when the cats aren't hungry and just want to play, for the mouse it's usually fatal. Same for snakes, they really love snakes! Of course there's always the food chain. Mice are food for cats are food for fishers and foxes and coyotes are food for bobcats etc. It's not like the predators think, "Oh, he's a predator, too, I'll leave him alone." With a predator you've got a problem with every animal small enough to be considered prey. Here's a short excerpt from About.com about keeping big cats as pets (Big Cats: Should Tigers and Lions Be Kept as Pets?):
Owners need to remember that even the smaller of the non domestic cats, such as bobcats, servals, and lynx, are not at all like domestic cats. Different species have different temperaments, but all of these cats can exhibit unwanted behavior from urine marking to aggression. Most of these cats will need spacious outdoor cages in order to thrive. It is a huge commitment and responsibility to properly care for smaller wild cats such as bobcats. The large cats such as lions, tigers, leopards, and cougars are even more problematic. Even if they are not overtly aggressive, their natural tendencies must be remembered. They are predators, and even at play their huge size and strength makes them a threat. Many people do keep big cats like bobcats, tigers, and lions as pets. Tigers and lions are surprisingly easy and inexpensive to purchase as pets. This means anyone can own a large powerful carnivore whether or not they are equipped to properly care for them. Pet tigers have been involved in several fatalities and maulings in the US and Canada in recent years. So getting back on-topic about whether the volume of Noah's ark was sufficient, it sounds like the larger predators would have required considerable space, and that it would have had to have been provided in a way so as to keep them from preying on smaller animals. Can you go through for us the process of estimation and calculation you would use to calculate the required volume of the ark? --Percy Edited by Percy, : Add missing close paren.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
prophet writes: I am currently working those equasions and will display my findings soon. I'm having a bit of conflict as one post claims 127 different "types" another 29,000. One claims a sheep is an average size as given by a creation site, but that does in no way validae the average size animal. So, I wish to do a more rational approach than what I've seen illustrated. As gets pointed out in every thread where this comes up, including this one, the fundamental problem always turns out to be that there's no definition of "kind", with the result that there's no way to know how many animals were on the ark. Define "kind" too similarly to species and the ark is obviously not big enough, not even close. Define "kind" too close to higher levels of organization like family and order and you end up needing hyper-evolution in order to produce the huge variety of species we see today, which isn't the topic of this thread but which you obviously also want to avoid. I think you would be well advised to abandon the guesses from creationists and base your work upon information from the real world, like I suggested in my Message 284 about the San Diego zoo, which knows how to keep animals alive for not only months but years. You argue elsewhere that even if science cannot prove the ark happened, science also cannot prove it didn't happen. The reality is that science doesn't prove anything, it only supports hypotheses with evidence which when sufficiently confirmed may attain the status of accepted theory. Your argument equates to saying that just because there's no evidence in support of the flood hypothesis that that doesn't mean it didn't happen, which no one here would disagree with, but we're baffled why you find this comforting, because it groups your hypothesis with everything else that never happened. Like the cow jumping over the moon: no evidence, just like the flood. Like Pinocchio's nose growing when he lied: no evidence, just like the flood. Need I go on? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
prophet writes: Percy writes: As gets pointed out in every thread where this comes up, including this one, the fundamental problem always turns out to be that there's no definition of "kind", with the result that there's no way to know how many animals were on the ark. I am aware of this dilema ...I am also, avoiding it for the time being. You can only avoid the problem by assuming that kind is equivalent to species. That would require the ark to carry something in the neighborhood of a million animals. If you can figure out how the ark could carry a million animals then no one will argue with you about your definition of kind, but can't we pretty much agree that the ark could never have carried a million animals? So you need a definition of kind that isn't equivalent to species, because otherwise you can't know how many animals you'll need room for. Defining kind is fundamental to the problem. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024