How to feed and keep the animals on the Ark?

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?

OK, come on all you believers in the Flood!!Why don't you want to discuss this??

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.

quote:

---

Well now, Schraf, I think I can get our creationist friends out of this muddle before they even get here. All they need to do is accept Eohippus (= Hyracotherium) as the Noachic representative of the Horse Kind, and they're in the clear! Medium dog-sized, eats and drinks less, maybe even easy to housebreak.....

---

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.

quote:

---

I recommend the book "Noah's Ark: A feasibility Study" by John Woodmorappe, 1996.

---

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:

---

On page 19 of the book Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study it breaks it down.

​

settled barn-dried hay- 21,800 cubic meters

​

lightly-compressed hay pellet- 7,060 cubic meters

​

doubly-compressed hay- 5,410 cubic meters

​

pellted horse food and pellted cattle food- 3,030 cubic meters...

---

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:

---

OK.

​

Let me get this straight.

​

You are really wanting me to believe that Noah had PELLETED HAY AND HORSE FEED? You have got to be completely crazy if you are asking me to believe such a thing. Oh, and what the heck is "doubly-compressed hay", and how did Noah compress it?

​

Did they drive down to the feed store in their Ford pickup to buy it in 100 pound bags, or did they have the feed store deliver it to the Ark building site on their delivery flatbed? Do you think they would have chosen a 9% protein or a 12% protein? Do you think they went for the Purina, or did they choose Omolene, or another brand?

​

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!

---

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?

quote:

---

Only land-dwelling, air-breathing animals and birds were on the Ark (Genesis 7:14,15; 21-23). The sceptic's caricature that Noah had fish tanks on the ark is wrong."

---

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.

quote:

---

No food preservation techniques of any kind, largely.

---

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.

quote:

---

Woodmorappe discusses all this and much more. I suggest you have your local library get the book for you. It won't cost you a thing. The information is readily available. All you have to do is get it. If you don't want to get the book, then perhaps you don't care all that much. If that's the case, why do you spend so much time on this BBS talking about it?

---

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.

quote:

---

He invokes could have this and could have that without ever saying how. The pelleted hay (on page 16 in my copy) is especially absurd as is training animals to pee in buckets but he never says it was done, just that it could have been done giving him an out.

---

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.

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.

quote:

---

I merely pointed out woodmorappes book as a resource that has already dealt with nearly every point that has been brought up on this BBS. For that reason it seems a huge waste of my time to reproduce here what anyone with a modicum of curiosity could find for themselves.

---

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?

quote:

---

From my years of experience with Talk.Origins, on the other hand, I find the place a wholely unreliable source - and has a comple lack intellectually honest, not to mention a dismal failure to grasp reality.

---

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."

quote:

---

page 97. Methods for greatly reducing hay density.

---

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?

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.

---

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:

---

Kuhnian Post-Empericism, in which science now functions, recognizes that it is impossible to do science without presuppositions based upon our world view or paradigm. I don't know if True.Origins has a faith statment, but I do know that Creation Research Society does declare it's religious paradigm up front. Talk.Origins falsely claims no faith statement when in fact no science can be done without a philosophcal paradigm. Naturalism must be accepted by utter blind faith, unlike Creationism.

---

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:

---

Obviously, you have never read any of the articles on True.Origins. Nor have you ever read any articles from Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ) nor the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal. (The last two are creationary peer-reviewed technical journals.) I suggest you check things out for your self rather than uncritically repeat pure fabrications. Your sources have lied to you.

---

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:

---

There are over 600 members of CRS all of whom must have MS or PhDs from credentialed universities to join.

---

How many of them are active researchers?How many of them are doing research in their field of expertise?

quote:

---

One of whom is a fully tenured professor at a state university who now has earned his 6th Docturate in the Biological sciences.

---

Who is that, and where did he earn his degrees, and what papers has he published in mainstream Biology journals?

quote:

---

I have heard of one Creationist whose credentials are questionable. But, he died some years ago.

---

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:

---

Your accusations that there are many such creationists is blatent falsehood perpetrated solely for the purposes of propaganda.

---

No, sorry, it's true.

quote:

---

As for publication, it is obviouse that you believe the total falshoods that have been published by certain anti-creationists a few years ago. Their claims have been publically challenged and lists of publications in non-creationary peer-reviewed technical journals by some Creationists have been put on-line.

---

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]

quote:

---

No you quoted what someone else said was a quote from woodmorappe. I suspect that it was taken largely out of context and other pertinant information was deliberatly ignored.

---

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.