|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How to feed and keep the animals on the Ark? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
I am hoping that the Noachic Flood proponents such as allenroyboy will address this problem.
How is it that Noah and Co. were able to stow enough food for all of the animals?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
OK, come on all you believers in the Flood!!
Why don't you want to discuss this??
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
This is something I figured out about a year ago in another thread in this forum.
Flood believers, what do you think? OK, here is something I have intimate knowledge of; feeding horses. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Well, yes, smaller, but according to some creationists Hyracotherium is not a horse at all, so that wouldn't work for them. In addition, Hyracotherium was a browser, not a grazer. It was a forest dweller rather than a plains dweller. It ate tender leaves and the tips of branches. That would be even harder for Noah to store than dried grasses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: The following info is from that same discussion from a year ago. (It's message 29 in the "Animals on the Ark" thread in this topic) It was posted by John Paul and is, according to him, from Woodmorappe's book. It referrs to the foods which were stored on the Ark.:
quote: My reply (message 53 from the "Animals on the Ark" thread) is just as good now as a comment as it was then, so here it is:
quote: Please forgive the incredulousness and sarcasm of my reply to Woodmorappe's suggestions that Noah had access to compressed hay or pelleted horse feed, but COME ON! It is laughable to suggest such a thing. Have you read Woodmorappe's book? If you have, and if you believe it, where do you think Noah got the pelleted feed from? Also, there was never any discussion about the fresh water. Where would they have kept the fresh water?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: But what about the fact that some fish are salt-water fish and others are fresh water fish. Also, some need warm waters and others need cool waters. If the entire surface of the Earth was covered with water, there would be a mass die-off of marine life of all kinds because their environment, in fact the very water they "breathe", would be radically different in a matter of days or weeks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: There were plenty of food preservation techniques in existence back then. Cheese, cured and dried meats, and cured olives come to mind. However, these kinds of food are appropriate for humans, not animals, and you are also correct, of course, that none of these things could possibly keep for 120 years. Cheese could keep the longest at maybe 5 years.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Well, YOU are the one who has declared that Woodmorappe's evidence is good, so I think it aught to be you who defends you position. I have quoted parts from his book which I find to be incredible, such as the claim that Noah had access pelleted horse and cattle feed. I don't need to read the rest of his book to know that that is an utterly ridiculous claim, and that anything he writes further about it will not make it any less ridiculous. What I want to know is if you agree that it is likely or even possible that Noah used pelleted horse and cattle feed on the Ark, since you are putting Woodmoreappe's book forward as support for your position.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Right, although I do know that racehorses and some there horses used for competition have been trained to pee at the sound of a whistle so the drug testing folks can get a sample. Of course, the drug testers are holding out little cups on long poles and only need to catch a little bit of urine. I, for one, would NEVER, EVER want to stand behind a mare with a bucket to catch her pee. Talk about splashing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
allenroyboy, just so you know, my husband (Zhimbo) and I have ordered a used copy of Woodmorappe's book that we found on line for a good price.
He has been casually collecting "crank" or fringe literature for a long time; he has some scientology instruction books, Veliovski's books, John Mack's alien abduction book, The Bell Curve, several of Morris' books, etc. This will be a good addition, I am thinking.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: By this logic, anyone could simply say "read the book", and what kind of debate is that? If someone asked you a question of Biblical interpretation or fact, would you simply say, "Read the Bible"? I DID quote parts of Woodmorappe's book, and I commented upon it. Why do you refuse to respond? I also assume that you didn't read the post where I informed the board that I was buying the book. Once I have the book and have read it, will you answer the wuestion about whaere you think Noah got the pelleted horse and cattle food from? The only reason I can figure why no one bothers to read woodmorappe's book is that they are not the least bit interested in what he says. They could care less if he has provided any valid evidence. All they want to do is argue and ridicule. I'm already engaged in one discussion that is taking up the time I have available for this sort of stuff.WhatI believe about what woodmorappe has to say is irrelevant. What does the evidence say?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: What part of TalkOrigins do you find intellectually dishonest? Is it the statement of faith? (Oh, wait, they don't have one. You can be any religion and contribute to the site as long as you follow the standards of science) How about the lack of references to professional peer-reviewed scientific journal articles? (Oh, wait, they have lots and lots of references to peer-reviewed science papers on TalkOrigins, and all those other sites don't. Hmm...) They should also be taken to task because they don't provide links to the Christian sites which have rebuttals to their articles. (Oh, wait, they actually DO provide links to the Creation 'science' sites, and it's the Creationist sites that do not provide such links to TalkOrigins. Makes you wonder if the Creationist sites don't want their readers to seek out any other information or try to verify the claims of the website...) Many of the supposed experts and scientists contributing to or referenced on TalkOrigins have degrees purchased from diploma mills, are claiming expertise far outside of their legitimately-earned degrees, or haven't been active in their fields (i.e. published in a real professional scienctific journal) for years. (Oh, hold up, that's actually what the deal is on theos Creation 'science' sites. The credentials of the folks at TalkOrigins are legitimate. No diploma mill doctorates there!) ------------------"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Great! I look forward to reading it. Maybe you could briefly describe the method here? Also, does the book describe where Noah got pelleted feed from? Is there any evidence of the pelleting technology being in existence back then, for example?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Um, no. Science is conducted under methodological materialism. Ontological materialism is a philosophical stance, not a scientific one. One is perfectly free to believe in any religion one wants and still do science, as is demonstrated by one of my husband's advisors at University. He is a devout Christian in his personal life, but an excellent research scientist because he follows methodological materialism. In short, he doesn't try to invoke miracles or use anything other than repeatable, obsevable-by-anyone-evidence in his scientific work, but he has his own personal beliefs which are not scientific. Some of the people who have written articles and who run the TalkOriging website are religious.
quote: Methodological materialism is different from ontological materialism. Science operates under the former. The latter is NOT required of any scientist to do science, as my husband's advisor is evidence of. Oh, tell me, are there any non-theists involved with any Creationist website or movement? What was that you were saying about blind faith not being required for belief in Creationism?
quote: I have read quite a few articles from Creationist sites, actually. I am sorry, but I don't consider Creationist "journals" to be legitimate peer-review. They are not legitimate because they have stated up front that any evidence that contradicts their interpretation of the Christian Bible is to be rejected. Real science does not pressupose what one is "supposed" to find in nature and reject whatever doesn't fit into this preconceived idea. I retract my claim of there not being links to TalkOrigins on the Creationist site trueorigins. However, neither AiG nor ICR, the two largest Creation 'science' organizations out there, include much in the way of links to real scientific information.
quote: How many of them are active researchers? How many of them are doing research in their field of expertise?
quote: Who is that, and where did he earn his degrees, and what papers has he published in mainstream Biology journals?
quote: Um, Kent Hovind isn't dead. Neither are Carl Baugh, Kelly Segraves, and Harold Slusher, yet they all have claimed degrees and credentials that they have not actually earned. Besides, what does it matter if he is dead or not?
quote: No, sorry, it's true.
quote: Excellent! I'd love to read them. Please link to them. BTW, you seem to have forgotten to address my accusation that many of the people associated with Creationist organizations, while they do hold legitimate degrees, are claiming authority and expertise on subjects havng little or nothing to do with the field of their degree. For instance, you have Henry Morris himself, who's degree was in Hydraulics, yet he has claimed expert knowledge in fields in which he is not an expert at all, such as Paleontology, Biology, Cosmology, and Physics. Phillip Johnson expounds upon Biology as if he is an expert, yet he has a Law degree, and no scientific or Biology training at all. ------------------"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge." [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-07-2003] [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-07-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: No, John Paul was the EvC member I was debating with, and he is a Creationist who was citing Woodmorappe's book in DEFENSE of his claim that the Ark story could have really happened. Why would he deliberately ignore pertinent information? I gave you the topic name and message numbers at the begining of this thread. You can easily go read the exchanges for yourself. This is all going to be moot in a week or so when we get Woodmorappe's book here. Then I'll be able to read what you don't want to discuss.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024