Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 7/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How to feed and keep the animals on the Ark?
John
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 165 (52654)
08-28-2003 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
08-28-2003 9:04 AM


They just took a little bit of food and then recycled.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 08-28-2003 9:04 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Bonobojones, posted 08-28-2003 7:48 PM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 165 (52798)
08-29-2003 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Bonobojones
08-28-2003 7:48 PM


Lots of undigested material in that stuff!!!
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Bonobojones, posted 08-28-2003 7:48 PM Bonobojones has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 165 (53035)
08-31-2003 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by joshua221
08-30-2003 8:52 PM


Magic? Do you really consider that an answer?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by joshua221, posted 08-30-2003 8:52 PM joshua221 has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 165 (53036)
08-31-2003 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Charlemange
08-31-2003 12:52 AM


Creationists like to push a figure like 17,000. But even that is far too many for the ark and the idea require some amazingly rapid hyper-evolution immediately after the flood in order to account for the millions of species around today.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Charlemange, posted 08-31-2003 12:52 AM Charlemange has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Charlemange, posted 08-31-2003 2:10 AM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 165 (53084)
08-31-2003 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Charlemange
08-31-2003 2:10 AM


quote:
If the number can be agreed at 17,000 - 20,000, it would seem like enough room for them.
How? Lets take me, for example. If you crammed me into a space 3x3x6 feet, I'd occupy 54 cubit feet, though I doubt I could survive a year like that. That means the ark could carry 28,111 creatures my size. This is without food, water, or sanitation.
Now lets add some other factors.
Your figure of 1,518,000 is total. We must factor in area occupied by the structure of the boat itself. This structure would have to be massive, if the ship had any chance at all to survive. You are probably going to have to subtract 25% of that volume. That gives us 1,138,500 cubic feet-- or 21,083 critters my size. Still, we are without food and water.
Lets say I eat about 1500 pounds of food a years. That is about one steer. That, dead and magically frozen, would take up another 3x3x6 space at least. So we cut our numbers in half and end up with 10,541.
Now for water... If I drink half a gallon of water a day, I'd need 24 magically fresh cubic feet for a year. Now we have 54 feet for me, 54 feet for food, and 24 feet for water. That totals 132 feet. That means the ship could hold 8625 creatures my size.
Now sanitation... I can't stand in my own poo for a year. I wouldn't survive. Nor could any other animal. So, we have to pipe this stuff to somewhere and down is the only way to go. I doubt Noah had pumps, nor could 8 people transport this volume of waste up and out the 3x3 opening in the top. We need the whole bottom deck for septic services, and that wouldn't be adequate but humor me. Thus, the habitable volume is further reduced by a third, giving us 759,000 cubit feet and room for 5750 creatures my size.
Still on the subject of sanitation, lets think about methane from that lower level. Simply put, everything dies.
Now, we need corridors. Noah and his busy crew are supposed to care for the animals. This means that you can't cram cage against cage, you have to have access to the cages. This will reduce the number you could house by another third, easily. You end up with about 3834 creatures my size.
Now, for the care-taking... We have 3,834 animals and 8 care-takers. I dare you to find a zoo that can function with those ratios. That is 1.3 days of care per animal over the course of the year.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Charlemange, posted 08-31-2003 2:10 AM Charlemange has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 165 (53135)
08-31-2003 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Trump won
08-31-2003 8:07 PM


quote:
Hybrids of wild trout (freshwater) and farmed salmon (migratory species) have been discovered in Scotland (New Scientist 146:22, May 27, 1995), suggesting that the differences between freshwater and marine types may be quite minor.
Did you notice that many species of trout migrate from fresh to salt water? That should tell you that the genus has a peculiar gift for the transition. And the same is true of salmon. This is really not much of a fresh/salt comparison.
Tell you what. If you think the differences are minor, go get yourself an aquarium, set up a nice salt-water tank and fill it with fresh-water fish. Or try the reverse. That simple little experiment ought to dispell the illusion.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Trump won, posted 08-31-2003 8:07 PM Trump won has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 165 (54333)
09-07-2003 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by allenroyboy
09-07-2003 3:51 AM


quote:
False. The hidden but defacto statment of faith is the religious paradigm of Ontological Naturalism. i.e., Nature is all there is, has ever been or ever will be, and nothing outside of nature can influence it in any way.
Wrong on soooo many levels, but that is another thread.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by allenroyboy, posted 09-07-2003 3:51 AM allenroyboy has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 165 (54336)
09-07-2003 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by allenroyboy
09-07-2003 4:59 AM


quote:
ATTENTION! ATTENTION! ATTENTION!
Randy allenroyboy here shows you how to debate!

First, focus on something irrelevant. In this case, focus on the fact that zoos display animals in spacious environments. It doesn't matter. Randy's point wasn't about pen size, comfort or breeding, but about the ratio of caretakers to animals.
And this really kills me....
quote:
1. zoos conspicuoucly lack even the most rudimentary labor saving devices.
Lol... zoos conspicuously lack labor saving devices, but ACTUALLY incorporate labor saving devices like mad.
quote:
2. the one-on-one care of animals in the zoo is very different from the care en masse, for strictly emergency survival, of large numbers of animals.
This is true. Zoo's strive to have ALL of there animals survive. Understaffed emergency care means you lose animals to attrition. This may be acceptable when you are trying to save a dozen stranded bears, but it is not acceptable when the loss of even one means the species vanishes.
quote:
That Noah was a bronze age sheepherd is another strawman.
hmmm.... he lived in the bronze age. He herded. This is a straw man?
quote:
To Creationists, Noah did not live in the Bronze Age, but in a pre-flood world about which nothing has been left to know but what is found in the Bible.
Oh, I see. You get to make up whatever you like.
On the subject of straw men...
quote:
Just ask your relatives what they would do to transport all the animals on their farm from wherever they are now in the USA to Austrailia (or visa versa).
I don't think anyone here will argue that animals could not survive a few days confined as per the ark, even a few weeks. Unfortunately for you, the critters were on the ark for considerably longer than that. And you need to consider the differences between the ark environment and modern transportation methods.
1) Most transport vehicles are not sealed containers. There is a lot of air flow. Aircraft are an exception, but then, one would take a flight longer than 24 hours or so.
2) Waste disposal is a simple matter of sweeping out the truck, train, whatever; and hosing it down.
3) Food and water does not have to be transported with the animals. The animals can be fed and watered at stops. The exception would be ships, but transport ships are not packed with nearly as many animals are staffed by more than 8 people. Oh, and modern transport ships are a lot larger than the ark and have fancy-schmancy gidgets like electricity and plumbing.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by allenroyboy, posted 09-07-2003 4:59 AM allenroyboy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by allenroyboy, posted 09-10-2003 1:23 AM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 165 (54818)
09-10-2003 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by allenroyboy
09-10-2003 1:23 AM


quote:
Woodmorappe lists 6 reasons why a Zoo is irrelevant to the Ark. The size of the enclosures was just one. Since a zoo is irrelevant to the Ark, then Randy's reference to the number of caretakers is irrelevant.
I dare you to write that out as a formal syllogism. The logic really really really really doesn't work.
quote:
If Randy want's to make his number of caretaker claim valid for the Ark, he must first deal all 6 of Woodmorappe's reasons and show why the Ark is really like a zoo.
No. You are wrong. The ark doesn't have to be like a zoo for the comparison to work. Only specific elements have to match. Those elements are 1) the number of animals and 2) the amount of care each needs. If anything, comparing the ark to a zoo is being unreasonably fair. Animals in close quarters as per the ark would actually require MORE care to stay alive than would animals in a zoo, over the length of time that they would have been contained in the ark.
quote:
I Said: To Creationists, Noah did not live in the Bronze Age, but in a pre-flood world about which nothing has been left to know but what is found in the Bible.
You Said: Oh, I see. You get to make up whatever you like.
No. We choose to start with the revealed history of the world rather than the fairy-tale of evolutionism, Neanderthal man, cave men, stone age and all that bunk.

LOL....... Your answer IS that you get to make up what you like!!!!
quote:
It was like taking animals from a zoo or a farm and transporting them a long ways away.
Yes, I know that and I acknowledged it. You are not, however talking about a trip of a few days. Comparing a trip of a few days to a trip of half a years is not reasonable. The conditions of care on the ark would be far more similar to the long term care associated with a zoo than to the minimal care associated with some forms of domestic livestock transport. For one, livestock have been bred to survive in captivity. Not so with most animals.
quote:
The Ark was not sealed. It likely had a ventalation system built in associated with the "window" of the Ark.
Check the dimensions of that window. It was only one cubit. Try an experiment. If you scale down the ark by .0001 you get a box about 5.5 on a side. Now, if the on cubit window runs all the way from end to end, which doesn't strike me as being supported by the text, it would be an opening of 675 square feet. Now scale that down as well, and you get a vent hole .0675 square feet. That is .26 feet on a side, or 3.12 inches. That would provide just enough air to let you suffocate slowly.
Or take a trip to a commercial egg farm. You'll notice some truly massive ventilation fans. These are required to keep the chickens alive. If those fans go down, the combined body heat of the hens will heat the building enough to kill the chickens-- then there is the CO2 and other waste gases. The ark may have a window, but it is utterly inadequate.
quote:
It would be a simple thing for waste to be dumped into lower deck compartment.
Cutting the room for animals down by a third...
quote:
The ventilation system could draw smells out of the waste compartment/s directly up through the "window" at the top (The typical 'out house' does this simply with a ventilation pipe.)
Nothing Noah could have built could have done this. He simply didn't have the technology.
By the way, a vent pipe won't work. You have to have air flow, not a single hole. With a single hole you get trapped air, pretty much. Air wouldn't circulate, it'd just stay put.
quote:
Woodmorappe discusses the efficiency of a passive air circulation system.
Do you intend to discuss things or should I just call up Woodie?
quote:
Woodmorappe explores all kinds of simple ideas with proven track records which would make feeding and watering animals much simpler than most people suppose.
I've seen some of those 'proven' methods. I'm temped to consider him outright insane.
quote:
He also discusses simple, easy, nearly maintainence free ways for dealing with waste that, it seems, many people have never heard of.
Maybe it is a waste of time to debate with you? All I see is 'Woodie says this and Woodie says that.' You think his ideas have merit, you present them and you defend them. Otherwise this is pointless.
quote:
How would you, if you had to transport a bunch of animals from here to somewhere else do so with as little work as possible? This is what Woodmorappe has done. Certainly he isn't the last word on the subject, but you cannot ignore his work either.
Woodmorappe's solutions are absurd. These are the things I'd do if I wanted to kill everything on board. His ideas are, however, testable. Why haven't they been tested? Why, in fact, aren't these miraculous-- and they would be-- labor saving tips incorporated in commercial agriculture? Answer: because it wouldn't work, and anyone familiar with caring for animals knows that.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by allenroyboy, posted 09-10-2003 1:23 AM allenroyboy has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 165 (56932)
09-22-2003 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by reddish
09-22-2003 12:27 AM


Re: You don't get off that easily
quote:
Noah or one his family members wrote the book of Genesis.
Crash pointed out that some of what is in Genesis occurred after Noah and his family died. Some of Genesis occurred before anything existed at all, and much of it happened hundreds of years before Noah lived. That doesn't speak much for reliability.
quote:
If they put all of the animals they knew about on the ark, to them this would be ALL animals, since they didn't know about elephants.
So the flood wasn't global and the ark did not really contain all animals? Interesting...
quote:
Also: I think Noah used tree bark.
Noah used tree bark for what?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by reddish, posted 09-22-2003 12:27 AM reddish has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by helena, posted 09-22-2003 10:47 AM John has replied
 Message 140 by reddish, posted 09-22-2003 10:14 PM John has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 150 of 165 (57390)
09-24-2003 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by helena
09-22-2003 10:47 AM


Re: You don't get off that easily
quote:
Everybody is one of Noah's family, sort of...
True, but I doubt this is what was meant, else I'd have the same authorial weight as good ole Noah.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by helena, posted 09-22-2003 10:47 AM helena 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