animals on the ark

So how did Noahs family keep all these animals alive? How did they keep them from eating each other? There must have been more then just Noahs family on-board to feed and take care of all these animals.The Philadelphia ZOO employs about 400 people FULL TIME, and there are about 1800 animals housed at this ZOO. I can guarantee you that more then 2% (8 people out of 400) are employed full time to feed and take care of these 1800 animals. How did Noah and his small family keep these animals alive?You don't really believe David Blain performs magic do you?

"LUD:sorry,that should have read TO 100 degree celcius,the boiling point of water"
--Actually water will not boil till about 400-700^oF in deep seas because of pressure, so the boiling point of water is not a 'set' constant free from environmental conditions. What is your argument against this proposition? and no it wouldn't have raised 'land' temperatures for instance, I have a detailed working of the model under construction and it shows this as so. Also, the only place that would have been unlivable is at low latitudes and in areas of midatlantic ridges and subduction zones. High latitudinal areas such as the poles would not have been boiling or close to boiling, though most of the ice would have melted."LUD:how so? the sheer amount of water being flash evaporated...thats how so."
--Odd how this doesn't happen every time an earthquake strikes, this is basically what would have happend, also viscosity being hotter would have made friction a much less factor though still efficient. The continents didn't just get thrown into position over any short period (seconds, hours, days or weeks), it could have been moving at an inch or two a day."LUD:there are 7 "confirmed"(as confirmed as these thing can get that is) ice age in the geological records and about 12 theorised ones with little or no confirmation....those last ones are derived from an analysis of the time periods between ice ages and from the estimated age of the earth. I saw a show on that very subject on discovery channel a few weeks back"
--You wouldn't happen to have a detailed site or reference with information on the ice age(s), this much would be helpfull.------------------

writing this so i can see tc's replytc- address n2c's issue.

​

[This message has been edited by quicksink, 03-10-2002]

here is another issue- on the ark, did animals hold their bladders and butts?is someone going to tell me that 8 or so people removed all this waste from the ship?and the stench this would have created.

I will attempt to answer this one for you quicksink.Please choose the answer that best suits your belief:
1. God put more people on the ship to help Noahs family feed and take care of the animals.
2. God gave Noahs family supernatural powers, so just a few of them could feed and take care of the animals.
3. God looked after them, while Noahs family enjoyed the cruise of their lifetime!
4. The animals were given supernatural powers, and they didn't have to eat. Instead God put them into a deep sleep that lasted the entire flood.
5. Noahs Ark is just a story!

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"LUD:there are 7 "confirmed"(as confirmed as these thing can get that is) ice age in the geological records and about 12 theorised ones with little or no confirmation....those last ones are derived from an analysis of the time periods between ice ages and from the estimated age of the earth. I saw a show on that very subject on discovery channel a few weeks back"
--You wouldn't happen to have a detailed site or reference with information on the ice age(s), this much would be helpfull.

​

LUD:http://encarta.msn.com/index/conciseindex/48/04874000.htm
This is the best one i found...there are quite a few actually....input ice ages on a search engin and you're in business. This one is even clearer then the discovery channel show i had seen the other day...seems that there has been 4 major period of glaciacion,each divided into 3-5 smaller cooling/warming periods.

​

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
Schrafinator:
So how can anything grow on land which has been mixed and churned so much that animals were buried way down under meters and meters of mixed together soil, subsoil, rock, silt, etc? There is a reason it's called topsoil, TC. Plants pretty much only grow in topsoil, but layer would have been obliterated and mixed completely with everything else.

​

John Paul:
Actually the sedmiments would have been hydrolically(sp?) sorted. That has been observed, tested, repeated and verified.

---

Please provide the authors and Journal in which this evidence has been published and peer-reviewed. I would love to see it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
As pointed out in my first post there was plenty of room in the Ark to take the animals out for a walk if necessary.

​

The food was started at 2,500 tons and the water at 4,070 tons. 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

​

dried fruits- 2,930 cubic meters.

​

fresh meat- 6,633 cubic meters

​

dried meat(not compressed)- 3,980 cubic meters

​

dried meat (compressed)- 1,923 cubic meters

​

dried fish- 12,800 cubic meters

​

Are any of your numbers for feeding horses anywhere in literature? The book I mention is fully referenced, that is why I ask. Did you take into consideration that the horses could have been ponies?

​

---

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 biulding 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!!!!!My numbers for feeding horses comes from years of experiece doing so as a professional and an amateur, and also from my college courses entitled "Equine Nutrition", and "Stable Management".I also can give you the reference, "Equine Nutrition: A Practical Guide", by Harold Hintz, which was one of my textbooks for Equine Nutrition. Hintz is an Equine Nutritionist at Cornell and was the main author and researcher behind developing the latest version of the NRC "Nutritional Requirements for Horses".

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
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 biulding 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!!!!!

​

My numbers for feeding horses comes from years of experiece doing so as a professional and an amateur, and also from my college courses entitled "Equine Nutrition", and "Stable Management".

​

I also can give you the reference, "Equine Nutrition: A Practical Guide", by Harold Hintz, which was one of my textbooks for Equine Nutrition. Hintz is an Equine Nutritionist at Cornell and was the main author and researcher behind developing the latest version of the NRC "Nutritional Requirements for Horses".

​

---

John Paul:
And you have to be crazy if you believe life arose from non-life via purely natural processes.The book I mentioned is fully referenced. Before you scoff at it perhaps it would be a good idea to read it.Waste managemnet, manpower studies, floor space allotments, feeding challenges, basic living conditions, the recovery of the earth's biosphere etc., are all covered.If you are not going to read the book that's OK. Just don't go around saying that these issues haven't been addressed.That would be a lie.------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
The book I mentioned is fully referenced. Before you scoff at it perhaps it would be a good idea to read it.

​

Waste managemnet, manpower studies, floor space allotments, feeding challenges, basic living conditions, the recovery of the earth's biosphere etc., are all covered.

​

If you are not going to read the book that's OK. Just don't go around saying that these issues haven't been addressed.

​

That would be a lie.

---

You miss the point of debate.It is up to you to argue in favor of your opinions.All you need do is share with us, in your own words, the arguments you believe are salient. Otherwise, all anyone would have to do in here is say, "Read these books."

---

John Paul writes:
If you are not going to read the book that's OK. Just don't go around saying that these issues haven't been addressed.

​

That would be a lie.

---

Hmmm. Let's see. Debater excerpts something from a book, then asserts that only those who have read the book can challenge the statements from the excerpt.How convenient it would be if arguments cited from outside sources weren't open to challenge until the original source was consulted. And how slow debate would become if debaters had to find and read a book before they could address any excerpted material.The responsibility for responding to rebuttals lies with those who advanced the original argument. Debaters may consult whatever materials they like when formulating their arguments, but there is certainly no requirement upon other debaters to consult the same material. Besides, if such were permitted it would simply become a favorite evasive technique: "You haven't read the book, therefore you're not qualified to comment."I don't think we'll do things that way here. Anyone may respond to any argument regardless of what materials they may have read or consulted. Arguments and evidence should be judged upon their merits, and not upon what books someone may or may not have read.--Percy

i wonder if my good friend john is going to respond to my latest post... please do

It is doubtful whether the humans had to clean the cages every morning. Possibly they had sloped floors or slatted cages, where the manure could fall away from the animals and be flushed away (plenty of water around) or destroyed by vermicomposting which would also provide earthworms as a food source. Very deep bedding can sometimes last for a year without needing a change. Absorbent material (e.g. sawdust, softwood wood shavings and especially peat moss) would reduce the moisture content and hence the odor.From Creation Ex Nihilo 19(2):16-19,
March-May 1997

quote:

---

Originally posted by no2creation:
I will attempt to answer this one for you quicksink.

​

Please choose the answer that best suits your belief:
1. God put more people on the ship to help Noahs family feed and take care of the animals.
2. God gave Noahs family supernatural powers, so just a few of them could feed and take care of the animals.
3. God looked after them, while Noahs family enjoyed the cruise of their lifetime!
4. The animals were given supernatural powers, and they didn't have to eat. Instead God put them into a deep sleep that lasted the entire flood.
5. Noahs Ark is just a story!

---

With as much fairness to the biblical account as I am willing to
give (I'm not a beleiver myself), the story says that Noah,
Shem, Ham, and Japhet and their wives were aboard.It does NOT say how many wives they each had, and there is no
reason to accept monogamy as a norm at that time.[Just added this bit]
I don't think that the excrement couldn't be dealt with ...
I mean ... what else would they have to do?It IS a huge stretch of the imagination though ... especially to
suggest (as someone has) that sufficient bedding would do it!!That said ... the whole story of all those animals on a wooden boat
is overwhelmingly implausible.

​

[This message has been edited by Peter, 03-11-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
With as much fairness to the biblical account as I am willing to
give (I'm not a beleiver myself), the story says that Noah,
Shem, Ham, and Japhet and their wives were aboard.

​

It does NOT say how many wives they each had, and there is no
reason to accept monogamy as a norm at that time.

​

[Just added this bit]
I don't think that the excrement couldn't be dealt with ...
I mean ... what else would they have to do?

​

It IS a huge stretch of the imagination though ... especially to
suggest (as someone has) that sufficient bedding would do it!!

​

That said ... the whole story of all those animals on a wooden boat
is overwhelmingly implausible.

​

​

[This message has been edited by Peter, 03-11-2002]

---

I've just noticed a biblical quote that numbers the wives ...
I apologise I had misremebered this... always best to look
it upMy problem with the flood story is not actually its implausibility.It is a little more fundamental::Why would an omnipotent God, who could create an entire universe
from the void require a flood at all.He could simply have said 'Let there be none but the righteous
and all the beasts.' and it would have happened.This alone points to an exaggerated tale of a large flood in the
dim and distant past of the WRITER(s) of genesis. Perhaps the
Ice Age flooding that destroyed some of the Indus valley civilisation's cities and lead to the Hindu Veda's.