animals on the ark

schrafinator:"When it is flooded for an entire year? Yes."
--This greatly depends on composition."If it wasn't completely torn up, then how could all the fossils have been buried in multiple layers? We don't see a flood debris layer, with everything which died or which was uprooted in the flood in a single layer, so vast quantities of silt and soil meters and meters thick must have been churned around to bury everything so deep. It would take years and years for anything to grow after that kind of disturbance."
--There was no 'flood debris layer', almost the whole column is flood originated.Darwin Storm:"Also, a world wide flood would have diffused with the ocean waters, meaning that the water would have a salinity content."
--This would have only happened above midoceanic ridges, subduction zones, and low latitudes, the rest is free for development of a halocline.

quote:

---

The halocline is the depth at which the salinity changes rapidly; it forms the boundary between the two layers.

​

"Salinity." Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2001. 1993-2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

---

"Even after teh floods receded, the mud that remained would have a salt content that would make it unusable for plants as a medium to grow in. I am sure you have heard about "salting the earth" of your enemies to destroy their food production? Imagine a global scale of that."
--During the flood subduction would have produced heat that would in-turn warm the oceans and evaporate a very large quantity of it away, also the polar ice caps would have virtually deminished to a cool pool of water, flooding the world and creating a very large halocline at the high latitudes. In other areas where very heavy raining from water vapor injection into the air from oceanic evaporation described above would create a halocline also.Quicksink:"i find it amusing how the moment an evolutionist brings up a potent point, the creationists go deafeningly silent."
--I should hope to see your reply then quicksink, lets keep the arrogance to a minimum.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-09-2002]

"i thought there was a nuclear winter during the flood. now i do understand that the heat was coming from undergorund (plate tectonics), but how did the poles melt."
--There was a slight nuclear winter and a deafening heat displacement. The melting of the poles would have been the first occuring, of course, by the effects of subduction and friction by this means, along with magmatic upflow in the mid-oceanic ridges. this at the same time warming to oceans and boiling them away in some areas, would have ofcourse melted the ice caps, especially the arctic because if I am not mistaken there is a subduction zone right under the cap. This evaporation of the water would in-turn create an extreamly saturated atmosphere. As I am working on now the model of such an event and along with the effects of meteoric impact dust and volcanic cloud condensation nuclei. At points in the atmosphere and the structure of the H₂O it will reflect light instead of naturally absorb it being a green-house gas. This along with the effects of meteoric dust injection into the high troposphere and stratosphere in the same instance."if i recall, you said that a nuclear winter would have ensued during the flood that would have explained the ice ages that supposedly occured 30000 or so years ago."
--Actually its supposedly 10,000-12,000 years ago for the uniformitarian set date for the previous ice age. Though I place it at the time of the flood. See above.------------------

"Really? How so?"
--Because of the factor of what the abating water will take from the ground, and what it in the same instance, will leave behind."No, there isn't a flood debris layer, even though this is exactly what every other flood ever recorded and observed has ever done to the debris."
--No problem in that. (the Global Flood was a bigger event than the mississippi or the amazon, I don't think they involve consumption of the ice caps by heat and meteor impacts)"Do you think that if you repeat, "almost the whole column is flood originated" enough times that someone will believe you without evidence?"
--No, I would love to see what it is you would be looking for as evidence that you would accept though."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."
--What are the nutrients that would have not been present that vegetation needs to grow that would not have been present?------------------

"gee- could this mean that there are no good answers? "
--What is it you would like an answer to?------------------

"So, John Paul & TC, what do you have to say about my calculations for the hay and water requirements for just two horses for a year on the Ark?"
--Well for one, I don't think we have any water problems, unless they would have to drink the ocean a couple times over. Also, where are the calculations? I am sure that before you show them you would have taken into account the activity and metabolic degrade in any organisms (or horses) time on the ark."You know, I should also mention that the space needed to store all of that hay would be much greater than the space needed today, because there were no automatic balers back then. Hay was kept loose, rather than compressed in a bale. That's why you see those old barns which have enormous, 3-story tall hay lofts every once in a while. The lofts were so large because all of the hay was stored loose."
--What exists in hay that does not exist in another vegetation supplement that a horse needs?------------------

"LUD:TC,there simply is no way that such a rapid boiling off of all the earth's ocean as you need for your model to work wouldn't have raised the ambiant temperature of the earth by about 100 degrees celcius,making it unlivable."
--My Atmospheric science book would say otherwize... Lets show some knowledge in this feild and you tell me why your assertion is true by support."Your subduction theory would have had to be of such an unprecendented magnetude as to defy the very laws of physics themselves...in other word,the only way it can work is as a miracle."
--How so?"LUD:there have been several ice ages identidied in the geological records...7 if memory serves...the last one was 12000 years ago."
--Actually I f my memmory serves, they give it as many as 17 ice ages, though from the reference, It gives no reason why, nor does it give any detailed information by the evidence for the dating of the ice age. All it does is say what scientists have concluded, not why they have concluded.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-09-2002]

"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.------------------

"tc- address n2c's issue."
--No problem, I had thought I already had, though I believe that was because I had written it in a text document.------------------

"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. "
--Take into account lethargy, a large quantity of the present animals on-board would become drastically lethargic, decreasing metabolism and activity, thus the need for care. And why would anything eat anything else if it had not desire to."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?"
--And people complain to me on compairing apples and oranges. :\------------------

"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?"
--Excellent vocabulary and choice of words.. I think that I must side with John Paul (I believe it was JP) on this one that you really should attempt to locate a copy of the book, Noah's Ark - A feasable study. Excretory requirnments and removal of feces from 'cages' or wherever the animal were located could be one of many processes. They could have possibly had sloped flores or slatted cages in which waists would roll and be flushed out, there sertainly is no problem with all the water present in a Global Flood. AiG - "Absorbent material (e.g. sawdust, softwood wood shavings and especially peat moss) would reduce the moisture content and hence the odour."------------------

"To see messages I have posted I have to navigate with the function
buttons, and even then my cached version gets loaded instead of
the updated page."
--If it becomes a major problem, that is, you may be getting aggitated at its frequent occurance, you can clear out your temporary internet files. The folder is located in the dirctory: C:/WINDOWS/Temporary Internet Files/
--When you are in the folder you can make the view so that it is a list and order it in order of web site, just delete all the files (don't delete your cookies) that pertain to and it is bound to be deleted and thus force itself to reload the new update.------------------

"P.S.- I enjoyed the articles and reccommend all creationists read them."
--I as well, and I am glad it is so because Talk.Origins is a frequently occuring reference.------------------

"Why would they become lethargic, exactly?"
--Because of the fact that they would be in such a boat, not that they would be 'squashed' but wouldn't have the kind of space to be running around all of the time though they would get their breaks per se. It would be rather dark all the time because of meteoric dust and volcanic plumes, the sound of rain on the Ark and the ocean would calm them and become lethargic, basically what most dogs do when you have a storm."In particular, I am thinking of animals that usually expend a great deal of energy covering large ranges. Even today, you find a lot of obsessive-compulsive repetitious movements in animals that are confined in zoos."
--Yes, they obviously would not have survived if they had to stay in their cages for the whole year long time, they could have been taken out in large pares and walk around the boat and all that. Make no mistake, Noah would have had is hands full though it wouldn't have been a major problem. Also, for more depth, what is it that makes it so that animals must expend energy, is there a bildup of acids in muscles, do they eat away at themselves on the molecular level or something of that nature?"I know from personal experience that keeping a horse in a stall for more than a few days results in a very agitated, fractious horse."
--See above, they would have had their times of walking around or even running if they were in an open enough space, they would have become lethargic though and less activity and care would be needed than normal."Why is the comparison not valid? Large group of animals in confinement + people to care for them = similar problem. If anything, an Ark is a much tougher problem because an Ark is not an ideal way to house animals, particularly prey and predator species together."
--Assuming there was a predator/prey factor, could they not have been herbivor(ish).------------------

"Could have, would have, would not"All speculation and wishful thinking."
--This is hardly wishful thinking. If this is the case, then this is the most you will get out of any theory or explination on any sort of model for the past. If I might quote myself from a previous post on this reasoning:

quote:

---

--What 'could have happend' is the most your ever going to get from an inference on the past, it is what Evolution is entirely based on, along with gradualistic geologic time, its a 'could have happend' explination. Now whether this explination can explain all evidence, and is plausable, is something that is worthy of discussion. If you can challenge whether it can explain such phenomena or its plausability, have at it.

---

(Edited out the name it was directed towards)"Tell me, is there a mode/ replica Ark upon which the trials with real animals were conducted?"
--No, not that I know of, I have seen references such as AiG and the like which have done these sorts of tests, I can recall hearing that the hull could withstand waves/tsunamis 30metres high, I don't think that animals even if they all shifted toward one side would cause such an effect for the massive boat (remember, the size of this ark is about as large as the modern cruise ship."Metabolism and genetic selection for being able to cover a lot of range. A sloth would have no problem on the Ark, but a horse or an elephant or a bear would, because their whole being, including their mental processes and emotions, has evolved to be most comfortable making a living in a particular way. Change that drastically, and you create stress. Create stress, and you get behavior and health problems."
--Hm.. Not 'exactly' what I was looking for, though I see that you seem to claim that it has to do with its evolutionary development, I have my doubts that speciation would produce such an effect. Lets continue, however."It's the same reason most humans can't sit at a computer for 8 hours a day and also expect to be in prime physical condition. We have to create artificial exercise and "work" for our muscles in order to stay healthy, because we evolved to lead a very physical, nomadic life."
--I've had the 'pleasure' (omg) to sit at my comp for 12 hours and it wasn't too much of a problem, I wouldn't brag but I am in quite good shape. I lift weights and eat well, this is something obviously dependent on the ark, and of course, animals would not just be sitting in the ark weeks or even many days on end."Um, you haven't been around horses much, I take it? They couldn't run around in an ark. I'm just saying that right now."
--Yes I have been around horses, for many weeks last summer for quite a bit of time. I have seen them run in a short space (a barn no bigger than two of my homes in length, possibly 70x50ft) This obviously is not what you would be looking for to allow a horse to speed frantically around the boat without throwing itself overboard. There is no problem with a horse running around the top floor of the ark (imagine a cruise ship)."This is an absurd argument and I cannot believe that you want anyone to take it seriously."
--I take the Origin of life seriously, I dont' know why you could not take anything else any less."You say you are scientific, but you become willing to accept the most outlandish, silly explanations for things when you need to."
--Far from it schrafinator.------------------